Gun Control

Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Wants to Confiscate All Guns With Detachable Magazines

The governor's advisers say it's not their job to worry about the Constitution.

|

Wikipedia

In December 2012, after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the NRA said: Don't blame guns; blame the mental health system. More than two years later, a Connecticut advisory panel dominated by psychiatrists is prepared to issue a rejoinder: Don't blame the mental health system; blame guns.

Last Friday, the Associated Press reports, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, appointed by Gov. Dannel Malloy, decided to recommend a ban on "the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading." You may recall that Connecticut's legislature already responded to the Sandy Hook massacre by passing a raft of new gun restrictions, including a 10-round limit on magazines and an expanded definition of "assault weapons," back in April 2013. The new definition of prohibited guns covers any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has any of five "military-style" features. The advisory commission, which is expected to issue its final report next month, apparently wants to expand the category of banned weapons to include any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine, period. And unlike the legislature, which allowed continued possession of prohibited guns and magazines as long as they were registered, the commission wants to confiscate all weapons capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.

That's a lot of guns. I gather people would still be allowed to have revolvers, shotguns, certain rare fixed-magazine guns, and single-round weapons such as bolt-action rifles and derringer pistols. But I think that's pretty much it. Could such a sweeping ban be reconciled with the Second Amendment? The commission's members do not care. "Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide," one member, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, told A.P. "The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons."

Sullivan is not kidding when he says the commission does not care about the Constitution:

The commission also decided not to include…a disclaimer that nothing in the report "should be construed as a prohibition against the manufacture of any device legal for sale or possession in other jurisdictions."

Dr. David J. Schonfeld, a commission member and director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, said it made no sense to restrict the commission's recommendations to only guns sold and possessed in Connecticut.

After all, it is not for this commission to decide whether Connecticut's laws are binding throughout the country.

Explaining the decision to focus on this blatantly unconstitutional, pie-in-the-sky gun confiscation scheme, psychiatrist Harold Schwartz told Reuters:

Accessibility to this kind of weaponry is the single most important factor in mass shootings. While we've spent two years looking at the mental health aspects relating to this horrible event, mental health issues pale in relationship to these kinds of weapons in mass shootings.

After two years of study, in other words, the commission has concluded that mass shootings always involve guns.

I will give Schwartz et al. this much credit: Instead of getting bogged down in mainly cosmetic features such as flash suppressors and flare launchers, they are emphasizing a characteristic with undeniable functional significance, as demonstrated by the enormous popularity of guns with detachable magazines. But the fact that so many Americans favor such guns also makes eliminating them practically and constitutionally impossible.

The commission's chairman, Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, is undaunted by such details. "We're not writing proposed legislation," Jackson told Reuters. "We're writing end results." This is the sort of magical thinking that makes it hard to take gun controllers seriously.

NEXT: Occupy One First Street

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.

  1. “We’re not writing proposed legislation,” Jackson told Reuters. “We’re writing end results.”

    Has anybody proposed posting “Gun Free Zone” signs? I bet that would do the trick.

    1. Or maybe outlawing murder?

      1. ^^THIS^^

        It would solve all problems.

        Also, we should outlaw assault and criminal thoughts.

        1. “Also, we should outlaw assault and criminal thoughts.”

          I understand that some “Top People” are working on this as I type, Spencer.

    2. I think they solved the problem! GREAT work team!!

  2. I gather people would still be allowed to possess revolvers, shotguns, certain rare fixed-magazine guns, and single-round weapons such as bolt-action rifles and derringer pistols.

    Why do you gather that? A bolt-action .30-06 can kill a deer, so it can kill a human. Ban them all. Go door to door and take them. People don’t need guns. We have the police for that.

    God, you libertarians are so focused on rights and so-called “liberty.” Why do you want people to die?????

    1. You joke, but since they are considering solutions absent of Constitutionality, why aren’t they advocating martial law and door-to-door warrantless searches? I doubt they would be particularly bothered by such an approach.

      1. why? Because people in CT already told them to fuck off once before.

      2. There’s 300 million guns in private hands now. If you really want to stop gun violence, the only honest approach is to confiscate totally. New laws don’t do squat. I’m waiting for the Left to admit that.

        1. Nuke it (America!) from orbit.
          It’s the only way to be sure.

        2. I can’t think of a better way to trigger a fuckton of gun violence than a serious attempt at confiscation.

          1. You can have every round….one at a time….who’s first?

      3. They proposed an assault weapons bill in Washington state, where the police could perform a surprise annual search on assault weapon owners’ homes.

        If you have nothing to hide, why would you object?

    2. What a lame, nay, idiotic comment. Unless it sarcastic?

      Take people’s lawfully obtained property without compensation? Nope.

      Will criminals be deterred from obtaining illegal weapons by new laws? Nope.

      I don’t want people to die, I want the law-abiding to be able to protect themselves from criminals. Do you honestly think the police will protect you from the mugger on the corner? The armed burglar? Or the rapist? Or, the mass-murderer?

      Honestly, tripe.

      1. Honestly, tripe.

        Honestly Satire!

        1. Honestly Tripe- now available for menudo anytime!

      2. I am pretty sure it was sarcastic.

      3. Invest in shovel company stock, because if the left has its way, confiscation just might happen and lots of people will need shovels to dig holes in their backyard for burying certain things.

        1. Not even that. You can kill AND bury the body with a shovel.

        2. But nobody needs a military-style assault shovel.

          1. It’s painted black and can hold more than 7 rocks! *motions for the fainting couch*

            1. military-style assault shovels have a folding stock and are really shitty for actually digging holes.

              1. Ah, the entrenching tool. The edges can be sharpened, and it makes a wicked weapon.

                1. And better than eating with your hands.

        3. If it’s time to bury them, it is time to use them as the 2A intended.

          1. But you should still bury some backups.

            1. Not bury. Water-tight, camoflaged, PVC canisters attached to evergreen trees 20 feet up. Easier to locate, easier to reclaim (no digging required), and cannot be located by metal detectors.

              1. I’ll have to keep that in mind.

      4. Unless it sarcastic?

        Do you know where you are?

        I just assume everything is sarcasm here.

          1. Don’t roll your eyes at me!

    3. I want the liberty to shoot dead anyone on my property who wishes to harm me or my family. That is my RIGHT!

      1. Don’t know where YOU live, but in Texas _I_ already HAVE that liberty. Deadly force is even justified for criminal mischief after sundown. (Texas Penal Code section Sec. 9.42.(2)(A) )

    4. Pop Quiz: name a place that a. Prohibits one portion of the 2nd amendment (bear) to no positive end, b. Only location where school shootings happen, and c. Police response has come too late.

      If you said schools, you have identified the place where gun carry prohibition and police action have proven ineffective in saving lives.

  3. National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement

    That sounds like the type of place that publishes articles on Yahoo with cites to random blog posts and click bait headlines.

  4. I’m sure having no clips wouldn’t slow this guy down
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

    1. Twelve men break and enter, no men leave….

  5. Yeah, idiot commission, recommend even more draconian bullshit gun control that will be just as ignored, if not more, than the draconian new bullshit gun control that already got passed.

    It’s amazing how CT can go from “pretty good gun laws considering the gun laws of several of the states surrounding it” to “now gunning (hah) for most restrictive gun laws” in two years. At least people are ignoring it.

    1. You don’t want those children at Newtown to have died for nothing do you?

      1. How would they know the difference?

      2. Sunk cost fallacy.

        Even though correct, I fear my empathy may need a check. I just made an incredibly calloused statement.

  6. “We’re writing end results.”

    Said every totalitarian EVER.

  7. “Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,” one member, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, told A.P.

    In other words, the purpose of this whole exercise was to simply attack gun ownership and add to the advisory panel members’ sense of self-importance.

    1. Wow, totally shocking that that comment came from a former chief of the kings men.

  8. Hasn’t the horse already left the barn? Go ahead and ban them….try and confiscate them…..you’ve already failed! I look forward to a million YouTube videos of ham fisted confiscation attempts!

  9. “”We’re not writing proposed legislation,” Jackson told Reuters. “We’re writing end results.””

    Well, since you’re in the business of reshaping reality with your pen, maybe you could have just skipped the whole ‘wave away constitution with magic wand’-part and just cut straight to the ‘erase evil from the hearts of men’ thing.

    1. This sentence quoted doesn’t even make sense.

      1. Good intentions are everything to progressives.

    2. and just cut straight to the ‘erase evil from the hearts of men’ thing.

      But who knows what evil, lurks in the hearts of men?

      1. Hitler?

        no wait, i know = Alec Baldwin!

        1. ugh, that movie.

          Listen to the old radio dramas with Orson Welles in the title role. Those were awesome.

    3. Why not just wish for everybody to behave?

  10. Accessibility to this kind of weaponry is the single most important factor in mass shootings. While we’ve spent two years looking at the mental health aspects relating to this horrible event, mental health issues pale in relationship to these kinds of weapons in mass shootings.

    So they are claiming that the biggest cause of this tragedy was not the fact that the little bastard who did it blew a gasket and went nuts but instead was the availability of a particular kind of weapon. Think about how insane that statement is. It is so stupid and crazy that it is hard to believe anyone would say it. The reason we have mass shootings is really because we have failed to banish AR 15s from the world. That means that if they magically cured all mental illness tomorrow, we would still have these kinds of events because it is the weapons not the mental illness that is the cause.

    1. It’s animism, John. Gun banners are, without exception, total animists. They actually believe that a piece of metal is evil and causes people to be evil and controls their minds and can make normal people go crazy. They think that metal shaped a certain way (or even a pop tart) has supernatural powers that can affect people.

      It’s pure, unadulterated superstition. If you encounter a gun banner, you immediately know you are dealing with someone who has beliefs that are amazingly similar to a primitive tribesman. Think about that.

      1. The only difference between humans today and cave men is accumulated knowledge. That’s it. Destroy all the books and information in the world, and in a generation we’d be wearing animal skins. So yeah, it’s not surprising that people have beliefs similar to primitive tribesmen.

        1. Nick Gillespie wears animal skins in some of his interviews…as a jacket. 🙂

      2. That is exactly what it is. It is also why they go the most nuts after incidents like New Town. There is no way to explain what happened there. There is no way to justify or rationalize what the kid did or anyway to get any kind of closure or justice since he is dead. It is just one of those horrible and unexplainable tragedies that happens.

        Many people have a very hard time dealing with that fact. They feel compelled to have an reason for every tragedy and a way to prevent it from happening again. So they latch onto far fetched and delusional causes. Sometimes it is conspiracy theories. It wasn’t the kid, it was the CIA doing a false flag operation or something. Other times they latch onto objects and devolve into pure animism like they are here. It wasn’t the kid, it was the gun that did it.

      3. Well, they would counter. No, no we just want common sense legislation to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

        Which indirectly makes them eugenicists come to think of it. But this is neither here or there.

    2. It’s also as egregious an example of the “but for” fallacy as you’ll find. First year law students get excoriated in torts class for demonstrating this lack of awareness.

      1. Yes. It is called direct cause versus proximate cause.

    3. That means that if they magically cured all mental illness tomorrow, we would still have these kinds of events because it is the weapons not the mental illness that is the cause.

      THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY THINK.

      They think that if they took away all the tools created to kill, they’ll do away with killing. Never mind that ever since Cain schwacked his brother with a rock, man has found plenty of ways to eliminate his fellow man without the use of firearms.

      1. As if you couldn’t murder 7 year old kids with a sword or a bomb.

        1. The most deadly mass killings in US history were done with airplanes and box cutters (9/11), fertilizer (Oklahoma City) and gasoline (the Happy Land fire).

          1. Fun fact: the Happy Land murderer will be eligible for parole in March.

          2. And the bloodiest act of violence at a school was Bethlehem School (dynamite).

            1. It was the Bath school massacre.

              The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

      2. They’ve adjusted their counter-argument to ‘it would do away with MASS killing’.

        1. Of course, the biggest mass killer in history has been The State run amok, using starvation as its weapon.

        2. But it worked so well in France.

        3. Wasn’t there some guy in China about the same time as Newtown who achieved similar results with a knife?

          Ah, yes. here it is.

    4. Amen! John mentions one area where this statement is completely ridiculous… that the gun is a bigger cause than the nutbag at the trigger. But, there’s two other huge factors that rival the importance of “accessibility to this kind of weaponry”.

      First, there’s the issue of the chosen target. Kindergartners and teachers are virtually defenseless. So are people in a movie theater. He never would have done the same kind of damage trying to shoot up an NRA convention or a redneck wedding. Choice of target rivals weaponry in terms of the impact.

      Second, there’s the issue of whether or not “this kind of weaponry” is really what makes the difference. I would wager that someone with a revolver and an 1873 lever-action 30-30 could have done just as much carnage (especially in a kindergarten). So banishing AR-15s wouldn’t have mattered.

      1. If I were going to try and kill as many people as possible at close range, my weapon of choice would be a semi automatic or pump action shotgun.

        1. Don’t tell them that.

      2. If I ever became so wickedly evil as to slaughter innocent kindergartners, I’d do it with a two by four with a nail in the end just to posthumously fuck with the gun banners and acquire my own special brand of depraved killer notoriety.

        1. It’s posts like this that make Reason and libertarianism great.

          1. Especially when it is a mythical female libertarian making the post.

            1. You can tell BuSab is a she because of the unnecessary mercy of the nail.

              What have those little fuckers ever done to deserve a nail at the end of their killing board?

              1. What have those little fuckers ever done to deserve a nail at the end of their killing board?

                Abandoned their monocle-polishing post, most likely.

              2. Tetanus– I forgot the rusty,dirty descriptors–for any that accidentally survive.

        2. “NO MORE TWO BY FOURS….AGAIN!!!”

    5. So you follow the ‘logic’ perfectly…

  11. “”Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,” one member, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, told A.P.”

    That’s funny, Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution says:

    “all executive…Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”

    So either Police Chief Bernard Sullivan neglected to take the required oath or affirmation, in which case he is operating outside of the laws, or else he *did* take the oath or affirmation and intends to violate it, in which case he’s a perjurer.

    If he doesn’t know the basic duties of his job, how can he be trusted on anything?

    1. Time to impeach?

    2. Come on … you don’t think that Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, bother to read the Constitution to which they swear support and fidelity.

      I seriously doubt that very many read it with the rigorousness that I read my Apple iPhone agreement.

    3. If the Supreme Court shits on the Constitution, how can you expect lesser officers to give a damn about it?

    4. He’s apparently a “former police chief” so his oath no longer counts.

      1. I forgot the part where former officeholders formally repudiate their prior oaths or affirmations in a special ceremony.

  12. And, of course, this is the end of their desires! Unless you count next year’s proposal to outlaw any firearm that uses gun powder.

    1. Unless you count next year’s proposal to outlaw any firearm that uses gun powder.

      Time to revisit the caseless ammunition/formed propellant weapon designs again…

      1. Coilguns and other EM Mass-drivers.

        1. Until someone comes up with an electrical storage device that has the energy density of chemical propellants, I’ll stick with things that go bang.

      2. There is much havoc that could be wreaked with compressed CO2.

        1. Or air, even. Some of those spring piston pellet rifles are pretty serious.

  13. While the probability of an attempt to invoke such a ban is unrealistic, it should be kept in mind when one is reading a gun violence study by academics.

    I usually view anti-gun academics with the same suspicion that I view anti-gay “researchers” with. Primarily, because they use the same shady methodologies to reach their BS results.

  14. More than two years later, a Connecticut advisory panel dominated by psychiatrists is prepared to issue a rejoinder: Don’t blame the mental health system; blame guns.

    So, the Top Men appointed by a politician produced a statement supportive of the politician’s own views and with virtually no basis in their supposed area of expertise.

    Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

  15. Accessibility to this kind of weaponry is the single most important factor in mass shootings.

    Which is weird, because tens or hundreds of millions of Americans have access (not “accessibility”, you semi-literate halfwit) to this kind of weaponry, yet do not engage in mass shootings.

    Makes me think it isn’t an important factor at all.

    1. people have access, the guns themselves are accessible, meaning they possess the trait of accessibility. The word usage dates to the 1600s.

      please hammer them on the right things.

      1. meaning they should have used “of” as the preposition instead of “to.”

        1. Either way, they done fucked up.

        2. Not to mention, English grammar calls for a “The” before accessibility.

    2. It is also silly because Americans have had “access” to semi-automatic firearms for a hundred-odd years. They’re not easier to get today, as the anti-gun fanatics claim. In my father’s day you didn’t need an ID to buy a gun, just money. You could mail-order guns; I inherited a shotgun from my Dad that was bought from a Sears catalog.

      It was easier then, not now.

      1. My dad used to take his shotgun to school with him so he could shoot squirrels for dinner on the way home.

        Yet there were no mass shootings.

        Anyone who claims to want “common sense gun control” is a closet gun grabber.

        And anyone who thinks we’d be safest if only the government had guns is fucking stupid. Or tyrannical.

        1. Yet there were no mass shootings.

          Howard Unruh, 1949
          Andrew Kehoe, 1927

          1. Since it is obvious that I am referring to students taking guns to school, I must conclude that you are a functional retard. Especially since one of your links is about a guy who set off bombs.

            1. Blame Wikipedia.

              😛

          2. Kehoe didn’t use a gun.

            1. Nor did Oregeron after looking it up.

            2. He used a gun to set off one of the bombs. Not that that is terribly relevant. I just find that incident fascinating for some reason.

              1. Check out the New London school disaster then?

                In the 1960s, someone confessed to opening up a gas vent to run up the school’s gas bill because he was mad that the principal reprimanded him but the confession was doubted.

            3. Neither Kehoe nor Oregeron used a gun and Kehoe didn’t shoot up a school.

              Blame Wikipedia.

              If we don’t blame guns for committing shootings, why would we blame Wikipedia for your half-assed research?

              1. Sorry…meant Unruh didn’t shoot up a school. He targeted random people.

        2. squirrels for dinner

          I can’t get past this phrase.

          1. The 1975 edition of Betty Crocker’s cookbook contains a recipe for woodchuck.

            Seriously.

            1. Woodchucks are also known as whistle-pigs and land-beavers.

              Seriously.

          2. Squirrel fritters are delicious… if you’re poor. Otherwise they aren’t worth the effort.

            1. My dad talked about eating squirrel stew, and occasionally spitting out bird shot.

              1. Well, anything makes a stew. I have to go back to my grandparents’ generation before I can find someone with stories about spitting out bird shot, though.

                1. My stepfather’s side of the family were rural PA hunters so I’ve had deer and rabbit but not squirrel. I am a total city boy now so game is kind of off the menu.

                2. Fuck you for making me feel old.

                3. I used to get a lot of duck from a guy I worked with and had to spit out the occasional bit of bird shot.

          3. In case you want to can some of the squirrel for dinner, here’s how.

          4. I get a major kick out of the reactions of people when I mention eating squirrel jerky.

            Especially when the squirrel in question was a fat bastard that managed to eat an entire hammock that was fairly new, too. He drew first blood, not me.

            1. He had to pay!

      2. But they weren’t “military-style assault automatic bolt action pistols with the handles in the front”!!!

    3. You are wrong. It’s just a matter of time, I say!!

  16. It would be interesting to do a poll of political donations and voting records of people on the advisory panel.

    I mean, I would never accuse such esteemed persons of using a tragedy to advance a political agenda… but… maybe it would be interesting to see.

  17. mental health issues pale in relationship to these kinds of weapons in mass shootings.

    didn’t have a thing with his being unbalanced or a sociopath. Nope, the guns made him do it, an inanimate version of Berkowitz’ dog.

    My god, these people are the worst.

    1. Two questions:

      What percentage of gun owners are mass shooters? (6.4/80,000,000 = 0.000008%)

      What percentage of people with serious mental illness are mass shooters? (6.4/13,600,000 = 0.000047%)

      1. you expect these folks to let facts get in the way of their waving bloody shirts?

      2. I think it should be: What percentage of US residents are mass shooters? (6.4/320,000,000 = 0.000002%)

        Not all mass shooters own the guns they use.

  18. Does it count as reloading when the weapon is belt-fed?

  19. I never had an interest in owning or shooting guns. But the last three or four years of progressive blather has me thinking I should probably invest in a few pretty soon.

    1. Shooting is a lot of fun.

      1. I already have lots of expensive hobbies. I need to figure out what I am willing to give up.

        1. It is fun. The problem is that ammunition has gotten expensive and if you don’t live in the country going to the range can be a pain in the ass.

          Guns like most things, can be a very geeky hobby. There are a million permutations of it and things to get into.

          1. ammunition has gotten expensive

            You can say that again.

          1. never tried the stuff.

            strictly alcohol. a variety of home brews and fine wines.

            1. Guns are a bit like wine. There is an endless variety of them and the people who are into them like nothing better than playing who is a true Scottsman with people who prefer different ones from theirs.

              Think “I am not drinking any fucking Merlot” as “Who the fuck would own a 9mm” and you get the idea.

              1. I hang out here. I have already figure that out to a certain extent 😉

                1. Then none of us need to recommend that you not tell us what firearm(s), if any, you decide to purchase.

              2. It’s an unfortunate truth. That’s why when you find a good range or gun shop populated with employees who are knowledgeable and friendly as opposed to condescending and snotty you should give them all your business, even if you pay a little extra on the retail.

                Honestly, sometimes the people you encounter take on all the traits exhibited by Comic Book Guy in the Simpsons.

                1. It’s an unfortunate truth. That’s why when you find a good range or gun shop populated with employees who are knowledgeable and friendly as opposed to condescending and snotty you should give them all your business, even if you pay a little extra on the retail.

                  That is so true. Gun shops and ranges can be as snotty as independent book stores. I swear some people open gun shops for the single purpose of keeping the unworthy out of the hobby.

                  1. I call those people “Fudds”.

    2. Yep, I’ve felt the same way. If I lived anywhere but NYC, I probably would’ve gotten a gun last year.

  20. Turns out there’s a lot of detachable-magazine-fed shotguns.

    What about those, smart guy?

    Honestly, if I was going on a shooting spree, one of those would be my primary weapon.

    1. I think I would go with water guns, personally. They are so much quieter.

      1. Fill them up with Hydrofluoric acid and you might cause a water gun ban in Connecticut.

      1. Comparing a 8lbs gun vs a 11lbs gun is not a good test. Also, the 8lbs gun is shooting 600 rpm vs 360 rpm. Recoil will be different, of course.

        That being said, I’d rather have the AA-12 due to the longer stroke making the recoil take longer. Still, make the test as valid as possible and explain why weight and rpm matter.

    2. If I were going to shoot up a school, I’d be a hipster and use a Krag-Jorgensen.

      1. Wouldn’t something in a muzzle loaded, black powder, firing minie ball be the proper hipster solution.

        Complete with paper wadding and one of those ‘Daniel Boone’ powder horns?

  21. A good comment rebutting another hoplophobic article:

    The number 1 killer of people under 25 is idiots. Some idiots kill with guns, some with cars, some with knives, but it’s usually an idiot doing the killing (intentionally or unintentionally).

    Yet you never hear anyone clamoring for “idiot control”. Probably because no politician wants to wipe out the idiots, because then Congress would be empty.

  22. I have an “end result” for the commission: just put me in charge of CT, immediately, unconditionally, indefinitely. I’ll make sure “everyone” is “safe”, I “promise”. Don’t worry if it’s constitutional, just trust me 😉

    1. If you have the right kind of progressive credentials, they would gladly do so.

  23. Speaking of detachable, this is in honor of the members of this commission:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYwiwbgMusY

    1. Oh, and did I mention it might be NSFW?

      1. Only if your coworkers have no sense of humor.

    2. Haven’t heard that in a while.

  24. Molon Labe.

    Good luck with that.

  25. single-round weapons such as bolt-action rifles

    What?

    1. The original Bolt-action Mauser 1871 was a single-shot weapon (no magazine)

      1. I’m aware, but the context of Sullum’s writing suggests he means normal magazine-fed bolt-action rifles. It’s just oddly written.

        That said, this commission would clearly want to ban trapdoor Springfields if it knew they existed.

        1. You can kill more people efficiently with a semi-automatic rifle than you can with a bolt action one. That part of this is true. How exactly “at least he killed a few less kids” is very comforting is unclear to me.

          Beyond that, these assholes just cannot get it through their head that no law, no matter how well enforced, is going to keep any weapon out of the hands of someone who really wants one.

          1. Beyond that, these assholes just cannot get it through their head that no law, no matter how well enforced, is going to keep any weapon out of the hands of someone who really wants one.

            There’s a lot of that going around. See laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution…

            1. As long as there are laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., there will be demand for guns for those offering those goods/services.

            2. It is because they don’t understand that for the most part the law is not what deters people. It is morality and social pressure that deters people. All the law can do is take me out of society if I am a threat to others and punish me so the victims of my crimes can have justice without having to resort to violence. That is it.

              The law is never going to do a very good job of stopping people from doing things they don’t find immoral and want to do regardless. The law is best at dealing with the consequences of actions. It thoroughly sucks as a means of preventing those actions in the first place.

              1. I hate the fact that law and legislation are used as synonyms.

                For example the term lawmaker. I hate it. It should be legislationmaker, but that doesn’t have the same ring to it.

                What you call morality and social pressure is what I think of as law. Legislation is just an effort to codify it (legislation against murder), or a failed attempt to create it (legislation against drugs, guns, etc).

                1. What you call morality and social pressure is what I think of as law.

                  No. The law is what the government tells me. Morality is what I tell myself. I am not a thief because the laws tells me not to be one. I am not one because I think it is wrong and my friends and family would disapprove of me if I were.

                  This distinction is really important when it comes to vice crimes like gambling and drugs and prostitution. If I don’t think there is anything wrong with gambling, I am going to do it as long as I think I can get away with it. Sure the law can deter me. But for it to deter me it has to either have a very high chance of catching me or impose such draconian punishment that I won’t even take a small chance of getting caught. This is what people don’t get. Unless you are willing to spend a lot of money trying to catch me or impose a hugely disproportionate punishment, you are never going to deter me. The entire drug war is one exercise in unsuccessfully trying both of those things. And lastly, if an activity really is harmful and self destructive, people will figure that out on their own and stop doing it, no law required. The right never fucking understands that and thinks every bad trend line goes on forever.

                  1. I am not one because I think it is wrong and my friends and family would disapprove of me if I were.

                    Really? So absent legislation against stealing, you’d go out there and rob people, knowing you may be shunned by your friends and family?

                    Stealing is an example of law that is codified into legislation. There are plenty of things that people don’t do, not because legislation forbids it, but because it is looked down upon by society. Take cutting in line at the store for example. I don’t believe that’s codified into legislation, but people react to it as if it was against the law. And that’s because it is. It just isn’t a law enforced by the courts through legislation. If there was no government and no legislation, people would still seek retribution against thieves and murderers. Because stealing and murdering are against the law.

                    Don Boudreaux explains it a lot better than me. And I didn’t get this from him. He just articulates it better. And he’s building on Hayek.

                    1. Really? So absent legislation against stealing, you’d go out there and rob people, knowing you may be shunned by your friends and family?

                      No. Read my post again. I am saying I wouldn’t do that, because my reasons for not doing it have nothing to do with the law. I am saying the exact opposite of what you think I am.

                      I think we agree Sarcasmic. You misunderstood what I was saying.

                    2. I am drawing a distinction between law and legislation.
                      Law is what society says is good and bad, while legislation is how the government tries to keep up with the law, or attempt to shape it through force.
                      I do not see the two as synonyms.

                    3. The distinction you are making with law vs. legislation is an important one. I don’t know if most people will completely agree with you on your definition of terms, though.

                    4. It’s not my definition. It’s something that I intuitively understood but didn’t quite get until I saw that lecture I link to above. Check it out when you have time. It’s pretty good.

                    5. Looks interesting. I’ll check it out.

                    6. Blackstone’s definition of law is “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.”

                  2. What you call morality and social pressure is what I think of as law.

                    That only works if you say that any statute that doesn’t meet your standards isn’t really a law.

                    Good luck with that.

                2. Is there a law against Murder codified in most jurisdictions?

          2. I don’t think they have any practical concerns one way or another about the efficacy of the law. It’s enough that it harms the bloc of people against whom they’re poised (voting gun owners) and the groups that militate against them politically. Any potential benefits (or more probably, ills) vis-a-vis crime rates and shooting sprees are purely coincidental. Their purpose is and always will be inflicting harm on their political opposition.

          3. You can shoot faster with a semi-auto, but you can’t really fire with aiming much faster than with a bolt-action. And with a little training, it can be just as fast. (If you can’t get to the video, it’s some kid shooting an SMLE as fast as he can.)

            I think you can make a better argument that restricting magazine sizes would cut down on the fire of these mass shooters, but the fact remains that they just don’t do that much rapid fire during their rampages. The little fuckhead in Connecticut fired 154 rounds in 5 minutes, which is atypically high, and even that average is very doable with a manually-operated rifle of any kind.

            1. It is just not that hard to shoot unarmed people at close range. You could restrict people to muskets and they would still be able to do a lot of damage by just carrying multiple weapons and using the bayonet.

              1. Boarding parties in ship-to-ship combat used to carry tons of loaded single-shot pistols. They’d fire them, throw them away, and draw the next one.

                A dedicated lunatic could easily acquire 20 revolvers, tuck them in his belt, and do all the damage he wanted. Even with some stupid one gun a month law or whatever law these fools think would prevent such a thing.

                1. Or he could just grab a machete and kill people like they do in the shittier parts of Africa.

                  1. Bard Metal, if I am not mistaken nearly all of the victims of the Rwandan genocide were killed with garden tools and machetes.

                2. Heck, one could even line up several victims back-to-back and pump one round through the first victim and watch the bullet enter the next couple victims. Well, if one is using a 9mm or something besides hollowpoints.

                3. There were also multi-barrel monstrosities?

                  I got to fire a dual barrel flintlock shotgun once? there was a trigger for each barrel.

            2. I think you can make a better argument that restricting magazine sizes would cut down on the fire of these mass shooters,

              I don’t think it would make any difference. Switching magazines every ten shots isn’t going to reduce your total volume of fire over the timeframe of the shooting.

            3. His rate of fire was a round every 1.94 seconds. Pretty easy to do with a good bolt gun. My K98 has a grooved receiver and can be re-loaded with 5 round stripper clips. Reloading that way only takes a second.

          4. How exactly “at least he killed a few less kids” is very comforting is unclear to me.

            Yeah. More evidence that all they want is to get closer to a total ban.

            If civilians didn’t have semi-autos with big magazines, maybe he would only have killed 12 kids. Not really fixing the problem.

          5. “Why do you need a gun?”

            “Cause I can’t throw a rock at 1000fps.”

            1. I actually need 9 guns. Why? Fuck you, that’s why.

            2. Why do you need a house? You can live in an apartment.

              Why do you need a car? You can take the bus.

              Why do you need a soda? You can drink water.

              1. Nobody needs more than minimal nutrition and a reasonably warm place to sleep.
                Hell, you don’t even really need that. Just sitting still until you die is always an option.

  26. If these people had their way the 2A would be amended to say “muskets” instead of “arms,” because that’s what they see when they read it.

    1. I think the people who say that are lying. They just want to repeal it altogether. They know damn well what it says and what it means.

      1. This.

        If you read the liberals’ dissents in the Heller and McDonald cases, you’ll notice their legal arguments are indistinguishable from policy arguments.

        They know exactly what it says. They just don’t like it.

      2. No, they just want to take the Plessy v. Fergusson tack and pretend it refers to state militias which they want to shut down so that they don’t have to allow civilians to own guns.

        1. I think that there may be some variation of opinion, even among progressives.

          You just love contradicting people, don’t you?

          1. I think Puddin’ is right. I’ve been following this issue for about fifty years. From my reading, very few anti-gun writers admit that they need to repeal 2A. The majority don’t know much or care much about the BoR one way or another. But the Living Constitution types do argue that the 2A applies only to the militia, and that the National Guard now serves as the militia (which would effectively mean that 2A gives the government the right to keep and bear arms if the argument made any sense.)

            1. I googled, but couldn’t find any reputable polls on this.

              However, 70% of DailyKos readers said they wanted 2A repeal.

  27. the NRA said: Don’t blame guns; blame the mental health system. More than two years later, a Connecticut advisory panel dominated by psychiatrists is prepared to issue a rejoinder: Don’t blame the mental health system; blame guns.

    Fuck all of them. No one is to blame except the nutjob who did it. And maybe his mother.

    I want a mental health system that would be capable of preventing things like about as much as I want more gun restrictions.

    The honest answer is that if you have anything approaching a free society, things like this can and will occasionally happen.

    1. Many people will see that as a compelling argument that free societies are bad.

      1. As backwards Barney points out below, it doesn’t have to be all that free of a society.

    2. I want a mental health system that would be capable of preventing things like about as much as I want more gun restrictions.

      The honest answer is that if you have anything approaching a free society, things like this can and will occasionally happen.

      Absent strictly enforced martial law with insane curfews, you can’t prevent it at all. And even if you out-totalitarianed the totalitarians, cabin fever would lead to more people murdering their whole families. The idea that psychiatrists can take a murderous person and reform him without huge amounts of expensive conditioning (far more than what Lanza got, and he got plenty of treatment) is completely wrong.

      It’s utopianism. Man is a vicious creature, and some of them kill. That’s not going to change just because we ban guns and go back to edged weapons, although in the latter case women and the elderly will well and truly fucked.

      Was it Welch who recounted the story of his first day in Paris when a homeless man attacked another with a machete in broad daylight? That’s the sort of civilized behavior you get when you ban guns.

      1. Welch was homeless in Paris?

  28. “Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,” one member, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, told A.P. “The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.”

    Was Bernard released from the oath he took to defend and uphold the constitution? If not then someone should hang the cocksucker.

    1. Oh, he just takes his cue from an infinite assortment of politicians and bureaucrats who daily forget the whole “Oath” thing.

    2. “The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.”

      What? Does that even mean anything?

      I’m actually pretty pleased that Chief Sullivan isn’t taking it upon himself to determine the constitutionality of the proposed rules. I bet he’d get it wrong anyway. And he’s basically admitting that the law would not be constitutional.

    3. “Cocksucker” as an insult. Keep classy, Suthen.

      1. Of the 7 words of Carlin, that one is odd as an insult. Who doesn’t love a cocksucker?

  29. How the hell does banning guns that can hold more than ten rounds prevent the Adam Lanzas of the world?

    1. The magic of laws means that dangerous weapons will cease to exist and there is no way around the law.

      /end prog

      1. But it’s even dumber than that: let’s say laws are magic and do exactly what its proponents want it to do. What’s to stop another Lanza from acquiring, say, a seven-round pistol and a couple magazines and killing the same number of children?

        This law is completely asinine simply in how it is written.

        1. That is similar to what happened at the VA Tech shooting.

          He used a Glock 19 with a 15 round mag and a Walther P22 with a 10 round mag.

          He had 17 mags total during his rampage.

    2. Gun grabbers do not want to prevent the Adam Lanzas of the world. They want the Adam Lanzas of the world to kill children so they can ratchet down gun laws on the law-abiding. Then they want another Adam Lanza to kill more children so they can ratchet down the laws again. They want Adam Lanzas to kill children until there are no more guns left.

      1. Gun grabbers do not want to prevent the Adam Lanzas of the world. They want the Adam Lanzas of the world to kill children so they can ratchet down gun laws on the law-abiding.

        They were almost giddy when the news of New Town broke. They didn’t even wait two seconds before they started making a political issue of it. A good number of these people are exactly as you describe.

    3. Well, in that particular case it would have made some difference because the guns were legally owned and acquired by his mother. Seems likely that she wouldn’t have owned illegal guns.

      That said, she still would have owned whatever was legal and he still could have killed a bunch of people. SO it still doesn’t prevent the Adam Lanzas of the world, just slows them down a tiny bit.

  30. I have no doubt whatsoever that Schwartz et al. relish the notion of targeting gun owners for violent political repression. It’s not merely that blanket bans are politically untenable and practically impossible fantasies, it’s that anything less cedes moral authority to people who, in their minds, are collectively responsible for murders and mass shootings. Given such bitter antipathy on their part, there exists no middle ground by which “sensible” reforms might be undertaken. There’s room only for gestapo SWAT squads breaking down doors in the middle of the night to disarm an unwilling citizenry at gunpoint.

  31. And to think, America fought a civil war so its own government could think of laws like these, unobstructed by the freedom-hating Canadians and Britishers.

    1. If you mean the war that started in 1776 that is most accurately described as a colonial rebellion or a war of independence.

  32. I’m guessing whats happening here is this group’s job is to come up with a suggestion that sounds so backshit insane that any other stupid gun control law sounds sane and reasonable by comparison.

    1. This is an increasingly popular M.O. on the left.

      They lead with the nuttyness, then “concede” to a more moderately-leftish position, pretending that they’ve granted the ‘middle ground’ to the opposition when in fact all they’ve done is jettisoned their already-unworkable fantasy-ideal.

      See = Obamacare

      One of the great benefits here is that they love to claim how the failures of their moderately-lefist idea was due to its *willingness to compromise*. They “spoiled” the inherent goodness of their intentions by failing to go Full Progtard. The GOP is to blame.

      Which is just a way of teeing up the next Super Leftist idea which will then be compromised into something moderately-proggy.

      1. It really is the perfect strategy. It makes their stupid ideas an easier sell, and leaves them blameless when their ideas inevitably fail.

      2. Increasingly? They’ve always done this, haven’t they?

        1. i seem to recall Democrats in the 1980s being more apologetic about their proposals, insisting that they’ll “get it right this time” because it seemed that much of the 1960s & 1970s were a series of policy disasters/disappointments that really dinged their brand in the public eye. They were trying to re-sell people on Left Wing ideas and the population was mostly over it.

          By the 1990s, Clintonian ‘Centrism’ became so dominant that hard-left-wingers had no one to sell their shtick to.

          It was under opposition to Bush then the fervent support of Obama that the idea of “selling people on hardcore progressive ideas” seems to have become far more commonplace. Or rather – that the progressive left wing seems to have ascended above the Clintonian model and taken control of the party

          Now it seems to be taken for granted (at least in media) that the ideological hard-left is the core of the democratic party, and that their rhetoric and methods have become the standard fare.

          Do you really think Hillary Clinton could have said this in 1998?

          The anti-capitalist left is now “mainstream” in a way that would have been unthinkable 2 decades ago.

  33. certain rare fixed-magazine guns

    The law is a bad idea in either case, but where did you get the idea that fixed magazine guns are rare? The SKS is fixed magazine and that’s one of the most widely available rifles out there.

    1. When has a gun grabber ever been knowledgeable about guns?

    2. Yeah. Or that there is any appreciable difference between a fixed magazine and a rifle that uses a tube to store ammunition?

      1. Or that there is any appreciable difference between a fixed magazine and a rifle that uses a tube to store ammunition?

        That tube is a magazine.

        1. And detachable with the application of an angle grinder.

    3. Seriously, I think they are just lying and pretending that this law wouldn’t affect many weapons when of course as you point out it would.

    4. There are literally tens of millions of surplus war rifles with fixed magazines and bolt actions. And any idiot could kill a ton of children with an M44 Mosin and a pocketful of cartridges. Murdering children is just not that difficult a task, and it doesn’t require special tools.

      1. There are literally tens of millions of surplus war rifles with fixed magazines and bolt actions in this country. Fuck, I wish preview worked.

        1. Preview is for fascists Warty. Come to the dark side!!

          1. I try to use it and all I get is a blank page with my handle. I take that as meaning that Alissi wants my comments to be sloppy and ill thought out.

      2. Who needs cartridges? Just use the bayonet. It’s not like the victims were actually armed and could fight back or anything.

        That also reminds me I should get an m44 while 7.62X54R is still cheap.

        1. My dad bought at least 40 M44s when they were 5 for $200 10 or 15 years ago. I thought he was nuts at the time, but now that they’re $200 apiece or whatever, I guess my old man is pretty smart. One day when I’m home I’ll inventory his pile of 7.62x54R. I wouldn’t be surprised if he bought 250 of those 440 round cans.

          1. That is smart. I’ve thought about buying a bunch of the regular mosin-nagants. The price on them has been inching upwards, but I don’t know.

            1. The East Bloc pipeline has been drying up and the post-Sandy Hook hysteria has not helped matters. You’d be unlikely to lose money if you bought a bunch, but you might not want to have a couple thousand bucks tied up in some old rifles for a decade.

          2. If he ever wants to sell one of those for a reasonable profit, let me know.

  34. I defy anyone to top attending this as “worst possible evening of your life” without resorting to rape, prison, or some kind of violence.

    http://www.stubhub.com/the-dai…..5-9194505/

    1. Wow and people are willing to pay money for that? I guess thats kind of like paying a dominatrix to punch you in the balls. Some folks are just into it.

    2. Are you kidding? I can think of several groups of writers I would be more likely to murder if I were forced to listen to them for an hour. Imagine a panel with Amanda Marcotte, Matt Yglesias and whoever the most irritating Jezebel writer is for a start. I’m sure I could come up with worse if I could be bothered to think of more names.

    3. or some kind of violence.

      From space.

      You know, just to be sure.

  35. Seems like the simplest and best solution would be go ban advisory committees.

    1. Or ban children. If we didn’t have all these damn kids running around, we wouldn’t have worry so much about people like Lanza murdering them.

      1. Careful John. Some of the nuttier fringe of the environmental movement actually would like to ban children.

        1. And the rest of us along with them.

          1. If they’d only ban themselves…

          2. I’m surprised they didn’t recommend holding classes in a secret location, making school board meetings exempt from sunshine laws, and prohibiting children from talking about their schools to anyone but the teachers. That would keep them safe.
            /derp

  36. I see the Progressives are going to take the segregationists approach to the Civil War Amendments and apply it to the Second Amendment?

  37. The Happy Land arson killed 87 people. Yet I have never heard anyone propose bans on gasoline, matches, or lighters.

    1. oopsy- already mentioned upthread.

    2. The rejoinder would be he only killed so many people because that nightclub wasn’t up to code since it lacked the proper number of fire exits.

      1. Ah- sort of like Michael Moore’s argument that the Haiti earthquake would not have killed so many people if they had proper building codes.

        Yes, he really said that.

  38. I wonder if the same progressives who want to ban “civilian” gun-ownership are perfectly content with NSA spying.

    I mean, if the government can make children safer from mass shooters by banning guns, why couldn’t it also make children safer from terrorists by spying on all social media?

    If it saves just one life…

    1. The ones in actual positions of power do, I’m sure. The people who vote for them probably aren’t that coherent in their ideology.

  39. “Accessibility to this kind of weaponry is the single most important factor in mass shootings.”

    “Access to cars is the single most important factor in drunk driving.”

    So… when are we going to ban cars?

    1. But I like cars. I don’t like guns.

      /personal preference = policy

    2. They can get away with the argument because most people don’t make use of guns on a regular basis in their normal lives, but do of cars.

  40. Well I have tried to leave this unconstitutional state before with no luck maybe I should try again. Anyone know of any jobs in a free state? I am stuck behind enemy lines!

    1. Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming are relatively free and there are still quite a lot of jobs in the Bakken region despite the crash in oil prices.

    2. New Hampshire is pretty free, and people in the Free state project are pretty happy to help you find a place/job if it gets you to move there.

  41. Based on actual conversations:

    A: If the US had fewer guns, there’d be fewer gun deaths.

    B: Switzerland and Israel have higher rates of gun ownership than the US and lower gun homicide rates.

    A: Those countries are completely different from the US so they don’t count.

    B: There are also many countries with much tighter gun laws that have much higher rates of gun homicide.

    A: Those countries are also completely different from the US so they don’t count.

    B: But even in the US, there are many large cities that have strict gun laws. Yet, the rates of gun homicide are much higher in those places.

    A: They get those guns from outside the cities.

    B: So? Even if guns were outlawed nationwide, that wouldn’t stop people from getting them. Marijuana is against the law too.

    A: Marijuana doesn’t kill people.

    B: So? Besides, if you’re worried about people getting killed, why aren’t you pushing for tougher driving laws? More people die from car accidents than from guns.

    A: Cars aren’t designed to kill people.

    B: Neither is a baseball bat, but it can be used to kill. Besides, most of the time, guns are used defensively without killing or even injuring the other person.

  42. A: You’re more likely to hurt yourself or a family member with a gun than use it defensively.

    B: If that’s true, why do police carry them? Why do celebrities hire body guards?

    A: Those people are trained to use guns.

    B: So am I. So why can’t I carry one like the police? Learning to use a gun safely isn’t harder than learning to drive a car.

    A: Here’s a video of a cop shooting himself in the foot. See? If cops make mistakes with guns, non cops would be even worse.

    B: The fact that some people use guns recklessly is no reason to outlaw them for all. Should we ban cars because of car accidents?

    A: I already said cars aren’t designed to kill people. The 2nd amendment only allows for people to have guns if they are in a militia like the National Guard.

    B: If that’s true, why do almost all state constitutions explicitly guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense?

    A: The 2nd amendment only allows people to own guns that were available in the 1700s.

    B: Does the 1st amendment only allow people to use communication devices that existed in the 1700s?

  43. A: You would let people own machine guns and flamethrowers.

    B: There are people who already do. Why not? If they aren’t used for crime, what’s the harm? By the way, almost all gun crime is done with handguns which are obtained illegally.

    A: You wouldn’t be able to protect yourself from government oppression with just handguns and rifles. They have tanks, planes, and so on.

    B: If that’s true, why do oppressive governments always outlaw private weapons? Our country was founded by people who fought off an oppressive government with simple weapons.

    A: I can see there’s no getting through to gun nuts like you. I hope you shoot yourself in a gun cleaning accident.

    B: OK. I’m glad would could talk about this like thinking people.

    1. The one silver lining in talking to gun control crazies is knowing they don’t have access to guns.

      1. Unless they are named Dennis Kucinich or Rosie O’Donnell.

        1. Or Carl Rowan.

    2. You wouldn’t be able to protect yourself from government oppression with just handguns and rifles. They have tanks, planes, and so on.

      If you have guns, you can get tanks, planes, etc.

      1. There is that. There is also the likelihood that military people would largely refuse to bomb lots of civilians in the US.
        And I think most importantly, lots of people with rifles and handguns would be able to stop tyrannical acts short of all out war on the civilian population. We all know how brave cops are. If lots of people started shooting back, I doubt they could keep up much of an attack for long.
        A few people or a small militia probably can’t stop the government in all of its force. But an armed population can. That’s why individual gun ownership is important as a reality and not just a principle.

  44. In December 2012, after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut

    Whenever I read this horrifying fact, I always think to myself, “My god, how can a person kill 26 people?”

    And then I realize: When they’re unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

  45. Speaking of retarded gun laws….

    this is what constitutes a NY-State SAFE-act compliant carbine

    Well done there, law. It looks like The Predator’s Dildo.

  46. You’ll have to take their recommendations from their cold, dead minds.

  47. Okay – how about this. I contend that a majority of emergency room visits are in some way connected to alcohol. That is: drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, or something related to a guy saying “hey, watch this!” In regards to this problem and for public safety as a whole, I propose – not to ban alcohol, (we tried that once before), but instead to stop selling six-packs of beer, fifths of hard liquor, and bottled wine. Instead, we should only sell three-packs of beer, pints of hard liquor, and quartinos of wine. This should solve the problem of too many emergency room visits forever!

    1. I can think of a way around this right now, but only because I’m sober!

  48. I don’t believe we have a need for guns that shoot more then ten rounds at a time, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when guns didn’t shoot more then a shot so, citing that doesn’t really apply to the amendment in that way.

    1. Not sure if serious. Do I really have to whip out when the First Amendment was written?

    2. The Girandoni air rifle developed in 1779 had a capacity of 20 rounds:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

      These rifles were just as powerful as black powder Brown Bess muskets and were used by Lewis & Clark during their expedition in 1804.

  49. DHS Admits: Staged Shootings in Malls.
    http://ppsimmons.blogspot.ca/2…..malls.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.