Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Painful anniversaries

Today marks the 30th anniversary since the assassination attempt on President Reagan. On that day, March 30th, 1981, Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, took a bullet to the brain leaving him with painful and debilitating life long disabilities. Here are a few of the interviews with Jim and Sarah Brady as they reluctantly remember the day their lives forever changed.

This one in Sarah Brady's own words, is a beautifully written piece in this morning's Washington Post. " There was a time when few in power believed women deserved the right to vote. It took courage to stand up, face humiliation and harassment, and fight for it. There was a time when few in power believed African Americans deserved full citizenship. It took audacity to stand up, face dogs, hoses and lynch mobs, and fight for it. Now is the time for our elected officials to stand up and lead the way to a nation free of gun violence." I couldn't agree more.

This interview with the Bradys ran on National Public Radio last week-end. Jim's humor comes through in the interview as they share their experience in the aftermath of the shooting and how their lives changed so dramatically. You can hear the labored speech with which Jim expresses himself. He has had a lot of therapies of all kinds to keep him in the place where he is now. As a Speech Pathologist, I am aware of how brain injuries can affect speech. I met Jim Brady at an event in Washington D.C. and could understand his speech but it took careful listening. Sarah doesn't  speak for him as he struggles with his speech. He still has his wit and charm which come through in almost everything he says. 

Yesterday, I happened to catch this interview of the Bradys with MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell. Sarah talks of their efforts to lobby Congress members to pass sensible gun laws. She and Jim have worked tirelessly for years to pass laws that should be "no brainers" but are met with such strong resistance from the powerful gun lobby. One would think that a visit from Sarah and Jim Brady would be more persuasive than the NRA but things do not make sense on Capitol Hill. Money speaks louder than words and experience. That does not make common sense.

This Time magazine article focuses more on the shooter, John Hinckley, Jr. and what it would mean for the families of those he shot should he be freed. These are difficult issues for families to face as they remember the day of the shootings. This video was recovered after President Reagan's death, showing the footage taken of the actual shooting. It is frightening to watch as we see Jim Brady and the others who were shot that day lying on the sidewalk, helplessly wounded.

Dennis Henigan, V.P. of the Brady Center's Law and Policy division, knows Jim and Sarah and wrote this piece about where we are now 30 years after Jim's shooting. From the article: " For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege of being part of Jim and Sarah's crusade, an experience of both exhilarating triumph and deflating frustration. It seems so clear that additional sensible measures should be enacted to strengthen our gun laws and save lives. For example, we ought to build on the success of the Brady law by extending Brady background checks to encompass all gun sales, not just sales by licensed dealers. And we must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips. Why hasn't such legislation long ago been enacted?" 

Henigan raises good questions. I have the same ones and so do the Bradys as they remember this 30th anniversary. Anniversaries of a life changing event are difficult at best. But when an event is so violent, the anniversary of it seems so much worse. When a loved one is taken from you in a violent and unexpected way, it is hard to think about. Painful memories come back even if you don't want them there. I can't even think of the violence of the death of my sister. I know that is true of others who have lost a loved one to a bullet. But we carry on anyway and do what we can to keep others from being in the same place and having the painful memories. At some point, soon, I hope, common sense will prevail.


  1. John Hinkley did not use a firearm that would use standard or reduced capacity magazines. Also, he committed his crime using an illegally obtained gun in a city with strict handgun control. That tragic day stands to highlight the failure of gun control and nothing that Mr, Helmke is proposing would stop the same crime repeated today.

  2. "Now is the time for our elected officials to stand up and lead the way to a nation free of gun violence"

    It is a shame she feels this way. Not that something can be done about violence, but that it takes elected leaders to do it. Violence prevention begins and ends with the person, not the instrument. It begins with teaching our children values and morals. It seems that in our society today we are taught too much not to be "judgmental." Yet, weren't we given our intelligence in order to make judgments? Why can we no longer define what is immoral behavior in our society?

    "One would think that a visit from Sarah and Jim Brady would be more persuasive than the NRA but things do not make sense on Capitol Hill. Money speaks louder than words and experience"

    Perhaps what is more persuasive than trotting out gun victims is the thoughts of all the unarmed holocaust victims who died at the hands of their governments. The same governments which the Brady campaign believes should have the monopoly on force. Perhaps it is the thoughts of all our countrymen who came before us who fought and died to give us a bill of rights and the liberties which we are taking for granted.

    "And we must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips. Why hasn't such legislation long ago been enacted?"

    It has not been enacted because this is not the meaning of the second amendment. It is not a license to hunt. It is not a nod at sporting use. It is a safeguard to ensure "the security of a free state."

    It is really too bad that our two sides cannot come together and deal with issues of violence. We are not going to give up our liberties, no matter the argument. If the Brady campaign had used it's resources to help educate people on violence prevention and safe firearms usage, the NRA and other gun rights orgs could have done the same. Think of how much money is wasted trying to pass new anti gun laws, and how much money the NRA has to use to fight these proposals against our liberties. The money and time could have spent doing something worthwhile.

    Now go ahead and call me an extremist and tell me that I am shameful for daring to question a victim, and we will continue to get nothing done.

  3. Hinckley is insane. The motive of the assassination attempt was to impress a love interest. Hinckley used one of the least deadly firearms in existence in the attack. Why does the Brady campaign focus on banning weapons and weapon features that are not commonly used in crime, instead of focusing on mental health?

  4. Tragic. Is it ironic that the weapon used that day (.22cal revolver) is not usually the target of gun safety advocates?

    What's the point of banning a 30 round, collapse-able stock, semi-automatic black rifle with bayonet and all the fixings, when there is a proven example of a six shot .22 caliber revolver actually wounding a US president?

    We need common-sense laws.

  5. And your point is? John Hinckley was mentally ill. Had we had the NICS, he may not have been able to purchase that gun- at least from an FFL. Of course we know there are private sellers who would be oh so happy to sell a gun to a guy like him. Or maybe he stole it from a home. I think things could be done to stop people like him from getting guns. It is just nonsense to say that nothing can be done. If we say that, it's a self fulfilling prophecy and that is just what you guys want.

  6. I just hate it when victims are "trotted out". They must be doing it against their will. They really have no business talking about gun violence and gun policy. After all, who are they anyway? Oh, I forgot- only someone who was shot in the head and has suffered disabilities for the last 30 years- only someone whose young son was 2 years old when his vivacious and funny father was shot in the head, robbing him of his father as he should have had him. It's just too bad that those people have to show up on Capitol Hill. They should just hide in their homes and feel sorry for themselves and shut up because they make so many people uncomfortable when they show up. And further, they know nothing. And it's really too bad that you haven't read the Brady Campaign website where plenty of advice is given about safe storage and how to prevent gun violence in the first place. But the facts for you don't seem to matter.

  7. Because it's the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence?

  8. It seems to me you have just proven my point, anon. If you can shoot several people with a small .22 pistol, why do you need a 30 round magazine? You don't. No one should have one. They are not needed to kill people. You can do that just as easily with a few rounds.

  9. Why would a speedskater need a blade longer than five inches? You can skate just fine with that length, and longer ones are only useful for slashing people to death. I think skate blades in excess of five inches should be banned.

  10. "It seems to me you have just proven my point, anon. If you can shoot several people with a small .22 pistol, why do you need a 30 round magazine? You don't. No one should have one. They are not needed to kill people. You can do that just as easily with a few rounds."

    Then why do cops need them? Why do the magazine ban bills have police exemptions?

  11. That's simple. Cops need them because those high capacity magazines are so readily available that they are outgunned on the streets. Cops are facing much more danger now than before in large part due to the availability of assault rifles and the magazines that go with them.

  12. I thought there was no defensive use for these "high capacity" magazines. If the cops can use them defensively I would assume a mere civilian could too.

  13. You seem to have missed my point Anthony.

  14. So cops are endangered by hordes of criminals wielding bayonet equipped assault rifles with 100 round magazines, but I will only encounter a bumbling burglar in black and white striped jumpsuit carrying a six shot .22? Are you saying there's two types of criminal; one who preys on us, and one who ambushes cops?

    In related news, check out my latest acquistion, a Brady-approved assault rifle:
    It has a detachable box magazine and a flash hider, so definitely evil. Then again, the mag is only a 10 rounder, and it is a bolt action. Of course, it is a .308, so if I mount a scope on that rail it will become an evil sniper rifle. I guess I just need to rustle up some armor-piercing, cop-killing ammo in that military caliber...

  15. Japete,

    If you had your way, would even the type of firearm Hinkley used be unavailable to the average gun owner?

  16. Cops are called to situations you will likely never see in your life. I think you know that but you somehow have visions of yourself responding to situations similar to what police see. What kind of world do you live in anyway?

  17. "I think you know that but you somehow have visions of yourself responding to situations similar to what police see. What kind of world do you live in anyway? "

    The police usually respond to situations in public, where we travel and shop and work and study, or to situations in private, where we sleep and eat and watch tv. Since the need for an armed person called a police officer usually arises in one of these two areas, where we the public live, why should we rely upon a person who is far away when we are right there? Should also we throw away the fire extinguisher too since we don't get called to put out fires on a regular basis?

  18. I'm confused.

    Would a person be able to purchase the type of firearm Hinkley used?

  19. I hope you are not serious,anon. Such inane comments can hardly be taken seriously.

  20. The question was worded awkwardly. Not my fault. The answer is yes

  21. Yet these so-called assault rifles with their standard capacity magazines are very rarely used in a crime. How does a campaign to ban them make us safer from the Hinkleys, Cho's and Loughner's of the world who chose not to use them? And if these "bullet hosing menaces" are so prevalent on the street that police officers need standard capacity magazines, why would a legally armed citizen not need them to face the same threat?

  22. I still do not understand how preventing law-abiding gun owners from owning guns with evil features will prevent the insane and criminal from carrying out attacks with black market guns or guns with no evil features.

  23. "What kind of world do you live in anyway?"

    A world where random violence is rare. Where our risk of facing violent attack is low, but not non-existent.

    And a world where you, and those like you, are doing everything possible to make violent crime more likely, by making it less likely that any random victim that a potential criminal might target would have a chance of successfully defending herself.

    A society in which crime is deterred is preferable than one in which crime is punished after the fact. The only thing that deters crime is the expectation of adverse consequences - as judged by the perpetrator.

    It is essential, to public safety, that potential criminals view every potential victim be as possibly dangerous.

  24. Who do you think are calling the police into those situations???

  25. Joan,

    Thank you for the answer. I agree that I worded the question awkwardly. I'll work on that in the future.

    So a .22 caliber revolver would be available for purchase.

    How about a firearm like Glock? Firearms used by the Virginia Tech and Tucson murderers?

    Should those be available for purchase?

  26. Why do you ask? They are now readily available for anyone to purchase and there is no attempt to make them unavailable, contrary to what you think or have been told. Don't believe anyone who says someone like me is going to take them from you. But they should not be available for purchase to those who cannot pass a background check.

  27. Okay,

    You keep saying there is no attempt to make them unavailable but how does that jive with your belief that more guns = more deaths?

    Using your logiche ONLY way possible to reduce the number of deaths is to reduce the number of firearms available, right?

    So how exactly are you and/or the groups you work with going to go about reducing the number of firearms?

  28. I believe that more guns = more gun deaths. That is my personal belief and that of a lot of folks who work to prevent gun violence. We want guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. We want those of you who have them to make sure they are safe and strored so they are not stolen which is where most of the crime guns come from. Our belief does not translate into what is a possible or probable action. Banning guns is off the table after the 2 Supreme Court rulings. Confiscating guns was never on the table. Life is what it is. There are a lot of guns out there- too many in my estimation. I know I can't do much about that except to raise awareness and get you guys to admit that there a few simple and common sense things we can do together to stem the tide of gun violence. You guys know perfectly well what I propose and you keep asking as if I have never answered the question. I call that harassment. It won't work. Ask me something you don't know the answer to and maybe you will get an answer. But please do not keep asking what I propose and please do not keep saying I want your guns. That is folly on your part. It is a useless line of argument and discussion.

  29. Dear anonymous lawyer,

    Your remarks are irrelevant and accusatory- bordering on rude and do not add to the discussion. You keep saying the same thing over and over and you keep asking me the same provacative questions. You know what my answers are but you keep asking. It serves no purpose. I really don't think I would like you if I met you, to tell the truth. As I have said before, if you really are a lawyer, I'm mighty glad you are not mine.

  30. Joan,

    You keep talking about 'reasonable restrictions' and such. That is why I keep asking questions.

    It is a simple concept -- I'm trying to determine what you consider reasonable.

    Obviously, you don't consider 30 round magazines or semi automatic versions of military rifles to be acceptable. I get that.

    You do consider .22 caliber revolvers acceptable.
    I get that now.

    So I am not harassing you, I'm trying to determine what is 'acceptable' to YOU and why

    I am also trying to piece together your separate comments and see how they work together as a whole.

    You have said that you will keep pushing for ever more restrictive laws until there are zero 'gun deaths.

    You have said that you believe 'more guns = more deaths'.

    How is it folly to try to understand how you intend to go about your stated goal?

    Lastly, you keep saying that 'banning' guns is 'off the table' but you keep proposing to ban certain classes of firearms, right?

    You want to ban the possession of large caliber firearms, e.g. .50 Caliber BMG; true?

    You want to ban 'assault weapons', true?

    You want to ban firearms that use magazines with greater than 10 rounds, true?

    So -- once again; asking you what you find acceptable or not isn't harassment. It is a discussion, it is giving you the opportunity to clear up some of the misconceptions.

  31. I was, and still am, in favor of banning certain types of assault weapons similar to those banned in the previous AWB. When you guys talk about banning guns, you appear to be saying that we would ban ALL guns. I'm sure you know that is not true. My desire to have zero gun deaths is an aspirational goal. One must have goals. My goal is not to ban all of your guns. Some guns, to me and those with whom I work, are guns that should not be available to the average citizen. They were not meant to be used for hunting or self defense. Those are the ones we think should not be in the market place. But given that that is unlikely to happen, if you MUST have those guns because you perceive them to be necessary for whatever reason that would be, having fewer rounds to shoot from them is only sensible. You just plain do not need to shoot off a lot of rounds for self defense. On the face of it, it makes no sense to most people. Many who are gun owners are hunters who only own hunting guns and they are not interested in the least in the type of military style weapons some of you collect or claim to need. These folks would never consider large capacity magazines. It is a minority of you who feel this way. Gun owners are a diverse group. Many of them happen to agree with me and that has been shown in most polling over many years so it is not a one time response. So, I do want to ban magazines of greater than 10 or 11 rounds. That is true. I support the McCarthy bill. You knew that, though. I have never said I would try to ban guns other than those that I have mentioned above. It will never happen plain and simply. Even if I did believe that, it would just never happen, so why try? I don't like all of the guns out there and don't find them to be necessary personally except for hunting and some for self defense. I'm just not into guns like you guys are. We live in 2 distinct cultures. We are trying to understand this but it sure is difficult, right? I see the enthusiasm at gun shows. I see all the people who like to look at and buy guns there. That is just a culture so foreign to me that it makes me uncomfortable. Truly, I do not know anyone who feels as you guys do and I know a lot of people from many walks of life. I know a lot of gun owners, by the way, and I have written their views. They represent the views of the majority of gun owners.

  32. Great Answer Joan.

    Finally getting something resembling straight talk from you.

    Personally I know many people who are not into religion like you or I am.
    Does that mean they should be able to lobby Congress to restrict our rights?

    (And please don't tell me religion hasn't caused murders; refer to the whole Crusades and 9/11 issues)

    I while I appreciate being able to drive moderately fast (usually about 10 miles over the speed limit) I don't see the need to be able to drive 150 m.p.h.
    Does that mean I should be able to persuade Congress to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of those devices?

    (And before you say that speed doesn't kill check out all the traffic studies that say otherwise).

    To bring it back to the issue of firearms; do you agree that the Rebels in Libya should be able to fight the oppressive regime of Gaddifi?

    The Founding Fathers, and many subsequent Supreme Court decisions, do feel that the individual has a right to possess a firearm capable of effectively fighting the current military.

    Heck, the U.S. v Miller Decision even supports this. It stated:
    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

    So the 2nd Amendment doesn't just protect hunting or sporting firearms. It especially protects those which are a 'reasonable relation' to the weapons used by a well regulated militia.
    It does not require membership in a militia just that the weapons be related to militia use.

    Doesn't that mean the 'assault weapons' and 'standard capacity' magazines you want to ban are even more protected then the hunting rifles in your home?

  33. "Some guns, to me and those with whom I work, are guns that should not be available to the average citizen. They were not meant to be used for hunting or self defense"

    Yes, but the problem here is that we are once again trying to view the 2A as some sort of a "legitimate sporting purpose" guarantee. If you are going to ban anything, from a legal standpoint based on the 2A, I'd almost say that a hunting firearm would be ok to ban.

    In fact, I believe it was US vs. Miller that determined that a sawed off shotgun could be banned precisely because it had no legitimate militia purpose.

    You continue to state that no "average citizen" needs these arms. But the 2A was exactly about what average citizens needed to defend their liberties, not their duck blinds.

    You state that gun bans are off the table based on the SCOTUS decisions, but then you say that some bans are still valid. Well, it is or it isn't?

    It seems to me that you keep trying to reinterpret the 2A into a more politicially correct version of what it really means.

  34. So Joan, during a self-defense situation when my gun goes empty (i.e. due to your desired limit of 10 round magazines) and because there are say three guys and I missed a few times, (hey it's stressful), will you come to my aid? Will you help protect my daughters from rape? Will the police arrive in time?

    You are not omniscient, so please reconsider your busy-body and anti-freedom ideas. You may personally decide to risk being a victim, but I will do my best to not become one.

  35. "When you guys talk about banning guns, you appear to be saying that we would ban ALL guns. I'm sure you know that is not true."

    We know only that it isn't true, now.

    We know that many of the leaders of the gun control movement have stated publicly that banning ALL guns is their ultimate goal.

    We know that gun control advocates who claim to be seeking a common middle ground, are unwilling or unable to state when, if ever, they would be willing to push for less control. But that is the necessary component of any "middle ground".

    We know that so long as your only reaction to gun violence is "we need more controls", regardless of what controls might already be in place, you will eventually be pushing for absolute bans. And then, after you've reached that and it still hasn't worked, you'll be pushing for bans on knives and scissors and baseball bats.

    If you cannot define, in your own mind, where the tipping point exists, for you, between advocating for more control and advocating for less control, then yes, you are advocating for a complete ban, or will be, even though you may not be aware of it.

  36. "We live in 2 distinct cultures. We are trying to understand this but it sure is difficult, right?"

    Yes. Those of us on the pro-freedom side of the issue wish to harm no one and only wish to be left alone.

    Those of you on the anti-gun side of things believe that you have a right to hector, regulate, and infringe on our civil rights because exercising those rights "makes you uncomfortable."

  37. Hmm, anon- just as we were getting somewhere, you had to go and throw in a lot of unrelated stuff the answers to which you will not get from me. Religion? How did that get into this discussion? Libya? Not part of my blog or conversation? As to this one " cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." I just don't see it your way. In fact:" Miller is a controversial decision in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position." I thought you all wanted your individual rights and here go now saying that you need your guns to be members of a loosely organized militia to fight against your own oppresive government? Yes, for sure, we have had governments in the U.S. that have killed their own citizens and tortured them- really? Not.

  38. You sure live in a scary world, anon. If you have a scenario in mind where 3 guys are attacking you and you need many rounds, I say, you are in a whole lot of trouble. I don't think that reloading would work out so well there with 3 guys on you. If you can't hold them off by shooting off 10 rounds, you will not be able to reload fast enough to make a difference. But your fantasy world has you acting as Rambo. A situation like this is so rare as to be practically non existent. Now I know you all will run to your Google search and find some rare circumstances. Don't bother. It won't change my mind.

  39. Alcade- making things up again. You should be more careful about what you say. You know, of course, that you can't put words in my mouth but I have to give you an A for effort. Persistence is your middle name.

  40. Oops, anon-not a good way to put this- " Those of you on the anti-gun side of things believe that you have a right to hector, regulate, and infringe on our civil rights because exercising those rights "makes you uncomfortable."That means that your world is the only valid one and mine is not? Probably not a good way to engage in a discussion. I may find some of your facts and opinions wrong and your way of doing business to be wrong headed, But I am validating that you have a point of view and that I don't share it. As I said, I even understand why you might have that point of view even if I don't think it is a good one. Do you guys hector? Of course you do. Exercising your rights does not make me uncomfortable- only when you refuse to believe thay there can be any restrictions at all on your perceived rights. You don't have unfettered rights no matter what you think.

  41. Joan,

    The problem is you see the issue only as a "gun" issue and not a right to keep and bear arms issue.

    I throw those other things in to make a point. Just as you would see a background check, a church attendance permit, a month bible study a month as an illegal infringement on the religious rights; so do we see your 'reasonable restrictions' as an illegal infringement on our rights.

    In order to succeed you have to frame the issue as a 'gun' issue and not a rights issue.

    The Constitution for the United States limits the power of the government to regulate those rights. Not just one right but ALL rights. The Constitution spells out "you can do this and NO MORE".

    Unfortunately you don't want to accept that.

    You don't want to accept that people have a right to carry in public -- concealed or not.

    You don't want to accept that people shouldn't have to get permission from the government to carry or even own firearms.

    You don't want to accept that the artificial and completely arbitrary "magazine capacity" limit makes no sense -- Unless you are saying that you are okay with a murderer killing 10 people without having to reload but he can't kill 11?

    You don't want to accept that people see the issue differently then you and those people are making their will known.

    You don't want to accept that people are tired of busy body, nanny statists like you pushing your morality, ethics and supposedly better way of running the world using the force of law.

    You don't want to own 30 round magazines, DON"T.
    You don't want to own 'Assault weapons", DON"T.
    You don't want to carry a firearm for defense, DON"T.

    Just stop trying to tell us how we have to live our lives.

    Especially stop trying to tell us how to live our lives because of the actions of criminals.

    We aren't criminals and we are tired of being treated that way.

  42. I have to say that this is one of the most nonsensical comments I have seen on my blog since I started posting.

  43. "I have to say that this is one of the most nonsensical comments I have seen on my blog since I started posting. "

    Can you please explain what didn't make sense? I didn't write it, but I did read it and it made perfect absolutely crystal clear sense to me.

    "We aren't criminals and we are tired of being treated that way. "

    We aren't bad people, and if you want to treat us like bad people because you can't control your fear of firearms - then that makes you a bad person. There is no excuse for wanting to hurt me like the way you want to hurt me for what you want to hurt me for. None. There is no reason, no justification, no legitimate purpose. There is only fear and hatred and awful violence that you want to impose on me.

    And lady, you really shouldn't ever use the word "sense" until you are able to learn what it is. You want me to go to twenty years and the next killer you want to be able to buy 100 ten round magazines? That is "common sense"? How is inflicting hard time on me going to stop someone I don't know, haven't met, and have absolutely nothing to do with? Where's the common sense? I am a fine human being (flawed of course as most if not all are), and I do not deserve to be treated as you want to treat me.

  44. I found a link on the sidebar, thanks for it. It's the "Critics: No good can come from guns in public" one.

    The anti-gun source says "I'm betting there are going to be accidents and people are going to be hurt."

    Let's take a common sense look at this. It's about allowing lawfully permitted firearms to be carried into restaurants and parks. These same firearms are allowed in most other places in North Carolina. Are there problems there? Other than isolated incidents, no. Carrying firearms in these types of areas is permitted in many other states. Is it a problem in those states? Other than isolated incidents, no.

    Is there any reason to believe that allowing concealed firearms in parks and restaurants in North Carolina will cause a problem? No, there is no reason, as it's never been a problem for the general public.

    That's common sense.

  45. The whole point with the magazine capacity bill is to get some kind of number in play and desensitize the public to the issue. Once there's an arbitrarily assigned number to how many bullets you can have in your gun, then it's just a simple matter to ratchet that number down over time as additional high profile shootings occur. I know that the BC, et al would love to have a gun-free US (we've all seen the prohibitionist quotes from prominent gun-grabbers so I don't need to repeat them here), but I suppose they can live with single shot rifles and double barrelled shotguns. After the next VT, I'm sure they'll tell us that we don't need more than 7-8 rounds in a gun (leaving the historical 1911, revolvers and typical hunting rifles intact), and after the next Tucson they can reduce the number even further. We know you're not coming to take our guns away, Japete, but I don't believe for a minute that you wouldn't get everything except for those few, limited capacity weapons on a "no grandfather clause" prohibition like McCarthy's mag bill. It wouldn't take MY guns away, but they'd have to be buried with me because I couldn't sell them or pass them on to my family. In a generation or two you'd thus be able to have your gun free utopia, and you wouldn't even have to go door to door collecting them to do so. I'm honestly a bit surprised that you all set your sights (pun intended) so high right out of the gate with the 11+ round mag ban. It would be much easier to "limit" the mag sizes to the standard size for each gun (ie 30 rounds for an AR, but no 100 rd C-mags; 17 rounds for a Glock 19, but no 33 round "extended clips"), and then ratchet those numbers down over time. You probably would've had more success that way.

  46. "That means that your world is the only valid one and mine is not? "

    True. There is no validity to those who wish to make criminals out of their neighbors merely because they don't like what their neighbors do for fun.

    "Probably not a good way to engage in a discussion. "

    Since the anti-gun lobby "started" this discussion by doing terrible things to fine people, we already got off to a bad start.

    "As I said, I even understand why you might have that point of view even if I don't think it is a good one. "

    No you don't. You are willing to hurt ten thousand to one million people because it *might* stop a shooting. That's not a reflection of an understanding.

    "You don't have unfettered rights no matter what you think. "

    When did God die and where's his will putting you in charge?

  47. For goodness sakes everybody- this thread has become ridiculous. In spite of what I write, you insist that I am after all of you "good guys" with any piece of legislation. That is the furthest thing from the truth no matter what you have been led to believe. Think about it will you? What nonsense it is for you alll to continue to assert that you will automatically land in jail if a bill is passed into law to make sure that people who shouldn't have high capacity magazines to commit mass murder won't get them. You will not be going to jail. Someone has fooled you into thinking that. It is simply not true. As to the nonsensical thread that I am going to violate your Constitutional rights- that is pure and simply poppycock. You want desperately to believe it but it is not true. But go ahead and continue along this line of thought. It keeps you all fearful and paranoid and serves the purpose of getting you all to continue buying your guns and supporting the NRA. That is your world and you are convinced no matter what I say. This thread is over. I will not continue to respond to this line of reasoning and discourse. It is at a dead end.

  48. Seriously? "When did God die"? Are you sure you want that to be in print.