If You Hated 'Assault Weapons,' You'll Hate 'Assault Magazines' Even More

Today the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force unveiled a "comprehensive set of policy principles designed to reduce gun violence while respecting the 2nd Amendment Rights of law-abiding Americans." What is the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force? A bunch of Democrats appointed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and led by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) with the assistance of 11 (!) "vice chairs." Their mission: to "reduce and prevent gun violence while also protecting the rights of law-abiding individuals without a history of dangerous mental illness to own legitimate firearms for legitimate purposes." Are the 12 chairs of the task force also the only members? Possibly.

To no one's surprise, the task force's recommendations look a lot like the president's, which look a lot like the measures that gun control activists have been pushing for decades. So rather than delve into the familiar details, I have performed a content analysis of the task force's 20-page report that may illuminate some broader themes:

Mentions of...

safe/safer/safety: 44

hunting/hunter/sports/sportsman/sporting: 22

children/family/families: 20

assault weapon/assault rifle/assault magazine: 16

rights: 14

Second Amendment: 12

threat/dangerous: 9

commonsense/sensible/reasonable: 8 (plus seven more in the press release)

law-abiding: 6

public health: 3 ("including public health crisis of epidemic proportions")

defense/self-defense: 3

logic: 0

An "assault magazine," by the way, is not a periodical you use to squash spiders; it is an ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds. Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    assault magazine

    These people are stupider than I could have ever believed. There is nothing to fear from them, they are too stupid to achieve anything. They're even less frightening than nihilists, Donny.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yes, I reached that conclusion a long time ago. They'll just whine impotently and if they do get anything passed it'll either be token legislation or will be slapped down by SCOTUS.

  • Felix||

    on the contrary, they are idiots in a position of power. Therefore, everyone should fear them.

  • ||

    i'm at work right now and have 3 assault magazines ON MY PERSON

    pelosi et al can suck on it!. i'll do my job with honor and dignity and i'll do it with... assault magazines.

    we've had some incidents in my agency over the last few days that just make me that much prouder to be employed in this most honorable and heroic profession, to put it mildly. life is good, and props to my brothers in arms for the great job they have been doing to serve and protect. totally no homo, but it is amazing how much love a man can have for his fellow officer.

  • ||

    Yours aren't the ones the want to take away.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Even after he retires.

  • ||

    Notice he didn't reply or rate me on the troll-o-meter because he damn well knows it. It takes a special lack of self awareness to not see how bragging about his "assualt magazines" that he'll never have restricted to a bunch of people whose rights are being threatened would upset some of those people.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Just like he didn't reply to my question about what would happen to me if I shot the hell out of a random blue truck and the people in it.

    I'd be arrested for attempted murder. The cops who did it will, at most, get a paid vacation. Probably not even that.

  • ||

    make me that much prouder to be employed in this most honorable and heroic profession

    Is the ability to self-fellate a general requirement for police or is that a skill you acquired out of your own interest?

  • ||

    with all the negative posts about police, i thought it reasonable to post opinion, which is that our profession is honorable and heroic and that i routinely witness heroic and honorable actions on the part of my brother officers.

    i realize many, if not most people here hold a low opinion of police. my opinion, consistent with the majority (as per polling data) is that cops are doing a good job, are to be respected and honored, IN GENERAL (with obvious exceptions).

    actions by my coworkers recently have only served to reinforce my belief, as there have been several examples of way beyond the call of duty selfless and heroic acts performed.

    it's pleasurable to, after 20 yrs in law enforcement, be able to to work in a career where i can be fiercely proud of what i do, as well as my fellow officers.

    i wish there were more occasions for heroics than there are in my profession, but there are always going to be those tissue thin moments where making the right decision , often at great personal risk, is available.

    the critic, from the safety of his keyboard, who has never experienced what we do, on a daily basis, is thus something i discount generally as coming from a position of ignorance.

    just doing my part to give a shout out to my fellow officers and express my love and respect for them and our profession

    hth

  • Generic Stranger||

    with all the negative posts about police, i thought it reasonable to post opinion, which is that our profession is honorable and heroic and that i routinely witness heroic and honorable actions on the part of my brother officers.

    It just makes you look like a braggart and a tool.

  • ||

    that's fine with me. it's what i believe and what i have witnesses and i am going to speak out, in contrast to the negative police posts.

    i have seen many acts of heroism and selflessness and i am damn proud to be a police officer.

    needed to be said.

  • wareagle||

    believe what you believe, dunphy, but also believe the various posts from all around the country of your brethren acting like animals and barely getting reprimands. It sets off the rest of us who usually face serious consequences for seriously bad things.

    Maybe you're Officer Friendly and the guy you work with are like the Hill St Blues characters, but your profession has some assholes who are protected by their peers.

  • DWC||

    The people performing those heroic and selfless acts do so because they are heroic and selfless people and not because they are cops. I'm willing to concede that many cops (and many teachers and many pizza makers and so on) are heroic and selfless people, but that doesn't alter the fact that a certain number of truly awful people naturally gravitate toward positions of authority over others, including being cops. The argument that not all cops are bullies and sociopaths is not a terribly persuasive one. And, by the way, being a cop rank about tenth in terms of the hazzardousness of the profession.

  • Brandon||

    Ironic that you post this on the article right above the one that details how your fellow officers have shot several innocent people in their pursuit of another of your fellow officers who has murdered several more.
    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02.....-officer-s

  • ||

    he's not a 'fellow officer" . he was fired. at that point, he ceased to be a fellow officer.

  • Redmanfms||

    And you conspicuously avoid responding to the crux of the matter, what your still fellow officers did in the pursuit of your former fellow officer, shot several innocent people.

  • Redmanfms||

    Shocker, once this point was made, dumpster vanishes.

  • sticks||

    Ad the innocent people shot at by police?

  • ||

    cops are doing a good job, are to be respected and honored

    I thought cops get paid (pretty well) for doing their job; and the requirement that they do a good job doesn't entitle them to any more respect & honor than, let's say, a doctor who does a good job or a nurse who does a good job or an engineer who does a good job or an oil-field worker who does a good job.

    Only self-important punks like you think that police doing a good job makes them something extra special.

  • ||

    i think the nature of police work is honorable and the occasion for heroics comes up on occasion, and is frequently risen to.

    few jobs offer opportunities to risk your life to save others, for instance.

    mine does. some officers shirk that responsibility. others rise to the occasion.

    i think police work IS special. it's noble and heroic.

    i have great respect for people in general (unlike all the people here who constantly criticize the citizenry as "dumb merkuns").

    but there is something unique and honorable about serving as a peace officer and i am giving praise where it's due.

    i am aware that many, if not most here, disagree.

    fwiw, i routinely here from the people i serve how thankful they are, and i read polling data that also shows that the public in general has a lot of respect for us.

    it's very rewarding.

    feel free to disagree. i think the NATURE of police work, the fact that we are public servants, public officers and that we are given the opportunity to put ourselves at risk to save others, and to catch bad guys IS unique.

    i get paid well, and imo i get more than sufficient recognition for what i do. i am glad to work in a community that values its police and treats us with love and respect.

  • wareagle||

    i would settle for more of you realizing the public servant part, that you work for us and not the other way around, and fewer believing the badge is an extra dick to wave around.

    I have been cordial with cops in any encounter but the guy who thinks he can start by yelling like I'm some four year old, or tossing threats of this and that over something like a moving violation needs a new line of work.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're fucking high again aren't you, dun?

    Wish my doc hooked it up like that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    few jobs offer opportunities to risk your life to save others, for instance.

    and even fewer offer opportunities to assault and kill others while facing no consequences to yourself.

    I'm not trying to be a bigorati here, but come on. Perhaps police work is attractive to people who want to do good, but it also attracts a lot of people who want to do bad.

  • Teve Torbes||

    Generally, people hold in high regard those professions whose members routinely risk their own lives in the course of doing a good job.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Is the ability to self-fellate a general requirement for police or is that a skill you acquired out of your own interest?

    It's what they teach in place of protecting the rights of citizens at the academy.

  • Harvard||

    [we've had some incidents in my agency over the last few days that just make me that much prouder to be employed in this most honorable and heroic profession]

    You really are one unctous, oily, disingenuous, loathsome creature. Perfect for shoving the unwary into the retort. The only time you comment is for the purpose of self agrandizement.
    The only upside I can see to your loathsome existence is that I'm convinced you're nothing but a cop wannabe and not the real thing. The real deal doesn't give a shit what we think. There are times like this I almost believe you're some caricature designed by the Old Mexican just to prod us with a stick.

  • ||

    smooches!

    btw, the vast majority of my posts have to do with case law or exhorting individual rights, not self aggrandizement

    but to counter the incessant anti-police attitude here, yes i post a post about how proud i am of my fellow officers and of the job we do . it's heroic, honorable, and i'm damn proud of what i do,too

    tuff cookies if that bothers you.

    just doing my part to praise law enforcement for the job we do

  • Harvard||

    Like I said... "unctous, oily, disingenuous, loathsome".

    Then again, you may be Al Gore.

  • ||

    nope. just a proud cop. i read anti-cop shit all the time. posting my alternative viewpoint about how honorable and heroic the profession is.

    and even for those that hate us, we are there to protect you and serve you too!

  • ||

    nope. just a proud cop. i read anti-cop shit all the time. posting my alternative viewpoint about how honorable and heroic the profession is.

    and even for those that hate us, we are there to protect you and serve you too!

  • Harvard||

    I'd bet a month's pay you're nothing but a wannabe. I was a cop in one of the toughest cities in the country and you talk like every cop wannabe syncophant I ever met.

    Here's a secret. Guys like you revulse the real thing, 'cause the real thing IS the real thing because power is the only way they can get a chubby worth having.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Does dunphy qualify for #TFT?

  • sticks||

    I don't see how. He is genuine in his opinions as far as I can tell.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dammit.

  • SIV||

    In light of Cato's Robert A Levy proposing a 20 round limit under Federal law as "reasonable" "low-cap" ammunition-feeding devices should be known as cosmotarian magazines.

  • ||

    Shut up, moron.

  • SIV||

    Go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    No, seriously, Warty is 100% right. Do everyone a favor and shut up, moron. If you think anyone wants to hear your bitter plaintive whining about "cosmotarians" for the umpteenth time you're sadly fucking mistaken.

  • SIV||

    bitter plaintive whining

    TEAM PROJECTION

  • BakedPenguin||

    Seriously, SIV - if you hate it so much, why the fuck do you keep coming here? Masochism?

  • SIV||

    Who's expressing hate? I do find it disturbing that supposed pro-liberty figures take blatantly anti-liberty positions. This isn't a small matter of minor disagreements or an issue where different sides may have a valid case (such as abortion).

  • ||

    Do you think he'd shut up if I went ahead and fucked myself? 'Cause I have a big black dildo here all greased up, and it would be a shame to let it go to waste.

  • ||

    Only if you let him watch.

  • wareagle||

    seems there should be a website or webcam you can point to.

  • A Serious Man||

    Oh God, someone call Teen Girl or Barfman.

  • SugarFree||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • Brandon||

    What if you can't tell which one's the troll?

  • SIV||

    The head of the leading "libertarian think tank" and the editor in chief of this website are more on the "less-liberty" side of the gun issue than several Democrat US Senators and Congressmen. The c-word is appropriate.

  • Fool||

    Pardon the ignorance, I'll say five Hail Marys or whatever... what exactly is a cosmotarian supposed to be? Is it a libertarian with more liberal personal values or is it a discount liberal?

  • wareagle||

    then make the point. Cosmotarian sounds much like tea bagger or neocon, devoid of any real meaning.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, it's not cosmotarian so much as just plain statist. Sorry, there can be legitimate debate on some issues, but if you favor magazine capacity restrictions, you're not a libertarian. Period.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Non-anarchist libertarians generally do support the banning of certain kinds of extremely dangerous weapons (nukes, biological agents, etc) in the name of public safety, so I don't see how that automatically makes one unlibertarian.

    That said, 10 rounds is waaaaaay too low of a limit.

  • SIV||

    I was trolling. It is amusing how some people freak out over the word. Does anyone know who coined it? I think crimethink might of been the first. It originated as a contraction of "cosmopolitan libertarian" which Virginia Postrel used to describe those in sympathy with the small faction of mostly academics who used the Ron Paul newsletter "re-revelation" in 2008 to attack the congressman,his campaign and anyone who wasn't a consequentialist squish.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    IIRC it was inspired by a Mother Jones article on pro- and anti- Ron Paul libertarians. This was in 2007 long before the newsletters came out, when I was still "cunnivore".

    My understanding was that cosmotarians (cosmopolitan libertarians) are libertarians who embrace the Beltway cosmopolitan lifestyle and leftist positions on immigration, abortion, and gay marriage. At that time most "cosmos" were very skeptical of Paul, though this lessened as he became a superstar.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The way I remember the newsletter bullshit is as follows:

    All libertarian wonks basically knew about it and treated it as old news and behaved supportively of Paul. Dickheads like Donderoo would bring it up and everyone else would tell them to fuck off. Then the newsletter thing suddenly became a mainstream media "bomb drop" of the day and certain "libertarian" editors and journalists and douchey types acted like they just found out and suddenly felt the need to distance themselves from support for Ron Paul.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The newsletter thing was vaguely known about in 1996, when RP's opponent in his first House election attempted to use it against him.. but the 2008 "bomb drop" was that Kirchik actually compiled an exhaustive list of very nasty quotes from the newsletters. It may not have been news to RP's old-time followers, but it was certainly news to libertarians in general, few of whom knew much about Ron Paul before 2007.

  • SIV||

    it was certainly news to libertarians in general, few of whom knew much about Ron Paul before 2007.

    Who ever heard of the most libertarian member of congress who ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988? Certainly not libertarians!

    If by libertarians you mean Horwitz, Wilkinson, Sandefur and their ilk.

  • Brandon||

    Did we really not explain what neocon means at a low enough grade level for you this morning, Wareagle?

  • wareagle||

    give it a rest, brandon. It's become so malleable that five folks here could it five different interpretations and each would be convinced his is the only one.

  • wareagle||

    okay...now it makes sense. You can't have a low-information voter without a low-intelligence political class.

  • benji||

    An "assault magazine," by the way, is not a periodical you use to squash spiders; it is an ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds.


    Cancel my subscription!

  • Sevo||

    "House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force"

    See? Name the committee correctly and you're almost there!
    Next up: "House Prosperity Task Force"; presto! Instant wealth.

  • ||

    "...dangerous mental illness to own legitimate firearms for legitimate purposes."

    No doubt they are going to define 'dangerous', 'mental illness', 'legitimate firearms' and 'legitimate purposes'.

    Sure you bunch of fuckstains, that squares perfectly with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    They can seriously go fuck themselves. I dont give a rat's ass what they pass.

  • wareagle||

    No doubt they are going to define 'dangerous', 'mental illness', 'legitimate firearms' and 'legitimate purposes'.

    no, hell no. These will be "defined" as conclusively as POTUS' drone assassination criteria. No point in having a shiny new power if you can't wield with impunity.

    They will determine what constitutes a mental illness or legitimate weapon as it suits them.

  • ||

    No point in having a shiny new power if you can't wield with impunity.

    Well said.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Yet again the far-right leaves off the first part of the Second Amendment.

    What's next, pretending the Constitution didn't claim African-American males were only 3/5ths of a white male and didn't grant any rights to women at all?

    Keep trying to force backwards 18th century holy scripture on a forward looking 21st century secular and rational nation, I'm sure that'll work out real well for your movement.

  • A Serious Man||

    What about the first part of the Second? It says a well-regulated militia with well-regulated in that context meaning well-armed or well-provided for.

    The militia is the whole people, therefore it still applies today in that the whole people are permitted to keep and to bear arms to protect a FREE state from threats both foreign and domestic.

    This is obvious from an even cursory glance of what the Framers of the Constitution wrote. You don't like it then you can go ahead and try to amend it, the Framers gave you clear instructions on how to do that as well.

  • Modern Social Liberty||

    Right the whole people, as in the country. The country has a right to bear arms to protect itself from invaders.

    That has nothing to do with some tea partier being able to shoot up a school.

  • wareagle||

    except no "tea partier" blew up a school, you moron. A mentally unstable person of unknown political leanings did. And yes, the militia is essentially we the people, and it applies on the domestic front, too, in case some leader thinks dictatorship sounds good.

    You may have noticed that since America's founding, this is the only nation to NOT have been under authoritarian rule. The people's ability to rise up against tyranny is one reason why.

  • ||

    A pinko cuntstain entirely lacking even the most rudimentary knowledge of American history and constitutionalism spews noxious, degenerate horseshit; weather at 10:00.

  • ||

    You are an awful fucking troll.

    Everything you wrote is pure bullshit.

  • ||

    So the rights of the people to peaceable assemble and petition the government, as well as the rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures are rights of the "country" and not of individual citizens, and are not actually due to individual citizens of the United States of America?

  • Jon Lester||

    I'm guessing he's not especially pro-Ninth Amendment, either.

  • Brandon||

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    That is a complete sentence, and fairly straightforward. Doesn't matter what the first part says.

  • Calidissident||

    The people refers to individuals. Are you suggesting the First Amendment is just saying that the country as a whole can assemble, petition the government, speak freely, or practice their religion? What about all the other amendments using the term people? The individuals who wrote and ratified the document were quite clear in that it referred to the rights of individuals to bear arms.

    Why would there be any need for an amendment that simply said the country had a right to defend itself? The Constitution already authorized the power of raising an army and a navy.

  • benji||

    Why would there be any need for an amendment that simply said the country had a right to defend itself? The Constitution already authorized the power of raising an army and a navy.


    Well, these are the same founders who wrote a whole Constitution talking about limiting the powers of the government while putting in a loophole commerce clause that says the government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants for any reason.

  • ||

    Behold the Commerce Clause! Check and mate, libertarians.

  • MJGreen||

    Last I checked, shooting up a school is still against the law.

  • wareagle||

    maybe you should understand who you're talking to before coming in here with a bunch of PolySci 101 bullshit that Professor Neverhadajob poured into your brain.

    And buy a dictionary because neither "holy" nor "secular" mean what you think they mean.

  • Entropy Void||

    Fuck you and your 3/5th bullshit, you fucktard fuckwit.

  • seguin||

    It's 3/5ths of all unfree persons excluding Indians who do not pay taxes FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. So, no, it didn't say Blacks were worth 3/5ths of a white man. It was a compromise that allowed a whiny slaveowning elite to claim more representation than they actually deserved.

    And the Constitution doesn't grant rights, numbnuts, only recognizes them - not to mention it doesn't really differentiate between men and women in the text.

    Lastly - the first part of the 2nd Amendment states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that the militia will be well-regulated (i.e. well-equipped). Except for the archaic meaning of regulated, even a grade school enrollee in a blue state publik skool should be able to figure out the plain text without too much trouble.

  • LarryA||

    Simple: "You want to buy a gun? That's crazy. Denied."

  • Chris Mallory||

    The proposed California laws mention "assault bullets".

    "All this taken from a press conference just now. I am working while listening, so I apologize if I got some of the details wrong. Feel free to correct me and I'll edit the post... But I think this is what I just heard.

    Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony."
    http://www.reddit.com/r/progun.....trying_to/

  • Harvard||

    Didn't Homeland Security just purchase another million and a half hollows??
    Brings their 10 month total to over a billion and a half rounds.

    Those are for you my friend, there is no other answer.

  • Jim Tom||

    I just read about a dozen comments following the article CM posted, and I can see why California is so fucked up. Even the supporters of the 2nd ammendment have no freaking idea how bullets work.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I refuse to pretend politics makes sense anymore.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Reinstate and strengthen a prospective federal ban on assault weapons: These weapons are designed to fire a large number of rounds in a short period of time. They constitute a lethal threat to law enforcement and other first responders

    The King's men must be protected!

    Reinstate a prospective federal ban on assault magazines: These magazines hold more than ten rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading. Banning them will save lives.

    Bare assertion is bare.

    Restore funding for public safety and law enforcement initiatives aimed at reducing gun violence: Congress should fund law enforcement’s efforts to reduce gun violence, while supporting federal research into causes of gun violence. Put simply, there is no reason the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or the National Institute of Health (NIH) should be inhibited from researching the causes of gun violence. And there is no reason for the restrictions federal law places on our law enforcement officers’ ability to track and combat the spread of illegal guns.

    Gun ownership is now subject to strict liability, but we totally respect the 2nd Amendment!

  • ||

    assault weapons are RARELY used to assault cops. handguns and motor vehicles are both used far more commonly.

    we (peace officers) don't need this group of politicians to speak for us. most of the REAL cops (street cops) i know are firm supporters of the RKBA and aren't on board with "assault weapons" bans. what we want is for violent criminals to be severely punished, and by and large, i think the CJ system does a decent job at same.

    my best friend was shot and killed by a scumbag gangbanger who should have been in prison, and no ... he didn't use an "assault weapon".

    reducing gun violence HAS BEEN DONE, to some extent - we are at a 40 yr low. put the bad guys in prison.

  • Harvard||

    Enough Old Mexican, enough. I beseech you.

  • ||

    sorry, just your friendly neighborhood beat cop. im from the govt and im here to help!

  • Harvard||

    You're a liar. In your first post you admitted being "at work". No pig is going to risk a public retirement by posting on a site like this while "at work". Smut perhaps, but not this.

    You're a horselaugh, nothing more.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Cops can drive drunk, shoot random people, and commit theft with impunity. How is posting on Reason going to get him drummed out the One-Bullet Barney Brigade?

  • Harvard||

    He reveals more than he knows, out of ignorance. The more he posts it becomes increasingly obvious he is not who, what, he claims. He is in no danger of being drummed out, you see, because he is not.....in.

  • ||

    my agency's internet posting policy allows "reasonable use" of the internet as long as it does not interfere with other duties.

    i'm on lunch break right now, fwiw.

    again, just trying to spread some love amongst this sea of negativity - i love my brother officers. it's neat to work in a career where there is such camaraderie, esprit de corps, and yes love.

    i love people in GENERAL. police work would be miserable if you didn't love people. it's a people job. they are fascinating, funny, and inspiring. the "average" joe is anything but. he is to be admired.

    cheers and remember, i'd serve and protect you, even though you don't like me or my ilk

  • Harvard||

    Tol ya. First posting at 7:15. Two hour lunch? Municiple/State allowing "reasonable use"? An inveterate liar. More than likely a small dick. Have seen this type a thousand times.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Harvard,

    Enough Old Mexican, enough. I beseech you.


    Who dares summon my name?

  • Harvard||

    Why must you vex me with this dumby character. Is it because I am fair and handsome?

  • Entropy Void||

    Um ... no.

  • ||

    Come and take them.

  • ||

    I am trying to download them and print them out. It tries to make me sign in to facebook first, and then tells me I have no facebook account.

    Have these people ever done anything without completely fucking it up?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sounds like an assault committee.

  • waaminn||

    lol that chick just looks corrupt as the day is long lol.

    www.ImaAnon.tk

  • DWC||

    Seriously, whoever it was that invented the term "gun violence" (likely invented "hate crime" too) needs to be, well, shot.

  • oatka||

    "Their mission: to 'reduce and prevent gun violence' " - ah, that "gun violence" phrase again. The liberals are at their semantic games again, this time ALWAYS pairing "guns" with "violence" to create a Pavlovian response to "What is the first thing you think of when "gun" is mentioned?" Try that out on a friend to see how successful that trick is. Do a search on that phrase in quotes (over 600,000 hits), then "knife violence" (600 hits).

    As to "assault magazines", these idiots don't know what they are talking about. Take two of their "safe" 10-round magazines, reverse one and tape them together. Voila! You've just made a "Jungle Clip" like our infantry did in WWII and Korea to give themselves more firepower.

    And, in a more gruesome scenario, do these idiots REALLY believe that people cringing under desks - or looking for a pair of defensive scissors as per the Homeland Defense video - will say say "Oh, the shooter has used up his allocated 10 rounds and is busy reloading! Let's make a run for it!" Far more likely they stay cringing, as recommended, and die under their desks.

    No, on second thought, they really aren't idiots. They know these laws are just another step forward in their dream of People Control (aka Gun Control). And they'll keep using variations of the ever-effective "it's for the children!", with the required quiver in their voice, and the sheeplike public will follow them up the ramp to the abattoir.

  • BunnyFooFoo||

    Can the rest of us just start referring to this brand of bullshit as "Assault Government?"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement