Friday, January 11, 2013

The Slippery Slope Redux

Probably the most "misunderstood" battle line in this current war is our insistence on no ammunition capacity limits for magazines. The strategy we've been pursuing is two-fold — there are so many standard capacity magazines out there that any such legislation would be an unenforceable joke; secondly, all guns are made to be reloaded quickly and efficiently, therefore any arbitrary magazine capacity limit can not and will not achieve what its backers expect.

As a commenter noted on yesterday's post, that strategy is not without obvious risk. We've gone down that path because it seemed and still seems like the best way to derail the proposed legislation...remember, our goal is to WIN this battle, if we have to win ugly, we'll win ugly.

I think, however, that we need to start moving toward the core argument — stated simply, if we say it's okay with us for the government to say how many cartridges we can have in our firearms at any one time, then we give the government the right to set that number at "ZERO!"

And it will. We already see that process happening. Connecticut Bill #122: Restrict All Guns to a Single Shot :
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: 
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round. 
And from Andrew Cuomo in his New York "State of the State" address yesterday:
“I say to you forget the extremists. It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer and too many people have died already,” Cuomo said.
Wow...that didn't take long! Less than a month from 10 rounds to one round. How long do you think it will take to get from one round to no rounds? There is no "reasonable" gun control, no "national conversation on guns," no "third way," no "middle ground." There is only an all-out war over civilian disarmament. Period. I've had gun owners contact me and ask about how they can argue 30 round magazines with other gun owners who are with us on no registration (registration always leads to confiscation), on no AWB ban (the AR is the most popular rifle in America and no different from any other semi auto rifle, including the Ruger 10/22), but waffling on magazine capacity. This is your argument, and, please, show them the examples from CT and NY!

Some interesting news from WSJ Online:
Despite the press's exuberant efforts to cast congressional gun supporters as having changed their minds, there has been no actual movement. Senate Democrat Joe Manchin caused a media sensation when he declared, immediately after Sandy Hook, that nobody needed "30 rounds in a clip." Less reported was that it took the Democrat about the time necessary for your average West Virginian to drive to a ballot box to clarify that statement and to add that he's "so proud of the NRA." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even with the press's best efforts to parse his remarks, has committed himself to nothing more than a "thoughtful debate." 
... Over in the House, when asked recently what was more likely—passage of gun control or Speaker John Boehner becoming a pagan—a senior GOP leadership aide told Buzzfeed: "Probably the latter."
Another data point from Yahoo News, a largely liberal news outlet, under the headline of, "Is an Assault Weapons Ban Out of Reach?":
But Biden's omission of the ban from his description of his package of proposals on Thursday suggests an assault weapons ban is out of reach. (It's still possible that the ban could be included in Biden's final proposal, which will be announced Tuesday, and both Biden and Obama have voiced support for the ban on other occasions in the past few weeks.) A lot has changed since 1994—including public opinion,the legal landscape and the political might of the NRA. 
"I don't think a ban on assault weapons—which is a ban on some of the most popular rifles in America—is likely to get support," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and Second Amendment expert.
From ABC News, thoughs on the Administration backing away from an AWB and NRA commentary:
But opponents of such a ban predicted it would not have the votes to pass in Congress. David Keene, president of the NRA, speaking on NBC Friday morning, said he doesn’t believe there will be an assault weapons ban. Congress won’t support it, he argued, and from his view it did nothing to stop violence when it was passed in 1994. “I do not think there is going to be a ban on so-called assault weapons passed by Congress,” he said.
Remember, these are only data points. You are a member of the NRA, aren't you? If not, JOIN NOW! Yesterday I called Colorado's 2 Senators and wrote a long letter to the Governor. What have you done this week to save the Second Amendment? What are you going to do next week to keep the pressure on Washington and your state governments? We must keep the pressure cooker building up! All of us need to be on the same page!

The next big administration push will be to separate the shooters from the hunters! Don't fall for propaganda (like, for instance, that Gabby Gifford's organization is "moderate." It is the same crap in a different sack). I think they'll fail — if we stick together!

UPDATE: We are hearing that an AWB and "universal" background checks will be part of the final package that the White House will send to Congress, according to senior officials.


Jake said...

Why should a teacher defending a school from a mass shooter only be allowed 10 rounds at a time to do so?

Why should a woman cornered in a deserted parking garage by a group of degenerate scum be restricted in how many rounds she can use at a time to save her life?

Should a father facing men beating down his front door in the middle of the night not be allowed every conceivable advantage available to do so?

I can only understand the calls for a magazine capacity limit when all that is looked at is the offensive use of guns by evil degenerate scum. Why are we not pressing every second of every day to point out justified defensive use? I teach every Boy Scouts that moves through my troop that fire can be used for both good and evil, and consequently I do the same with firearms. Yes, evil and harm are done with firearms (and fire), but likewise firearms (and fire) also do a lot of good. We need to keep pressing the defensive/righteous-use narrative if we're ever going to have any hope of changing the hearts and minds of those that are buying into the too-dangerous/public-safety tripe that the gun-control advocates press at every turn.

APismoClam said...

What I want to know is, why do anti-gunners get a free pass when they say that 10 is magic number for magazine capacity that would make them happy. WTF? What scientific studies can they point to in support of that statement? They can't because there is no evidence on the face of this earth supporting their position that 10 rounds should be fine but 11 or more is unnecessarily dangerous and should be illegal. It is just a number that the anti's pulled out of their asses, on their way to ultimately reduce that number to zero, as Michael has written.

Any law that is "arbitrary and capricious" is invalid and unjust, according to most courts in this country. It is arbitrary and capricious for someone to pull a number out of their ass and say you can't have any more than that because it won't make me feel good. Laws written by emotion and without the care of reason are the most dangerous to our liberty by far.

I'm with Michael. We cannot budge an inch on this! Total disarmament is their ultimate goal.

Anonymous said...

I wish someone would ask this: If a police officer needs a Glock with a 17 round magazine to defend himself, why doesn't a citizen need a 17 round magazine to defend himself?

Fiftycaltx said...

The simple answer to all this bullshit is "Amend the Constitution". No 'magazine ban", no "semiauto ban". no nothing. Change the Constitution or STFU.

Anonymous said...

What did I do this week to save the 2nd Amemdment? (1) I contacted my congressman and both senators. (2) I asked my daughter to do the same and she did. Yes, we are both NRA members. She also told everyone she works with to do the same. (3) I am joining my state rifle association.

xpo172 said...

I think we should turn this around and start writing to our reps for LESS gun control. Let's get the gun grabbers back on their heels.

- Get silencers off the NFA
- Remove SBRs from the NFA
- Outlaw "gun free zones" except on private property
- National concealed carry
- Open carry (at least in Tx)
- Tougher prosecution of existing gun laws. (fast and furious)
- Tax incentives for buying gun safes and training.
- Gun safety education in schools (Eddie Eagle)

Anonymous said...

The "slippery slope" is just the way we over here in europe lost the majority of our gun rights and still continue to loose them until nothing is left.
The "divide and conquer" tactic allowed the governments to split all possible groups (hunters, recreational shooters, collectors, airsoft players and even video gamers) and to enrage them against each other. At the end, the government got everything it wanted, which is: CONTROL
Fight for your rights, or they will be gone in the blink of an eye!