MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Calls for 'Commonsense' Gun Control Sound Senseless After Pittsburgh Shooting

Politicians' demands for stricter laws are notably lacking in detail and logic.

Amy Beth Bennett / Zuma Press / NewscomAmy Beth Bennett / Zuma Press / NewscomWithin hours of Saturday's massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue, Democratic politicians were calling for stricter gun control. As usual, their comments were notably lacking in detail and logic:

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, 12:02 p.m. ET Saturday: "We have been saying 'this one is too many' for far too long. Dangerous weapons are putting our citizens in harm's way."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 2:14 p.m. ET Saturday: "Thoughts and prayers are not enough—Congress must finally act on commonsense, bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation."

Former President Barack Obama, 5:54 p.m. ET Saturday: "We have to stop making it so easy for those who want to harm the innocent to get their hands on a gun."

In what way might the "commonsense, bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation" recommended by Pelosi and implicitly endorsed by Wolf and Obama have stopped Robert Bowers, the accused Pittsburgh gunman, from murdering 11 people?

The Associated Press reports that Bowers legally owned the Colt AR-15 SP1 rifle and the three Glock .357 handguns he used in the attack, which means he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. Hence "universal background checks" would not have helped.

A renewed federal "assault weapon" ban, such as the one backed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would have covered new rifles similar to Bowers' AR-15. But it would not have applied to more than 16 million Feinstein-disapproved rifles already owned by Americans (including the one owned by Bowers).

Even if the government could make all those guns magically disappear, there are plenty of equally deadly substitutes. A New York Times editorial published on Sunday claims bills like Feinstein's ban "high-capacity weapons," but that is not true. The features that distinguish the guns Feinstein wants to prohibit from the ones she would leave on the market (things like adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and pistol grips) have nothing to do with how many rounds a gun can fire before reloading (or with caliber or rate of fire).

It's true that Feinstein also wants to ban "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," meaning magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. But if pre-existing products would undermine Feinstein's ban on guns, they are an even bigger problem for her ban on "large capacity" magazines, tens of millions of which are already in circulation. Leaving that point aside, it is not clear that the need to switch magazines (or weapons) after firing 10 rounds would make much of a difference in attacks on unarmed people.

The Times also weirdly claims that "universal background checks" and "red-flag laws that take guns away from the mentally unstable" could "make attacks like the one on Tree of Life synagogue less deadly." The point of those policies is not to reduce the average death toll of such attacks but to prevent them altogether by depriving would-be mass murderers of the means to carry them out.

As I mentioned, background checks manifestly would not have prevented the Pittsburgh attack, because they did not prevent the Pittsburgh attack. What about a "red-flag law," which allows various parties (such as cops and relatives) to seek court orders prohibiting gun possession by people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others? It is hard to see how such a law could have made a difference in this case, unless anti-Semitic comments on social media platforms suffice to prove a gun owner poses a danger to public safety. If that were the standard, people could easily lose their Second Amendment rights for exercising their First Amendment rights.

The problem is not that gun controllers immediately take advantage of the latest bloody atrocity to push their policy agenda. The problem is that they do it so poorly. Depending on your perspective, maybe that is not really a problem at all.

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.

  • Longtobefree||

    The only common sense gun control is to repeal the second amendment.
    Do it or shut up.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    They know that if they did try to repeal the Second Amendment, they'd create enough backlash for a constitutional convention, and that scares them far more; plus, without the armed bogeyman, they'd lose a lot of fund raising.

    So they prefer the backdoor of deceitful judges who will just redefine it into mush.

  • LiborCon||

    The Second Amendment doesn't give us the Right to Keep and Bears Arms, it just announces that this right exists.

  • TxJack 112||

    What? That is exactly what it means. Go read the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution. What is the point of the amendment if the government can restrict or remove it? Then it is not a right, but a privilege. Why do you think the government can suspend your drivers license? It is a privilege not a right.

  • TxJack 112||

    The only problem with your premise is then we have no right to a trial by jury, protection from unreasonable search and seizures and a host of others. For your claim about the 2nd to be true they the government can restrict and nulify all of them.

  • jerryg1018||

    What you should have said was the Second Amendment enumerates a preexisting right. A right to own and use weapons to protect yourself. your home and family, your community and your country from aggressors.

  • IceTrey||

    The Constitution doesn't grant rights it merely enumerates a few considered important enough to list.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The Constitution doesn't grant rights it merely EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM ABRIDGING THOSE RIGHTS.

    FIFY

  • IceTrey||

    That too.

  • Johnny B||

    It only prohibits a government that doesn't get enough Supreme Court judges to redefine the right in the way they see fit.

  • chipper me timbers||

    that too

  • chipper me timbers||

    that too

    (possible squirrel situation here)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The constitution grants rights.

    The right to effective assistance of counsel.
    The right to a jury trial.
    The right to non-excessive bail.
    The right to just compensation from property taken by the state for public use.
    ....

  • Bob Straub||

    Yup.

  • TxJack 112||

    Actually the Constitution does not grant rights, but rather mandates the limits of the Federal government to restrict or ignore rights the Founders saw as natural rights. For example, the ones you outline are all rights they deemed to be mandatory if a nation calls itself "free". The argument was Britain claimed to be a parliamentary/democratic country and yet these were all rights they denied depending on the will of the Monarch or Parliament. The Founders argued you cannot be a government of free people and deny them these basic, natural rights. The 2nd amendment limits the ability of the government to restrict the basic, natural right of self defense. Self defense of your person from others who wish to harm you as well as protection from a government who might want to oppress you.

  • TxJack 112||

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment and there is nothing to stop the government from repealing the rest. Without the 2nd amendment all the rest become privileges granted at the discretion of the government and human history clearly shows governments are far more likely to deny and strip away rights than grant or expand them.

  • Just Say'n||

    "people could easily lose their Second Amendment rights for exercising their First Amendment rights."

    I don't think they'd have a problem with that since they seemed fine blaming "rhetoric" on violence all of a sudden (not after a Bernie Bro went on a shooting spree, though, which is weird in how predictable it was).

    "Speech equals violence" is bound to end up in the Democratic Party platform in the next four years.

  • Longtobefree||

    Time to point this out again:

    "We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, "

    But

    "We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time."

  • John||

    If you are worried about the safety of Jews in this country, the sensible thing to do is to disarm them. Hard to argue with top notch logic like that.

  • Longtobefree||

    Maybe provide safe enclosures with fences to keep out the bad guys?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Free camps!

  • John||

    Free camps that provide them with clean air, healthy living, and honest work.

  • KevinP||

    Honest work that makes them free.

  • IceTrey||

    Free cremation services for those that pass away while there.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Maybe we can give out some sort of...say armbands to show who belongs in the camp? And a different type of armband for those who operate the camps?

  • ||

    Or mark them with a unique identifier such that when they are killed, their family can be immediately notified and go in lock down...for safety.

  • Anomalous||

    Molon labe.

  • chipper me timbers||

    John this is one of my favorite comments you've ever made. Bravo

  • Kirk Solo||

    That's a hell of a solution

  • Bubba Jones||

    Disarm the Jews?

    Is that their stated answer?

  • FlameCCT||

    Progressive Dems haven't changed their policies; they still want to deny people their 2A Rights today just like they did to blacks including MLK throughout the decades!

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Funny how the folks touting "common sense" gun control never say anything specific as to what that means. Because they can't. Virtually anything you could propose is either flagrantly unconstitutional or wouldn't do anything about the minority of gun owners that want to do something illegal.

    Except for Feinstein, of course. I'm sure there's somebody in the government who is more hostile to the entire Bill of Rights than Feinstein is, but I'll be damned if I can name 'em.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I'm more inclined to think that they don't want to define "common sense gun control", rather than they can't. I think they are deliberately trying to keep the category as open-ended as possible.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. Anything that they suggested that would actually work would be such flagrant unconstitutional bullshit that if someone actually said it out loud everybody but the 20% of the country that are fanatically anti-gun would just laugh. And call bullshit on them. So they just posture knowing that nothing will ever come of it.

  • Jerryskids||

    "Commonsense" gun laws are gun laws that work. If they don't work then they weren't commonsensical enough. And if you think that gun laws that work are as illusory a quest as socialism that works, you don't have enough faith in Government Almighty. If we can put a man on the Moon, surely we can remodel human nature.

  • TxJack 112||

    Because what they pretend is common sense is anything but reasonable. The only solution they actually have is banning or severely restricting access to firearms. California and New York have some of the most reatrictive laws in the country. Has a single law in California stopped one mass shooting in the past 5 years? No. Has a total ban stopped the violence in Chicago? No. How many people have been killed by vehicles in western Europe in the past three years? The two largest mass killings in the country used no guns. One used airplanes and the other a truck, diesel fuel and fertilizer. People intent on mass murder will find the tools.

  • Naaman Brown||

    As the sunset of the Federal 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban approached, both the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council (NRC) did reviews of peer-reviewed academic research into impact of gun control laws on criminal violence. (The NRC review was chaired by Steven Levitt a noted critic of pro-gun researcher John Lott, so the bias in the research review was not pro-gun.)

    Both reviews concluded that there was no proof that any firearms control law or policy influenced firearms violence.

    So to stop bad behavior by bad people using guns, we need more laws like the ones that don't impact gun violence but made a lot of people vote for Trump.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Commonsense? Mwah-hahahahaha!

    Ignore research that would pass the door of the American Society of Criminology as a working paper, or be published by an academic journal under classification K42 Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law after review by peer referees.

    Answer the call of op-eds and politicians to do something against guns to show you care.

    After Beatles White Albums were burned after the Manson Family Helter Skelter Murders there have been no more Helter Skelter Murders. Voodoo Criminology works. You just have to believe.

  • KevinP||

    Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'


    Quote:
    President Obama on Thursday made an impassioned case that gun violence is "something we should politicize" following a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon.

    Obama chided opponents of gun control legislation, including those who argue the country needs more guns to prevent mass shootings. And he urged proponents of stricter gun laws to vote for political candidates who share their views.

    "Each time this happens, I'm going to bring this up," Obama said. "Each time this happens, I am going to say we can actually do something about it."

    In a veiled jab at the NRA, Obama asked American gun owners to consider "whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Obama chided opponents of gun control legislation, including those who argue the country needs more guns to prevent mass shootings.

    I don't think anyone is necessarily arguning that "the country needs more guns to prevent mass shootings" but it wouldn't be an Obama speech without some massive strawmen being set ablaze.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Obama wasn't really speaking to American gun owners. He is just encouraging anti-gunners to believe there is less opposition to anti-gun laws than there appears to be. Obama flipped off American gun owners years ago when he accused them of irrationally(in his view) "clinging to their guns and their God". Obama doesn't care what gun owners think; he views them as irrational, and his comments are just a cynical manipulation of his political base.

  • KevinP||

    Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'


    Quote:
    President Obama on Thursday made an impassioned case that gun violence is "something we should politicize" following a mass shooting at a community college in Oregon.

    Obama chided opponents of gun control legislation, including those who argue the country needs more guns to prevent mass shootings. And he urged proponents of stricter gun laws to vote for political candidates who share their views.

    "Each time this happens, I'm going to bring this up," Obama said. "Each time this happens, I am going to say we can actually do something about it."

    In a veiled jab at the NRA, Obama asked American gun owners to consider "whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    BREAKING NEWS: POLITICIANS USE TRAGEDY TO FURTHER PERSONAL GOALS

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    omg this new era of unprecedented incivility has to end

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The features that distinguish the guns Feinstein wants to prohibit from the ones she would leave on the market (things like adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and pistol grips) have nothing to do with how many rounds a gun can fire before reloading (or with caliber or rate of fire).

    "Stop gunsplaining!"

  • John||

    Don't use their complete ignorance of the topic to get in the way of the narrative!!

  • Naaman Brown||

    If it was not for "gunsplaining" we would have had a common sense ban on high capacity magazines years ago.

    You see, the argument of the congresscritter was that, after the ban, once the bullets in existing magazines were used up, the guns that used them would be useless.

    Then some gunsplainer showed how, once a magazine was empty, you took "bullets" (cartridges) and reloaded the magazine and the gun was still useful even with a ban on new magazines.

    Then a guncontrol explainer for the politician said, you are misrepresenting the bill. Obviously magazines can be reloaded. The bill actually bans high capacity clips. With a ban on high capacity clips, once the bullets in existing clips were used up, the guns that used them would be useless.

    Then some gunsplainer showed how, once a clip was empty, you took "bullets" (cartridges) and reloaded the clip and the gun that used clips was still useful even with a ban on new clips.

    I guess to get common sense gun legislation, the first step needs be a ban on gunsplaining by gunsplainers.

    (Did anyone get the memo that the Virginia Tech murderer killed 35 people using guns with low capacity magazines, 10 shots each?)

  • TxJack 112||

    Timothy McVeigh killed 169 people with a truck, diesel fuel and fertilizer. He had no gun..

  • Sigivald||

    The problem is not that gun controllers immediately take advantage of the latest bloody atrocity to push their policy agenda. The problem is that they do it so poorly.

    The problem is they want to ban guns.

    And won't admit it, because that's electoral/political poison.

    But their choices and illogic and occasional unguarded statement all make it obvious.

    They do not want "sensible gun control", except where they get to define "sensible gun control" as "banning essentially all, if not eventually all, guns".

    "Nobody wants to take your guns" is either a simple lie or deeply convenient ignorance.

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem is they seek to punish people who have committed no crime for the crimes of others. Gun grabbers always love to compare gun rights to driving, so lets do just that and see if this is "reasonable". Would people happily agree to undergo a check of the driving record as well as be required to prove they are a safe and competent driver before being allowed to purchase a new car? If found to have, too many accidents, any DUI conviction and too many speeding tickets would prevent them from purchasing or owning a car, would people agree? If every time a drunk driver in a city kills someone, the entire city/town would be required to have their vehicle fitted with a Breathalyzer for 5 yrs, to prevent any possible drunk driving would people agree? The simple truth is when you attempt to use the same mentality for guns on cars, it is easy to see their proposals are anything but reasonable.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Jacob, there is no such thing as a Glock .357 pistol.
    They probably mean .357 Sig, a cartridge attempting to replicate the performance of .357 revolver rounds in autoloading pistols.

  • Bubba Jones||

    There are Glocks chambered in .357 Sig.

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Sorry, I should have said Glocks do come in .357 Sig flavor.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If we do not have common sense gun control, that means the gun control we have is not common sense.

    And yet, these people do not support repealing the 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.

  • Truthteller1||

    We have commonsense gun control.

  • Truthteller1||

    We have commonsense gun control.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Gun absolutists are like anti-abortion absolutists . . . destined to fail because they hitched their political fortunes to the wrong political party in an America that becomes less backward, less rural, less white, less intolerant, and less religious every day.

    Carry on, clingers . . . while you still can, anyway. Feel free to consult the obituaries -- stale-thinking, intolerant, old conservatives dying each day, replaced in our electorate by younger and better Americans who have no use for a party branded with bigotry, superstition, and backwardness -- to determine how long that is to be.

  • John||

    Yeah, violent retards like you have fantasies about the deaths of everyone who disagrees with them. Disarming myself sounds like such a good idea.

    Thanks for reminding everyone why an armed public is so important.

  • TuIpa||

    He's used to taking on fetuses John.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I am quite content to wait while America's vestigial bigots and other old, stale, right-wing kooks die off from old age so they can be replaced in our electorate by better Americans. Time will sift this to my liking.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I no longer take you seriously. You are either a parody pillorying yourself or a really stupid troll who likes to offend and get others riled up. Either way you are a joke.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Or free speech absolutists. Or Fourth Amendment absolutists. Those pesky people who insist that our rights be left alone by the fucking government. Fuck those assholes. Amiright??

  • TuIpa||

    Isn't it interesting that he admits not only that he is afraid to come after guns himself, but that he is waiting on other peoples children to do it for him.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    In addition to all his other well documented short comings, he's also a pussy.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Pussy is useful and entertaining. AK, not so much. :)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is difficult to find many free speech absolutists outside incels' basements. Child pornography alone disqualifies nearly all players.

  • TuIpa||

    "younger and better Americans who have no use for a party branded with bigotry, superstition, and backwardness -- to determine how long that is to be."

    I'm surprised you'd admit the Democrats are in trouble like that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I am not overconfident about Democrats' long-term prospects in America.

    I recognize that if conservatives perfect a machine that mass-produces poorly educated, easily frightened, economically inadequate, bigoted, superstitious, rural, elderly white males, and Republicans figure a way to register these newly hatched yahoos to vote, Democrats could be in real trouble.

    Otherwise, not so much.

    Carry on, clingers. Build that machine!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I often have a hard time following your screeds, but I think I understand that in this case you are referring to the public education system. Correct?

  • TxJack 112||

    You know, I always enjoy your characterization of me and other conservatives. I especially the arrogant assumptions about my education, values and elitist view of those outside cities. Newsflash, the only bigots I ever interact with are people such as you. To make such broad assumptions about any group of people based solely on one or two characteristics and then use them to attach many other, negative traits is the defintion of bigotry. See I am not uneducated but yes, I did grow up in a rural area. I am not a racist and accept people for who they are, even arrogant jackasses such as you.

  • Husker2099||

    You DO realize it was the REPUBLICAN party that voted to end slavery. The KKK was an offshoot of the Democratic party......Dude, history speaks for itself. If a belief in basic rights, higher ethics and morals makes me a "clinger" I guess I am a clinger. Educate yourself. Seriously, here's a link. Feel free to fact check it.......

    http://russp.us/racism.htm

  • JrJr||

    I guess this is sarcasm (?), not really sure......
    Anyway...so believing in the 2nd makes you a bigot, white, intolerant, rural, religious, superstitious & backward...?
    You couldnt be more wrong.
    Oh well....go fuck yourself.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Not sarcasm. Retardation, definitely. My theory is this dipshit is what happens when people huff a lot of paint and eat too much glue as children.

  • John||

    That and eating paint chips as a child.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I support the Second Amendment, you bigoted rube. I am not a mindless absolutist, though.

  • JrJr||

    "I support the Second Amendment, you bigoted rube."
    Don't seem like you do you support it, you bigoted jackass
    Go fuck yourself

  • TxJack 112||

    Dont waste your time. The "Rev" is without a doubt on e of the most arrogant leftist troll who posts here regularly. Talking to him is like talking to a tree except at least the the tree has some useful purpose.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.30.18 @ 4:43PM|#
    "Gun absolutists are like anti-abortion absolutists"

    No, asshole, they're like "speech absolutists". Even an idiotic asshole like you can understand that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I have never met a speech absolutist.

    I don't hang around much at 'get a GED' classes, backwater militia meetings, snake-juggling revival meetings, or incel support groups, though.

  • Duke of url||

    The difference between planned parenthood and the NRA?
    One sells arms, the other defends the second amendment.

  • TxJack 112||

    Keep dreaming. You may be correct in your world but I know many young people who are conservative and support gun rights. I think it is ironic you only point tomone side as absolutists when they exist on both. I want ask one simple question. Since states like California have made it clear if the people of a state beleive the actions of the Federal government is unjust, they can simply ignore it, what do you plan to do if all guns were banned and a state like Texas decided to ignore the law?! You cannot argue there is no precedent since one clearly exists. Do you plan to send in the military? Oops cant do that because of the Potus Comitatus Act of 1878 makes this illegal without an Act of Congress or change to Constitution. Who do you plan to use to enforce this ban? What if the military refuses?

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Arthur, I didn't hitch my political fortunes to the Republican Party. I was driven to it by the Democratic Party and their efforts to repeal the Second Amendment. Not legitimately of course. They pass laws and regulations and Democratic and hoplophobic judges let them stand despite the violation of the Second Amendment.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The problem is not that gun controllers immediately take advantage of the latest bloody atrocity to push their policy agenda. The problem is that they do it so poorly. Depending on your perspective, maybe that is not really a problem at all.

    Yeah, I don't really see that as a problem.

    Just keep tilting at that same windmill in the same way after every one of these shootings, gun grabbers. Fucking idiots.

  • Rich||

    Surely the opioid epidemic will produce a few Precogs that can serve as "commonsense gun control".

  • IceTrey||

    The sad thing is PA has fairly lax gun laws including unlicensed open carry so a lot of those people could have been armed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    II Amendment:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Any gun control is unconstitutional as per the 2A and the 14A to the states.

  • chipper me timbers||

    fair enough but you can also apply that to nearly every law and regulation in the federal code. They're basically all unconstitutional especially since the misreading of the Commerce Clause began in the 30s....

  • Lost in the Woods||

    "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 2:14 p.m. ET Saturday: 'Thoughts and prayers are not enough—Congress must finally act on commonsense, bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation.'" And just when I thought maybe Nancy has found a new respect for the Constitution, with her earlier comments supporting the 14th amendment. Oh well. I guess she only likes the Constitution when it suits her. At least she is on record as acknowledging it exists.

  • esteve7||

    At least this is the one issue that Reason hasn't jumped off the deep end over

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The solution is obvious.

    In fact, I came up with the solution over twenty years ago.

    I reiterated this solution ten years ago, in the aftermath of another tragic shooting.

    http://blackpoliticalthought.w.....alifornia/

    It is clear that conventional law enforcement is not up to the job of protecting people. If you are going after a rabid junkyard dog, you do not go in there with ASPCA rules; you take the leash off your own bigger, meaner dog. What we needed then, and what we need now, is Los Angeles to be placed under martial law, to be administered by the Army. Soldiers would be given immunity from state and local laws and they would have authority to conduct searches, detain people, and do other things that they see fit to deal with this crisis on our streets.

    We are at war here.

    Why are we not deploying troops?

    why are we not taking the leash off?

  • SimpleRules||

    I like it.

    Give them the only solution that might work and the one they dare not take. Your move.

  • loki||

    Escape from L.A.?

  • loki||

    Escape from L.A.?

  • loki||

    Escape from L.A.?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "But it would not have applied to more than 16 million Feinstein-disapproved rifles already owned by Americans (including the one owned by Bowers)."

    Citation on the 16 million figure? I've come across a range of estimates [on AR platforms alone] from half that to twice that number.

  • Jerry B.||

    Ah, Liberals.

    "The 14th Amendment absolutely guarantees birthright citizenship. It's in the Constitution."

    "The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms because it's outdated and I don't agree with it."

  • jerryg1018||

    The Left Wing gun grabber's "common sense" gun controls are merely incremental steps to total gun control by repealing the Second Amendment or cluttering gun ownership with so many statutory regulations as to make it virtually impossible to own a firearm. Those of you old enough to remember the 1994 Assault Weapons ban that began as a ban on "scary rifles with military characteristics" and turned into an all out assault on every type of firearm, knives, bows and arrows and even sling shots by amending the law to include those items. Amendments were also offered to require gun owners to purchase multi-million dollar insurance policies, various gun storage requirements from the purchase of expensive gun safes to public storage of private firearms with restricted access.

  • ArmyATC||

    Yup. Those who want to ban guns fully realize you don't eat the elephant in one bite. My theory is, the main reason the AR-15 is as popular as it is,

    1. It is seen as "America's Rifle" and
    2. The 1989 and 1998 import bans that cut off supplies of great rifles from overseas markets.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    3. They are constantly the subject of a potential ban.

  • Salero21||

    "One man with a gun can control one hundred without one." — Vladimir Lenin
    "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." — Vladimir Lenin

  • pro bonobo||

    Personally, I like the Mini-14 over the AR-15 variants. Cheaper and I like wood... plus the added feature that it has not made it to any of the "assault weapons" banning lists. The Garand action is also America's Rifle, whether by Ruger, Springfield Armory or Ford

    I'm surprised the state of the Rhode v. Becerra lawsuit doesn't get mention... it's being upheld by the Federal judge who stayed the enforcement of the large (as if anything over 10 rounds is large) magazine ban in the law approved by California voters on 2nd Amendment grounds, and is challenging the ban against out of state sellers of ammunition on Commerce Clause grounds.

    With the current Supremes, I'm feeling really good about its prospects. I'll feel better if another on the left side of reality either quits or is carried out (natural causes only, please), and is replaced by an originalist/textualist.

  • cravinbob||

    First we need to inform these highly intelligent lawmakers that "common sense" does not exist so stop saying it.
    Then have them list what laws actually stop people from becoming criminals or is it that laws only provide for punishment.
    Plus ask them to tear down all the protective features they have installed all over Capital Hill. Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech with a bullet in his chest that had been fired at him moments before he went to the podium.
    Gun control advocates are suffering from a phobia and do not understand that The Bill of Rights is a permanent part of The Constitution and if they cannot recall all of their own laws those ten Rights are easily remembered-just ask themselves "would I want this done to me?"
    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms mean any and all types, none are barred, the definition of "arms" is "arms" just as it does say the Right of SOME people...

  • TxJack 112||

    The funniest aspect of "common sense gun control" is the inability of the anti gun zealots to define it. When asked they always say the same thing: ban "assault weapons and hi cap magzines", close gun show loophole and universal background checks on all sales. First the ban is pointless because there are already over 15 AR platform rifles in private hands as well as tens of millions of hi cap magazines. Second the gun show loophole is a myth and has been proven to be a lie by multiple investigations including federal investigations. Lastly universal background checks sound great except it would be impossible to enforce and unless the gun was used in a crime, there would never be any proof off a transfer

  • TxJack 112||

    The funniest aspect of "common sense gun control" is the inability of the anti gun zealots to define it. When asked they always say the same thing: ban "assault weapons and hi cap magzines", close gun show loophole and universal background checks on all sales. First the ban is pointless because there are already over 15 AR platform rifles in private hands as well as tens of millions of hi cap magazines. Second the gun show loophole is a myth and has been proven to be a lie by multiple investigations including federal investigations. Lastly universal background checks sound great except it would be impossible to enforce and unless the gun was used in a crime, there would never be any proof off a transfer

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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