Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
In the weeks since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the call for more action in controlling military style guns and large capacity magazines has increased, but as of yet, nothing concrete has been done on the national level. In fact, the NRA was recently quoted as suggesting that nothing will be done, once the country gets over the “Connecticut Effect”! “The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.” Think Progress
I did not realize that anyone ever could “get over” the shameful massacre of 20 small children along with 6 staff members of the school they attended. Is this kind of statement from the NRA just hubris or is it indicative of a disgusting level of ambivalence to the violence wrought upon citizens when semi-automatic guns and large capacity magazines are allowed and allowed in the wrong hands? I know we have discussed the gun control issue many times here, but when I read statements like the one quoted above from a Wisconsin NRA official, my head explodes.
The Think Progress article linked above also discussed further statements made by Wisconsin Lobbyist, Bob Welch, that indicate that he has little or no concern over the violence of that sad day in Newtown, but rather is sad that there has been a delay in the progress of the NRA’s agenda since the Newtown shootings. “Welch went on to bemoan the fact that the public’s focus on Newtown was preventing the NRA from pushing such bills through the legislature, but his remarks soon turned to braggadocio about the NRA’s legislative influence. He relayed an anecdote about how, following the Connecticut shooting, a pro-gun Democrat in the legislature had mentioned his desire to close the gun show loophole. “And I said [to him], ‘no, we’re not going to do that,” Welch boasted. “And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
WELCH: We have a strong agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the “Connecticut effect” has to go through the process. […] What’s even more telling is the people who don’t like guns pretty much realize that they can’t do a thing unless they talk to us. After Connecticut I had one of the leading Democrats in the legislature—he was with us most of the time, not all the time—he came to me and said, “Bob, I got all these people in my caucus that really want to ban guns and do all this bad stuff, we gotta give them something. How about we close this gun show loophole? Wouldn’t that be good?” And I said, “no, we’re not going to do that.” And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
Think Progress
I was glad to read that the NRA’s massive amounts of money donated to politicians may not have as large an impact on the election process that they claim. “The answer is no, because once again, though the NRA may spend a good deal of money in total, it spreads that money to multiple races across the country. In the last four elections, the median NRA House independent expenditure has spent less than $10,000, and the median Senate IE only around $30,000 – numbers too small to have a real impact.
All right, but is the organization spending token amounts on a large group of friendly candidates, but putting its real weight behind a few high-profile races and producing results? Yet again, the answer is no. In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times. This mediocre won-lost record, however, tells only part of the story. Let’s take one example, the largest IE the NRA conducted over this period. In 2010, they spent $1.5 million on the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Toomey won by 2 points, but could the NRA claim credit? Toomey’s campaign spent just under $17 million, over twice as much as Sestak’s $7.5 million. The NRA was one of a remarkable 62 outside groups that poured a total of over $28 million into the Pennsylvania race. Put another way, in the NRA’s single largest independent expenditure over this period, the group accounted for less than 3 percent of the money spent in the race.” Think Progress Justice
Maybe the NRA is spinning its wheels because the Newtown shootings finally tipped the scales of public opinion in favor of sane and reasonable gun control measures. I, for one, would hope that is the case. In light of the vast amounts of weapons being purchased since the shootings, and the continued violence, I am not so sure. The latest totals that I have seen show that at least 1822 people have died due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of 2012! Reader Supported News
Does the NRA really have a significant influence on the political process? Will the Newtown shootings force Washington to do something about the gun violence in this country? What do you think? What do you think should be done?
mespo-
“That’s a far cry from strolling into your local K-mart with your good conduct medal and your tax refund check and picking one up like every other unregulated firearm. You want to consider that “legal,” be my guest.”
You said machine guns were illegal, stop, no qualification. They aren’t. You said nothing about how hard they are to get or where you can buy them. I could in fact take my tax refund check, point my browser to any number of websites, and order a machine gun. Obviously it will take longer to get and involve more red tape, but pretty much if you can legally own any gun, you can own a machine gun, money, time, and the LEO sign-off (which can be dodged with a bit of legal magic), and a handful of state bans being the only road blocks. Good god, is it that hard to admit you didn’t know what you were talking about? Normal people own machine guns.
Do a Google video search on “Knob Creek machine gun shoot”. There are ranges in Las Vegas where just about anyone can rent them. They, like “high capacity combat assassin devil magazines” aren’t a problem.
Which reminds me, what again is the “need” to ban a legal, commonly owned product that is very rarely used to kill people?
mespo
Thank you for recognizing the implications of Heller; I hope the Supreme Court is as perspicacious as you someday. I’m not sure how you made the leap from arguing about magazine capacity to arguing about fully automatic weapons, but if you are trying to say that my argument proves too much, then you are wrong — again.
I am not responding in order to persuade you; I do hope to show some of your readers, however, just how misguided and uninformed you are concerning both firearms and second amendment law.
The National Firearms Act of 1968 amended the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was a tax act. Under the 1934 Act, it was (and is) perfectly legal and constitutional to own a fully automatic weapon as long as you registered it and paid the excise tax and registration fee; many people did and they continue to do so. There is a federal license requirement and usually a state permit involved designed to assure the payment of the tax. An acquaintance of mine owns (or owned, when I last saw him) a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun. It was/is a lot of fun to shoot.
The 1968 Act prohibited the registration of any NEW automatic weapons by individuals, but had no effect on the ownership or transfer of EXISTING registered weapons. They are still out there. The 1968 Act limited the supply of fully automatic weapons, thereby driving up prices (not that they were cheap to begin with). I am sure you are pleased about that. Nevertheless, it is still possible for an individual to own and to transfer to another individual a fully automatic weapon. So, as a matter of REALITY, ownership of a fully automatic weapon is legal and constitutionally permissible.
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of the 1968 prohibition on new individual registration of additional fully automatic weapons. I agree with you that as a matter of intellectual consistency, the analysis in Heller (not my analysis) impliedly supports the argument that the prohibition is unconstitutional, but until that decision is taken, it is the law of the land. But don’t confuse the existence of the statute with a decision on its constitutionality.
I realize that you would prefer that the arms covered by the second amendment be limited to muskets, but since the Supreme Court has announced that position to border on the frivolous, you need to look at the reality of modern firearms. Semiautomatic firearms technology is more than 100 years old; all semiautomatic firearms work the same regardless of barrel length, magazine capacity, pistol grips, black plastic stocks, folding stocks, collapsible stocks, laser sights, fancy optics, bayonet lugs, sound suppressors, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, muzzle brakes, or anything else you can put onto a weapon.
Semiautomatic weapons have been in common use for a century — they aren’t going to be banned.
The arguments for banning “assault weapons” — defined as “scary looking rifles that we don’t really understand but that look ooky to Senator Feinstein” — all focus on cosmetics. One can convert a World War II/Korean War M-1 Carbine into a modern “assault weapon” by changing the stock — it still shoots the same .30 caliber round and is no more or less deadly when equipped with a pistol grip, or God forbid, a bayonet lug (because we should be very afraid of a bayonet-wielding madman running amok in Chicago).
Compare
http://www.keepshooting.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/1/m1-carbine-rifle.jpg
with
http://www.tjgeneralstore.com/AmegaScout10-2.jpg
This is the same firearm, an M-1 Carbine.
I mention the M-1 Carbine, because the United States government sold millions of surplus M-1 Carbines to private individuals starting in the 1950’s. During the Korean War, they were retrofitted with a new magazine catch to accommodate a 30-round magazine; even earlier, they the barrel band had been updated with the addition of a bayonet lug. US Government-Issued 30-round magazines for the M-1 Carbine were also sold to the public as military surplus and are highly prized for their reliability today. The combination of a 30-round magazine and the bayonet lug made the M-1 Carbine fit the definition of an assault weapon under the 1994 assault weapons ban. Either characteristic alone would make it an assault weapon under the proposed legislation, and it is one under the recently passed New York statute.
Oops! I guess the public should not have been allowed to buy all of those “military-style assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” from the United States government itself. What could the government possibly have been thinking? Perhaps that the millions of WWII and Korean War veterans that used the M-1 Carbine in tie of war might possibly contribute to the security of a free state by keeping and bearing that same weapon as civilians, because they were familiar with its operation? Kind of like millions of younger veterans are familiar with the operation of the semiautomatic version of the AR-15 platform, which in the select-fire version is used in the M-16 and the M-4 issue to the military today?
As Jason has pointed out, if you want to ban something, the duty to make the affirmative case is on you. All you have done, though, is to repeat over and over that those who oppose the ban on 30-round magazines have to prove that they “need” it. You twisted Jason’s point about “need” in your response to him. He pointed out that there is very little that anyone “needs” beyond food, water, and shelter. But then asserted that “need” is not the standard. You then argued that his assertion that a ban on 30-round magazines would have no practical effect, because one can change 10 round magazines very quickly and shoot the same number of rounds in approximately the same time somehow proved that 30-round magazines are not “needed”. To the contrary, it proves that the proposal to ban such magazines is pointless. Jason (and I) apparently agree that pointless laws are a bad thing.
The burden is on you as the proponent of a new law to show why it should be enacted. Instead of trying to do so, you have been deliberately obtuse. You apparently know nothing of firearms, the military, or the law. You seem to do well at emotional rants and misstating opposing arguments, but that’s about it.
mespo:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
From SB5737-2013
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5737&year=2013#documents
Isnt that a 4th amendment violation? How many of our rights are going to be violated by violating the 2nd amendment?
The bottom line is the founders did not say anything about muskets or M-16’s. And I am pretty sure they [founders] would have loved to have had M-16’s to use against the British. Especially if they had 30 round magazines.
Mepo,
I have learned that reality never gets in the way of most folks argument…. Reasons, logic and rationality escape reasoning with human emotion…. Ask OS… He appears to be the blog expert….. But others try….
OS:
“Mental health care in this country is almost non-existent. “Mental health center” in most communities is an oxymoron. There is not a psychiatrist in our community I know of who takes insurance. Cash at the time of visit. No exceptions. There are psychiatrists at the so-called mental health center who take insurance, but it is easier to get an appointment with the President than to get in to see one. They supervise nurses who pass out prescriptions. “Therapy” is usually done by a marginally qualified case worker who has a huge case load, is burned out and who would not know a dangerous patient from a circus clown.”
Well said and in the 10 ring.
“There are psychiatrists at the so-called mental health center who take insurance, but it is easier to get an appointment with the President than to get in to see one. They supervise nurses who pass out prescriptions. “Therapy” is usually done by a marginally qualified case worker who has a huge case load, is burned out and who would not know a dangerous patient from a circus clown.”
OS,
The sad thing is you’re a being quite charitable and fair in your assessment. Most psychiatrists today are merely pill pushers.
Jason:
“Wow. Uh, no, fully automatic weapons are not illegal. They are expensive due to the registry being closed and therefore locking the supply and you have to go through more bureaucratic nonsense to get them, but they aren’t illegal and anyone with enough money, a clean record, and patience can legally own one.”
*********************
Well, you’re warm. From wiki: “All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.” … “The registration or transfer process (to an individual or corporation) takes approximately 3–6 months to complete as of October 2011.” … ” Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm’s registered owner is present.”
That’s a far cry from strolling into your local K-mart with your good conduct medal and your tax refund check and picking one up like every other unregulated firearm. You want to consider that “legal,” be my guest.
mespo-
“You’ve succinctly proven why a fully automatic weapon is legal and constitutionally permissible . There’s just one problem. It’s not. National Firearms Act of 1968.
Does reality ever get in the way of your arguments?”
Wow. Uh, no, fully automatic weapons are not illegal. They are expensive due to the registry being closed and therefore locking the supply and you have to go through more bureaucratic nonsense to get them, but they aren’t illegal and anyone with enough money, a clean record, and patience can legally own one.
If you are going to be so belligerent, you might want to have some freaking idea what you are talking about. “Combat clips,” “machine guns are illegal,” what is your next piece of firearms related idiocy?
“Wow. Uh, no, fully automatic weapons are not illegal. They are expensive due to the registry being closed and therefore locking the supply and you have to go through more bureaucratic nonsense to get them, but they aren’t illegal and anyone with enough money, a clean record, and patience can legally own one.”
Jason,
On this blog I’ve supported the right to bear arms for years and I still do. However, reading your comment above I’m struck by the underlying basis of your argument, which at best seems trivial. The argument from the pro-gun side in many cases boils down to the fact that what is proposed will make projectile weapons “inconvenient” to purchase.
You will notice I am not asking about why someone would want a projectile weapon with a 30 round clip? I actually get that in a small way. I don’t own a projectile weapon, or should I further clarify that by saying I’m not referring to, bows, crossbows and/or air rifles. I’ve shot handguns and I’ve shot rifles at targets and I can understand the pleasure people derive from it. One does get a certain amount of excitement handling such a weapon and knowing what it is capable of, so I can get why so many people are into them. Also too there is the pleasure that people who collect “anything” gain from handling and observing their collection. While I’ve never hunted, shooting a dog with my BB gun at age twelve mortified me afterwards and I’ve regretted that childish impulsiveness for 56 years. I have had friends who were avid hunters and through their stories I understand the attraction it has for them. Then too there are those who find hunting supplements their food stores. All of this seems reasonable to me and I wouldn’t want to deprive those people into it of their pleasures. Here’s where I differ from most gun proponents and what I don’t get about their positions.
Why is it “necessary” to have concealed carry in Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, bars, restaurants and movie theaters. Laws permitting this have sprung up all over the nation back by the NRA.
What is so offensive about background checks and licensing of weapons?
Why is it imperative for someone to be able to purchase a projectile weapon within minutes and if so why?
Since I do support people having the right to bear arms and have done so here for years, I must say their are a few things about proponents that disturb me. I have read the NRA’s magazine and find it bordering on the insane in its views. It is an ultra-Right Wing publication and if taken alone as representing
2nd Amendment proponents actually makes feel distasteful about supporting them. Beyond that Mr. LaPierre does the NRA no credit in representing your interests and in fact he comes off as someone with a mental disturbance.
Finally, why don’t you find this offensive?
“The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.”
The death of 27 at Sandy Hook seems to be viewed as a mere inconvenience that needs to die down. Whatever was at fault for Sandy Hook, even if it was this one crazy young man, the tragedy visited upon these children and their loved ones cannot help but provoke great empathy and sympathy. Yet truthfully, rather than feeling empathy for these innocent victims, many have dragged up conspiracy theories and vilified those parents who in their grief search for answers and amelioration.
Clearly banning such weaponry, given the 300 million weapons already in private hands, is no solution. However, licensing, background checks and making sales less automatic may have some effect and make people feel easier.
The other part of the defense of the 2nd Amendment I find peculiar and very hard to relate to, is what seems to be the fear that motivates many to feel they must be armed. My career was spent working in some of the “worst” neighborhoods in the country, both day and night, predominantly alone and on the streets. I never carried a weapon, not even a pocket knife and some of this time was spent during the dread “crack epidemic” in NYC in the 80’s. While I’m not a particularly brave man, I am quite street smart and alert. I cannot think of any time that I was ever afraid, or when people’s actions and demeanor, alerted me to any danger. This was because the “danger” of these places was an overrated issue raised by the media. The crime rate has fallen consistently in the last 20 years but above are comments from people who believe their weapons will save them from death at the hands of chimeric “savage hordes”. In my opinion those who believe that and whose opinions are modeled by the NRA do no service to your cause.
porkchop:
“So, a modern magazine-fed firearm (a “bearable arm”) is fully “consistent” with the second amendment. An argument to the contrary “border[s] on the frivolous.”
Heller dealt in particular with the District of Columbia ban on handguns. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of modern handguns — revolvers and semiautomatic (or self-loading) pistols. The latter are commonly fed by means of a detachable box magazine (erroneously called by some a “clip”). Both types of handgun carry more than one round — revolvers commonly carry five or six rounds; semiautomatics carry anywhere from 7 to 19 or more rounds.”
********************
You’ve succinctly proven why a fully automatic weapon is legal and constitutionally permissible . There’s just one problem. It’s not. National Firearms Act of 1968.
Does reality ever get in the way of your arguments?
Mespo-
“The fundamental problem, Jason, is that you do not understand the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment guaranteeing you the unfettered right to any firearm or weapon you choose.”
I never said otherwise.
“Dangerous and unusual” seems a pretty fair description of a 30 round combat clip”
Where do you come up with this stuff? People who know the slightest bit about guns have more or less given up on correcting the “clip” idiocy (it doesn’t help when cops are as ignorant as the general public). But “combat” clips?
And they aren’t unusual. And they aren’t any more dangerous than any other magazine. The truly high capacity magazines are if anything less dangerous as they are poorly made gimmicks. And there’s about a dozen variables more important in determining the lethality of a shooting than the size of the magazine. Cho didn’t need assault weapons with high capacity magazines to rack up the worst death toll of any of these incidents. One of his guns fired a medium powered handgun round and the other fired one of the least powerful rounds in use.
“and given your concession that it is unneeded, I think very little stands in Congress’ way constitutionally if they want to ban manufacture of these weapons.”
We’ll see. It’s academic because they aren’t going to do it, but we’ll see. Kachalsky v. Cacace has the potential to answer all of this, and not in a way you’ll like.
I’ll ask again, why is there a need to ban an instrument that is used in a tiny fraction of gun murders? Blunt instruments are used more often.
“Read more; get huffy less.”
You’re adorable.
Okay, let me try this again, since you don’t actually read comments before you respond.
You asked me to “tell me how a 30 round combat clip would be consistent with a weapon in use in 1787.”
Your error is in assuming that in order to be protected under the second amendment, a weapon must have been in use in 1787 — in other words, a muzzle-loading single shot weapon. That is just wrong.
As Justice Scalia explained in Heller:
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.”
So, a modern magazine-fed firearm (a “bearable arm”) is fully “consistent” with the second amendment. An argument to the contrary “border[s] on the frivolous.”
Heller dealt in particular with the District of Columbia ban on handguns. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of modern handguns — revolvers and semiautomatic (or self-loading) pistols. The latter are commonly fed by means of a detachable box magazine (erroneously called by some a “clip”). Both types of handgun carry more than one round — revolvers commonly carry five or six rounds; semiautomatics carry anywhere from 7 to 19 or more rounds.
Your particular objection is to the (very common) 30-round magazine, specifically, its use in a long gun.
But it is clear under Heller that magazine-fed handguns are allowed. Indeed, revolver sales are at best 20% of the modern handgun market. Heller did not directly address long guns; I hope that you recognize, though,that long guns are also “bearable arms” that are militarily useful and in common use by law-abiding citizens.
You are fixated on magazine capacity, but you have not articulated how any particular capacity would fall outside the scope of the second amendment — apparently, if you call it a “combat clip” it becomes something different.
I assume that you object to 30-round magazines for any firearm, not just AR-15 platform rifles or carbines. But if not, please explain the distinction.
So, what is your number? Is 29 rounds okay? 25? 15? 10? How about if it is a “regular clip” not a “combat clip”? The most popular handgun in the US recently is the Glock 19 which comes with a standard 15 round magazine. It’s in “common use” and is clearly militarily useful, because its forerunner, the Glock 17 is the standard issue sidearm for the Austrian army. Woul you ban that?
porkchop:
Still waiting for your analysis of Heller?
Yes, it’s horrific having kids murdered, but it seems like if the killings are sanctioned by the state, like Obama’s Drone murders…it seems the killing of children is tolerated.
A AR15 is NOT an assault rifle, it only LOOKS like one. I suppose if we had slingshots that looked like them, they’d want those banned too!
Remember a federal law will affect EVERYONE!
Remember the LA Riots? Mobs of people looting & killing. Or more recently Katrina, again with mobs looting & killing. People said that they managed to keep looters away, only becuase they had semi auto’s with large magazines.
Also we have the Haymarket massacre, Lattimer Massacre, Ludlow Massacre, Bay View Massacre, and the Battle of Athens. Examples go on & on where people needed to defend themselves.
Sure there’s always going to be a few that will make it look bad, but there is no need to punish the majority of honest gun owners, or pass laws that will make them criminals too.
Mespo,
You spend a lot of time deliberately misreading comments you disagree with, rather than actually responding to them. Your ad hominem attacks are ridiculous.
You don’t seem to know much about second amendment law: The people’s right to keep and bear arms is not limited to single-shot muskets or Kentucky long rifles. Heller, by the way, was about the right to possess a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable box magazine — not a muzzle-loading horse-pistol. The best you can do is argue that there is some magic number less than 30 that should apply to magazine capacity.
You don’t seem to know much about firearms, either, but trying to discuss actual facts about firearms just goes over your head, anyway, so I won’t try to explain just how nonsensical the term “30 round combat clip” is.
They are missing the biggest problem with banning something…IT DOESN’T WORK.
Doesn’t work with drugs, didn’t work with liquor, and it won’t work with guns.
But some of these problems are related, like Chicago’s murder rate, the biggest percentage of those are gang/drug related.
Anyone remember prohibition?
Why did they legalize booze again after a 13 year ban on it? Was it NOW found to be healthy for people?
No they got rid of prohibition because of all the gangs, murders, corruption, & cost of imprisoning people for it.
Ok, now how do you suppose we could get rid of our gang, murder, corruption, & ever increasing prison costs?
Legalize all drugs, and get these freaks off the worst of them, so they aren’t out killing innocent people and each other in turf wars.
Use the revenue from them to try to rehabilitate users, like they have done with cigarettes & alcohol.
You want some “common sense” laws….then stop and think about it…and use some common sense…
Porkchop:
Since you have no trouble completely missing Jason’s rather obvious concession,maybe you could likewise misconstrue Scalia in Heller and tell me how a 30 round combat clip would be consistent with a weapon in use in 1787.
Porkchop:
“Acknowledging someone’s military effectiveness is not the same as singing their praises. That being said, people who are willing to die for a cause are not “cowards”. Their cause may be despicable and their beliefs and actions heinous, but that does not make them cowards. It is a word that is misused too much these days.”
“In terms of hit-and-run tactics being “cowardly”, where you stand depends on where you sit. People engaged in warfare use the tools and opportunities that are available to them, regardless of the “rules” that the other side thinks should apply. Guerrilla warfare — asymmetric warfare, as it is now called — has a long history. It was a mainstay of the American Revolution, because, for the most part. the colonists could not stand and fight the British regulars in an exchange of volleyed musket fire, as was customary in Europe at the time.”
********************************
Please don’t equate the American colonists seeking freedom with those freedom-hating savages locked in combat with our troops. These folks are cowards through and through. I never heard of Paul Revere throwing battery acid into the faces of little girls for trying to go to school. George Washington never placed explosives on sailing ships to kill civilian passengers. Ethan Allen never blew up a marketplace for military advantage.
You may find their tactics admirable or the euphemistically coined “effective” but I suggest you consider suicide bombings, human shields, and execution of civilians before lauding these gangsters. You might as well equate Mussolini and Churchill — both were male you know and liked wearing military uniforms.
Mespo:
” ‘Dangerous and unusual’ seems a pretty fair description of a 30 round combat clip and given your concession that it is unneeded, I think very little stands in Congress’ way constitutionally if they want to ban manufacture of these weapons.”
Well, no. Much as you would like that to be the case, the 30-roud magazine is very much “in common use at [this] time”.
“Thank you for conceding the point that no one needs a 30 round clip.”
Well, no, he didn’t.
Mespo,
Acknowledging someone’s military effectiveness is not the same as singing their praises. That being said, people who are willing to die for a cause are not “cowards”. Their cause may be despicable and their beliefs and actions heinous, but that does not make them cowards. It is a word that is misused too much these days.
I think you overstate the inevitability of death for those adversaries. The US was in Iraq for 7-1/2 years, and the insurgency continued after we left. We are not there anymore, and some significant number of our adversaries survived. We are still in Afghanistan; victory (in the sense of the destruction of the adversary’s ability to resist) is hardly inevitable. Indeed, the Karzai government is reported to be seeking some form of accommodation with the Taliban — and we are preparing to withdraw. The United States has been playing “Whack-a-Mole” in those two countries for the last 12 years, and there are still moles popping up.
In terms of hit-and-run tactics being “cowardly”, where you stand depends on where you sit. People engaged in warfare use the tools and opportunities that are available to them, regardless of the “rules” that the other side thinks should apply. Guerrilla warfare — asymmetric warfare, as it is now called — has a long history. It was a mainstay of the American Revolution, because, for the most part. the colonists could not stand and fight the British regulars in an exchange of volleyed musket fire, as was customary in Europe at the time.
The British supported guerrilla warfare in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, fought against it during the Boer War, and supported it in Arabia during World War I. The OSS and British Special Operations Executive supported resistance movements that blew up trains during World War II; communist partisans supported by the Soviet Union did the same on the eastern front.
One of the primary missions of the U.S. Arny Special Forces (the “Green Berets”) during the Cold War was to teach just such tactics to resistance movements that United States foreign policy favored. We supported a resistance movement in Afghanistan that engaged in precisely those tactics during the Soviet occupation of that country. Indeed, some of those who learned and employed such tactics while fighting the Soviets, that is, while they were “good guys”, were the very ones who employed them against the US and its allies after 2001.
In short, don’t confuse the effectiveness of tactics with the moral character of the adversary, and don’t dismiss an adversary as a coward because you don’t like his tactics. Your opinion of the morality of that adversary and his tactics is irrelevant to their military effectiveness.
Regarding rounds and rate of fire. Note the little video of Cpl. Tomasie upstream. He is using a standard sidearm commonly used by the military, police, security guards, competition and self defense. If you watch the timer on the video, he empties three ten round magazines in six seconds, reloading twice. That is thirty shots in six seconds. Anyone with at least average eye-hand coordination can learn to do that. Here is the link to my comment. It is the lower of the two videos. This is why a large capacity magazine ban is mostly irrelevant.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/17/the-connecticut-effect/#comment-504089
I go back to my original statement. Instead of focusing on the tools, let’s focus on the causes of crimes. Ban one kind of weapon, and some crazy person will wipe out a schoolroom or a mall with some other kind of device or weapon. Treat the crazy part. Mental health care in this country is almost non-existent. “Mental health center” in most communities is an oxymoron. There is not a psychiatrist in our community I know of who takes insurance. Cash at the time of visit. No exceptions. There are psychiatrists at the so-called mental health center who take insurance, but it is easier to get an appointment with the President than to get in to see one. They supervise nurses who pass out prescriptions. “Therapy” is usually done by a marginally qualified case worker who has a huge case load, is burned out and who would not know a dangerous patient from a circus clown.
“”The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist…”
The NRA says if we would enforce all the gun laws we currently have, we would have prevented a lot of crimes committed.