Spokane7
61°
February 10, 2011 in Opinion
No gun rights without ammo
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Caroline McCarthy, D-N.Y., are proposing legislation that would reinstate a federal ban on the manufacture, import and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones Jared Loughner is accused of using in the horrific Tucson shootings that left six dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
This latest manifestation of the “do-something syndrome” surprises nary one gun-rights supporter and explains why sales of high-capacity mags have jumped in recent weeks.
Ammo mags containing more than 10 bullets were illegal under a federal “assault weapons” ban in place from 1994 to 2004. That didn’t mean folks couldn’t own or sell them. Companies could manufacture them only for purchase by law enforcement and government agencies.
But magazines made before Sept. 13, 1994, were grandfathered in under the law and were available if a buyer was willing to pay $60 for what was a $16 piece of equipment.
The same folks who are buying the dickens out of them now were buying them in the 1990s when talk of that ban commenced. They aren’t criminals; they are sports enthusiasts and entrepreneurs. The fact that you don’t have to wear body armor and take your kids to school behind a bulletproof shield proves that the preponderance of America’s gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people with no interest in committing crime.
The same question asked by supporters of the renewed ban was asked in 1994: Why does anyone need one of those? They should be left to the police and the military, not private citizens.
Therein lies the main disconnect with gun control advocates: They hold to the mistaken and potentially fatal belief that the police will be on hand to help them in their time of crisis.
Golly, they think, as long as I live in a community with a functioning 911 system, I don’t need a firearm. And even if I do want a gun for personal protection, I’ve got Granddad’s shotgun in the closet.
Gun-rights advocates don’t think that way. A self-reliant bunch as a whole, responsible gun owners don’t want to leave it to a local deputy to make it to the house in time to stop the intruder who is jimmying the window to their kids’ bedroom.
As I have written before, it is not now and has never been the job of police to save your individual hide. A slew of court cases confirm that law enforcement is necessary to help keep societal peace, not to protect individual citizens.
I’m married to a retired police officer. My security detail lives in the same house. And he knows better than anyone that the only person who can give me a fighting chance to survive an attack is me.
In a self-defense situation, I don’t ever want to be in a fair fight. And I don’t have a clue how many rounds it might take to stop an attacker.
As I type those words, I can hear people screaming at their newspapers or computer screens: You’re paranoid! You’re a right-wing apologist for the NRA! You’re crazy!
People are going to think what they want to think. But there’s one label I’m going to do my darnedest to never let stick: victim.
For gun-rights supporters, the issue isn’t what the magazines are for or how many rounds are necessary. The issue is what’s the next step if the government dictates how many are too many. Will Uncle Sam be back next year with a different number? And what’s so magical about 10?
With or without a ban, there is an ever-present need for vigilance on the part of gun manufacturers, dealers, buyers, owners and law enforcement agencies to make sure that all firearms are handled legally and with the full appreciation for the harm that can result if they are misused by someone who shouldn’t be in control of them.
Someone like the Tucson shooter. That unthinkable tragedy was the creation of a sick mind determined to carry out a sick idea. To presume that he would have been deterred once it became inconvenient assumes that the mind of a killer is capable of logic.
The question that gun-rights advocates want to respectfully pose to those adamant on restricting high-capacity magazine ownership is not “Why does anybody need one?” but “Why should responsible citizens not be allowed to own one?”
J.R. Labbe is the editorial director of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Her e-mail address is jrlabbe@star-telegram.com.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
New_Improved_Drywitt2000 on February 10 at 1:03 a.m.
And this nitwit is the “editorial director” of a major newspaper???
My god…..they sure breed them crazy in the “Lone State State.”
A little too much loco weed in the feed??
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 5:27 a.m.
So they’re going to be carrying a handgun in a shoulder holster at all times? Or maybe in that household with children, they’re just going to leave a loaded handgun lying around on a table so they can get to it quickly?
This is ‘responsible’? That’s not the kind of firearm responsibility I was taught in the military.
I would think a responsible shooter would have at least some idea. And if it takes you more than five or six shots to bring down your target, I think a few more hours at the range wouldn’t hurt. By the same token, even if you’re proficient with your firearm and you can reliably take down a target with five or six rounds, if you’re facing more than five bad guys, and they’re armed too, that 30-round mag probably won’t save your life. While you’re firing your five or six at the first bad guy, the other four are emptying their 30-round mags at you.
By the logic of this editorial, why shouldn’t I be allowed to own an M-2HB .50 cal heavy machine gun? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to own an M-47 “Dragon” ATGM? (Wouldn’t that be a really good reply to a drive-by shooting?) Drug dealers imperil my childrens’ lives with the filth they pedal. They fly drugs into this country all the time. Why can’t I own an FIM-92 “Stinger”?
Like drywitt, I’m not at all impressed by the ‘logic’ of this partisan screed.
New_Improved_Drywitt2000 on February 10 at 5:45 a.m.
I hear that an M-2 Flamethrower is DANDY for self-defense!
Orphan on February 10 at 6:19 a.m.
Jeff
I do carry a handgun at all times even when I am at home. Live through an attempted home invasion by 3 wanted felons and you will change your mind about mag capacity real fast.
We the People should be able to carry any arms that we can carry (bear)
hawken on February 10 at 7:52 a.m.
Liberals must lay awake at night fretting about what they can do next to chip away at the Second Amendment. To call it an “obsession” is an understatement. But for now, the word will have to do.
To get a better insight of the liberal “obsession” with gun control, one must read below, P. J. O’Rourke, the famous satirists. Conservatives will find it quite entertaining. Liberals will probably find that it hits a little too close to home.
Young Man Control
The next step in the liberal campaign against violence.
Feb 14, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 21 • By P.J. O’ROURKE
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/young-man-control_541422.html
Alfredo on February 10 at 8:20 a.m.
Hawken, what I find more disturbing are Republican/T-bag obsession with guns. Little man’s syndrome much?
hawken on February 10 at 9:06 a.m.
It just occurred to me that when I want to refresh my web page, I have to hit the “reload” button on my “Firefox” browser.
This could possibly be used by the liberals during the 2012 campaigns. These are dangerous terms.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 9:40 a.m.
Versus lying awake at night in a cold sweat, hugging their 9mm close and going into paranoid hysterics at every noise.
The more I hear, the less rational the arguments sound.
Justsayin' on February 10 at 11:04 a.m.
Should not even be an argument. If you want zero firearms, put a sign out in your front yard reading: There are no firearms in this house. Then sit back and put 911 on your speed dial. Good luck citizen. The rest of us will learn from how that works out for you.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 11:30 a.m.
Here it is again, as predictable as the changing seasons.
Mr. Garrison, calls for reasonable regulation are NOT demands for the total abolition of firearm ownership. Nor have reasonable regulations in the past ever factually been the first step down the slippery slope that ends in the abrogation of the Second Amendment or the rise of a totalitarian state.
To conflate calls for regulation into a total abridgment of the right to own firearms, or to insist - with no factual basis whatsoever - that regulation must inevitably end in that total abridgment is nothing more than parroting one of the stock talking point evasions of the discussion actually at hand.
WillyPeter on February 10 at 11:56 a.m.
Alfredo - Now and then, you’re so funny. Or did you simply forget about the millions of Democrats in America (‘specially in Idaho) that just ain’t givin’ their guns to nobody, nohow? (by-the-way, how many do you……oh, forget it)
@ Jeff, hugging a 9mm means you’re under-gunned.
And c’mon guys, read up. Much of that hardware you mentioned above is now legally owned by private, law-abiding citizens.
But I digress…I’ll try to remember that we’re talking about rifles and pistols here…if you will.
wooglin52 on February 10 at 12:27 p.m.
Excellent editorial.
Alfredo on February 10 at 12:30 p.m.
LOL…I have several guns. Unlike some who spout off at the mouth around here, I served in the military and I have extensive weapons training which is exactly why I believe there SHOULD be gun controls, not just a free-for-all.
Most people do not keep their firearms secured. Many people who do not have children in the house keep their firearms unlocked which is really bright because if someone breaks into your home, those firearms are now in the hands of a criminal which is where most firearms used in committing more serious crimes come from.
Even people with children do not keep their firearms secure. How many times do we hear about kids bringing dad’s gun to school? How many times do we hear about the kid that accidentally shoots his best friend because he had access to dad’s firearms.
Asking for more strict regulations is not out of line. As some would say; “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” Having waiting periods, having a limit on what types of weapons just anyone can own, having a limit on the amount of rounds that a firearm can discharge in a few short seconds and having guns safe from children are my main concerns.
The problem with many of you gun nuts is, you are the ones I fear most. You seem to think that having guns (and many of them not registered and many of them not secured) is some sort of right that the founding fathers wanted you to have. I simply disagree, the founding father never envisioned compact firearms capable of firing dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds and those weapons easily getting into the hands of people who most definitely are a big threat to ourselves and to law enforcement.
@ gary garrison, putting a sign out is a lame statement. Same could be said about you, put a sign out saying you have guns and wait to see when you come home from work one day and your house has been broken into by thieves wanting to steal your guns. If you think I’m being foolish in my statement, guess again, many burglaries where guns are stolen are stolen by those who either knew the property owner and knew he/she had guns or the property owner made it clear they had guns through signs or emblems indicating their gun enthusiasms.
wooglin52 on February 10 at 12:46 p.m.
Those who want to abolish the Second Ammendment, also seem to believe that a woman found raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman that is explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal gunshot wound.
I grew up in a home with 3 siblings…2 girls, 2 boys. There was, from my earliest remembrance, guns in the house. All had full magazines; only a stroke of the pump to put one in the chamber. We were ALL taught to shoot by our parents, and about gun safety…which was strictly enforced. Number of accidents? Zero. Number of home invasions avoided? One. (two young men insisted they were going to come in the house; Dad said no you aren’t. One said, “Old man, if we want in there, we’ll come in”. Dad’s reply while jacking a shell into the 12 gauge: “OK, which one of you wants to be first”. Problem solved. They disappeared, probably to harass/intimidate one of my liberal friends that don’t own a gun.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 12:50 p.m.
Same for me. With the addition that I wasn’t just trained by the military, one of my collateral duties was to train others in small arms. (Firearms Instructor, Range Master and Range Master Instructor.)
This is the kind of swagger that frightens me just as it frightens Alfredo. A proficient marksman in a handgun-appropriate situation doesn’t need anything more than a 9mm and the skill to use it. After all, it’s good enough for the U.S. military. If you need more, as far as I’m concerned you’re ‘over-gunned’ with a .22 in your hands.
Alfredo on February 10 at 12:51 p.m.
wooglin52, your story is very heartwarming. Probably not true (at least the way you tell it) but very endearing and cute.
Since we’re on the topic of women’s rights, you know that the founding fathers really didn’t think too highly of them, or black people for that matter. We have modified The Constitution a few times, so your point is?
berrybestfarm on February 10 at 12:52 p.m.
Don’t like guns, never have, never will. Wont have one in my home, period. Absolutely believe in a second amendment right to have one. Reasonable control to me means mandatory safety training and an age limit—gun owners are “dangerous” just as as automobile owners are “dangerous”. Otherwise, if it is defined as a gun then Americans have the right to have it.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 12:55 p.m.
Doesn’t this prove the lie of the editorial? Did your father walk around the house with that shotgun in his hands at all times? Or was it like ‘grandpa’s shotgun in the closet’ - the thing the editorial author dismisses with a sneer.
Did that shotgun have a 30-round extended magazine? Did it need one to be effective? I know of only a few shotguns with that kind of magazine capacity. Was that one of them? Or did it just have a standard 3 to 5 round capacity?
And by the way, who here as said ANYTHING about abolishing the 2nd Amendment? Please cite specific quotes.
Alfredo on February 10 at 1:01 p.m.
LOL @ Jeffrey_Grey, I was thinking the same thing about a .22, in fact, many in the mafia feel its quite adequate because it leaves less of a mess.
Truthfully, I use the the firearms I have for target practicing and I have no real need to ever carry one with me, unless of course any of the gun crazed people on here ever find my full identity, then you better believe I’ll be carrying which is exactly my point I guess, I fear the far right much more than I fear a common criminal. The self-righteousness and hostile nature of the far right scares me more than anyone on Earth, including “terrorists.”
wooglin52 on February 10 at 1:57 p.m.
Alfredo, yes the story about my father/parents is PRECISELY true; I did leave out a few details about where/when, but the story is TRUE. Yes, (they were camping in a large pull type RV, in Stanley Basin) Yes, the shotgun, as always with shells in the magazine, was in the closet just inside the forward door; yes, the shotgun had the standard magazine of 7 shells….I fail to see what the point is. I guess it’s this simple: I am armed; I have NO intention of going looking for trouble; HOWEVER, if someone breaks into our home, especially at night…my best advice to he/she/them is: “There’s nothing here worth dying for”, because that’s what’s likely to happen if they choose to persist. Is that understandable?
greenlibertarian on February 10 at 2:01 p.m.
As soon as somebody offers up a real situation where a citizen defending themself, their house, etc, needed MORE than 10 bullets to do so, I’ll buy off on the idea that large clips are necessary for self-defense.
Go ahead and give me such a real world example.
Otherwise, I’ll presume the reason for having large clips is simply the “fun” of shooting a whole bunch of rounds without having to reload.
Regarding the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (and clip limitation of 10 rounds):
http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/reagans%20gun%20legacy.pdf
wooglin52 on February 10 at 2:04 p.m.
Oh, Alfredo: I forgot to mention: Over this past New Years Holiday period, the home next door to us was broken into and items stolen/the house trashed. Luckily, the owners were out of town so didn’t have to confront the burglar(s). I don’t think it’s paranoid to consider self defense under the circumstances. Do you? PS: I served a 6 year hitch in the Army; I’m fully capable of handling weapons with safety and accuracy.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 10 at 2:42 p.m.
Go back and read the original editorial.
You kept the gun “in the closet” (same wording in both posts.) Your weapon didn’t have a large ammo capacity. According to the editorial writer, that clearly makes you and your father “gun control advocates.”
How does it feel?
valleyman on February 10 at 4:45 p.m.
Alfredo,
What’s even funnier than Republican obsession with guns is the Liberal fear of them.
Any object that gives power to the common man and makes people less dependent on the government for protection is the worst nightmare of those who seek to create a government to cure all and be all to all people.
I thank God for people who will speak up for gun rights even when they face the shrill voices of the under-educated fear mongers amongst us.
woamike on February 10 at 5:04 p.m.
Alfredo,
Just curious… What service were you in, how long were you in and what was your career field?
Me: AF, 22 yrs, pilot.
Orphan on February 10 at 7:23 p.m.
Greenlibertarian Why do cops, FBI etc carry hi cap magazines? Why is there an exemption for law enforcement if there is no need for hi cap magazines? If there is no legitimate use for hi cap mags then law enforcement does not need them either.
Alfredo on February 10 at 8:22 p.m.
AF 6 years, single enlistment. Additionally I had planned to become a police officer at one time but decided against it. FYI, the state where I had intended to become an officer does not allow high capacity handguns for patrol officers, nor does it allow higher caliber handguns. I’ve been around responsible firearms owners my entire life and none of them are the type that want to hug their guns at night and none of them are the hyper “ya’ll ain’t takin’ mah guns frum me dangit! I’ll kill yoooooo!” types. I guess I’d prefer those who wish to own a gun undergo an extensive background check which includes mental health and intelligence evaluations.
Again, I’m not against responsible gun ownership but those who argue this topic so heavily scare the living daylights out of me because I feel you’re a threat to our democracy and our society.
Orphan on February 10 at 8:44 p.m.
Alfredo et al Why is it OK to want background checks for 2nd Amendment rights? Why not do background checks etc before we can utilize the 5th or the 4th or even the 1st. If you want background checks, mental health evaluations etc for one right it is only logical that you would want them for our other rights as well. Mental exams before you can attend the church of your choosing should be included.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 11 at 5:45 a.m.
Orphan,
The reason is because you can’t kill someone by aiming free speech at them. You can’t kill someone by asking for a lawyer when you’ve been detained by the police
You can kill someone with a handgun.
The Second Amendment is inextricably tied to a specific instrumentality - a ‘thing’. And a potentially deadly thing at that.
That’s the basis for the distinction. And I would hope it’s a distinction that is obvious to anyone who stops for a moment and actually thinks about this.
Justsayin' on February 11 at 7:38 a.m.
Jeff and Alfredo, creating an extreme, then attacking the extreme you created is self-defeating, don’t you think? Another thing… Calling someone a liar when you can’t possibly know if they are telling a lie is a bit foolish. Disagree w/o being disagreeable. Take a chance. We all have opinions. Those who disagree with you aren’t necessarily wrong.
Gary Garrison
Alfredo on February 11 at 7:49 a.m.
gary, I did not say he was a liar, I just doubt that the information is entirely accurate. Most people never experience a home invasion of that sort and the dialogue seemed a bit over the top so I questioned it but I’m willing to accept that it might be true.
hawken on February 11 at 8:39 a.m.
“LIAR” is a term grossly overused by the liberal left. It has lost it’s value as a word and reveals the shallow intellectual ability of those who use it constantly. Then when someone can actually be shown to be a genuine “LIAR,” calling them a “LIAR” is meaningless.
I recommend that liberals refer to any online Thesaurus to expand their vocabulary. That will make their posts more interesting to read and return to the term, “LIAR,” the prominence it deserves as a word, when applied to a genuine “LIAR.”
Jeffrey_Grey on February 11 at 9:15 a.m.
I couldn’t agree more! That’s why I’m get so frustrated with anyone who can’t discuss regulation without instantly conflating it into prohibition.
I am not aware of anyone here who has called for prohibition. (I know I certainly have NOT.) I’m just aware of a lot of people working themselves into hysterics based on the accusation that’s what’s being proposed. Or that’s what will inevitably happen - though they have not one shred of real-world substantiation to back that fear-mongering.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 11 at 9:23 a.m.
Those who disagree with you aren’t necessarily wrong.
By directing that comment at Alfredo and me by name, are you suggesting we’re the only ones here who are guilty of that kind of arrogance?
Frankly, I’m getting a sense that my disagreement with others around here makes me necessarily wrong by virtue of that disagreement alone.
Or is it that if you oppose gun regulation, you’re right by definition and thus everyone who disagrees with you is, indeed, wrong and so the assumption going that way is justified?
Alfredo on February 11 at 10:05 a.m.
hawken, your post is nothing but pure garbage which is typical of you.
“Liberals this” and “Liberals that.” Grow up, learn to be a bit more tolerable and MAYBE people might listen to you but instead, people see you for what you present yourself as, a self-righteous windbag (with little to no substance).
WillyPeter on February 11 at 1:20 p.m.
Alfredo & Jeff - Just to remind. We live in a wonderful country that allows you to think whatever you want. And what you “think” of my comments is your business, but…..
Jeff, many elements of SOC now carry .45’s. The 9mm doesn’t get the job done. And the Army and Marine Corps are testing new .45’s for replacement.
There are hundreds of thousands of firearms’ related laws, regulations, policies, statutes, etc. in America now. Many of them confusing, irrelevant and…just plain dumb. We really don’t need more.
Firearms are the most regulated industry in America.
Every gun initially sold (legally) in America is registered on Federal Form 4473.
And, Jeff (again), as the former Chief of Operations, Plans and Training for the 4th Infantry Division, I had to occassionally remove folks from Fort Carson ranges for failure to follow SOP. And sometimes these shooters were civilian law enforcement types. It makes little difference what experience and training one has, if one decides to break the law.
We just aren’t gonna agree I guess. And I don’t feel that I win this arguement just because we’re not about to see any current gun legislation… for many reasons.
P.S. Maybe no one here has advocated eliminating guns from private citizens, but that doesn’t mean that there are not
“powerful” folks who would like to do just that. Diane Fienstein sometime ago, “If I could I’d just pick them all up.” And she’d have to start somewhere.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 11 at 3:19 p.m.
I carried a .45 (originally) and a 9mm (subsequently) as the frontline defense for several vessels capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Both weapons were deemed ‘enough to get the job done’ because they were perfectly adequate to the task in the hand of people who knew how to use them. (It was sometimes my job to ensure that they did.)
By the way, we were never issued with extened mags for either weapon. Apparently the military felt they weren’t necessary, even to defend something as vitally important as nuclear weapons.
Then by all means streamline the laws, regulations, statutes and policies. I have no argument with that. I never have! All along I’ve said reasonable regulation. Burdensome, confusing, obsolete, etc regulations aren’t reasonable. But ‘reasonable’ isn’t a question of how many regulations there are. It’s a question of whether or not they’re necessary and whether or not they do what they’re intended to do.
And as the Range Master / Small Arms Instructor for SUBRON 18, I had to throw people off my range and declare them disqualified from carrying small arms.
Which proves that even though they might have the right, sometimes people have a responsibility not to exercise the right. It also proves that sometimes rights have to be regulated in the interests of the greater good.
That is NOT to say that I think private firearm ownership should be prohibited. It’s just to say that in the real world, ‘I’ve got a right!’ isn’t always the final answer.
Does that mean we should stop enforcing traffic laws too?
No we aren’t. (Which I guess means we agree.)
I cannot speak to that. I only know that I will stand with you against anyone who tries to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment. I would just remind you those ‘powerful people’ have been around for a long time. They’ve been the constant bogeyman driving every ‘be VERY afraid!’ reply to every attempt at more reasonable regulation of firearm ownership.
And for all the hysteria and fear mongering and ‘slippery slope’ terrors, how much have they accomplished to date?
Thayne on February 11 at 4:27 p.m.
Alfredo, I applaud your attempt at reasoning with some of the people on this blog. Unfortunately they listen to Fox news to much and can’t think for themselves. I put 20 years in the Marines and qualified expert with the M16 rifle, 45 and 9MM pistols. I have been around guns my entire life. Why do people who might touch their gun once a year, think they are going to pull an Annie Oakley and put an accurate shot into an intruder. What if the “intruder” is only someone confused and needing help. The “trained” SPD needed dozens of shots to take out the guy running around with a shotgun a few weeks ago. I doubt many of you gunslingers could hit what you’re aiming at with your first shots, I doubt I could either. I agree with Mr. Natural, unless you spend lots of time at the range practicing, if you can’t safely hit a human and not just spray rounds with 10 shots, maybe you shouldn’t own a gun.