Fiancee Of Giffords Shooting Victim Works Hill As Gun Control Group Releases Chilling New Ad

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post



WASHINGTON -- One of the nation’s most powerful gun-control advocacy groups is out with a new ad, and a symbolic new spokesperson, in an effort to persuade Congress to outlaw clips that allow up to 32 shots without reloading.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence put out the new spot on Tuesday morning calling directly on President Obama to take a stand against high-capacity magazines -- the clip used by Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Tucson.

In conjunction with the ad’s release, the group is deploying a powerful new congressional liaison. Kelly O'Brien, fiancee of Gabe Zimmerman, the Giffords' staffer killed by Loughner, will be on the Hill Tuesday to endorse legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) banning high-capacity magazines.

O’Brien’s entrance into the debate over gun control legislation carries the same type of emotional undertones that accompanied the founding of the Brady Campaign itself. Once titled Handgun Control, Inc., the group evolved into its current incarnation and namesake after James Brady, a top aide to President Ronald Reagan who was permanently disabled during an assassination attempt on the President.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/fiancee-of-giffords-victim-works-hill-gun-control_n_847929.html

---

Ban Assault Clips Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

2. That ad mirrors exactly what happened.

[cleanhippie]

6. And?

It was tragic, yet extremely rare event. Banning high-cap mags will do nothing to stop illegal shootings.

[alfredo]

95. But it will force the killer to reload more often. As you remember

it was the pause as he reloaded that allowed his capture.

[rl6214]

127. If you didn't know, Cho, the VA Tech shooter reloaded 17 times

using standard 10 round magazines and killed 32 people. How would a ban on higher capacity magazines stop that?

[alfredo]

167. It depends on the situation. In the Tucson attack he

was in a crowd. His victims were nearby. Most were adults, some veterans.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

201. So if you restrict his items perhaps he changes his tactics...

You can't simply say "wihout a highcap Loughner would have killed fewer people" because you cannot his reaction to the new "rules" of the game.

What if lougher decided to use New-York-style reloads (two pistols, one always ready and loaded while reloading the other so the shooter is never unable to shoot)? Or loughner could have used more distance and a rifle. Or Loughner could have used an off-the-shelf shotgun which holds more pellets and shoots them faster than any pistol ever could empty its magazine. Maybe he fills a few barrels with fertilizer/fuel and blows everyone up instead.

The fact of the matter is that advocating limiting magazine size to thwart people like Loughner is a logical fallacy in that the proposal doesn't take into account a changing strategy given the changed conditions... some strategies which may be even more detrimental. And, given current supply, any criminal will likely just obtain a prohibited item for illicit use anyways... meaning the ban was useless.

[alfredo]

211. Levels of expertise varies from one to another.

[GreenStormCloud]

223. All the levels needed are very basic.

The decision to carry an extra gun does take an expert. Reloading is extremely simple.

[alfredo]

228. I know it is simple, but no matter how much you rehearse

your lines, when on stage there's always the change to draw a blank.

[GreenStormCloud]

232. Hoping an active shooter will screw up a magazine change is an extremely thin hope. N/T

[alfredo]

233. Better than having no hope.

[GreenStormCloud]

234. A better hope is to get training and carry a gun yourself. N/T

[alfredo]

237. There were other guns there at Tucson, but weren't drawn.

He had the drop on them, so they couldn't respond without being killed too.

[GreenStormCloud]

209. Same with the Ft. Hood shooter. He reloaded often. N/T

[alfredo]

212. He had military training and familiarity with the people and place.

[RSillsbee]

215. The Ft Hood Shooter was a Psychiatrist

And I'm going to bet he was assigned to MEDDAC which is about as close to not being in the Army as you can get and still wear BDUs to work. I would just about bet that he never even went to a qualification range or took a PT test or ever went to the field. IOW he had about as much "military training " as loughner did

[alfredo]

219. Reports came out that he had been doing weapons training.

I was ASA, and under control of a civilian agency, but I still had to go through basic military training.

It's not hard to find firing ranges around military bases.

[RSillsbee]

229. You may have been ASA

But you weren't a Dr. that's a whole different breed. Dr.s go to OBC at Ft. Sam Houston where they are taught Military Customs and not too much else. When I was assigned to MEDDAC we didn't even have weapons or a unit arms room and we were ( as a whole) 100% non deployable.

Dr.s can be overweight, have long hair (w/ in reason) beards, they can be amputees, they can be older than dirt and still be in the Army because the Army is short on Dr.s especially specialist Dr.s

[GreenStormCloud]

218. It doesn't take training to shoot unarmed people, nor to reload.

Reloading is easy. Push button and old magazine drops clear, other hand inserts new magazine, your are ready to shoot some more.

[alfredo]

220. To do it smoothly while under extreme stress does take

some training.

[GreenStormCloud]

224. You are trying to make it sound like it takes an expert to be an active shooter.

The amount of training required is very minor. Guns are designed to be easy to operate under stress.

[alfredo]

227. But the placement of the clips, and other details can give

just enough time for a bystander to escape or attack. It has to be practiced. Doing it in a shooting range and doing in the heat of "battle" are two different things. That's all I am saying. A split second was all it took for the heroes of Tucson to act. In practice he might have been much quicker, but in that heady moment, he may have fumbled just long enough to give an opening. How many lives might have been saved if he had to do that reload at ten shots?

What purpose does a 30 round clip serve that a 10 round clip couldn't serve?

I've been around gun play (in Detroit) and it wasn't more than a couple rounds fired off before the parties ran away.

I've been shot at. They guy had a six shooter. He emptied it and missed. I was too far away and I guess the mixture of a gun only good for close quarters, a bad shot, and only 5-6 chances at me saved my life. I don't remember how many shots, because by the second round I was in full flight. I can still hear the sound of the rounds passing through the weeds.

[RSillsbee]

230. Luby's Cafeteria

According to Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp George Henard was very calm and methodical as he went from person to person (w/his back to several at most times) executing them. She stated that he went from person to person , deliberately aimed and fired. When her father rushed him Henard simply turned, shot him in the chest and continued on.

Henard was Armed w/ a Ruger and a Glock ( 10 and 15 rounds respectively) and stopped to reload several times. She stated , very clearly , in her address to Congress WRT the first AWB (you know, the one that lost us control of the house for 10 years?) that it took Henard less than one second to reload and there was not time to rush him between magazine changes.

[GreenStormCloud]

231. Clearing a jam takes longer than a split second.

Reloading is very simple, very fast , and requires very little practice. Because guns are intended to be used in combat they are designed to be extremely simple to operate. They are also designed to be extremely reliable because fixing a malfunction while in combat is not something you want to have to do. Even a simple failure to feed jam requires a magazine extraction, hold the slide back and shake the loose round out, remember to hold the slide catch lever up, release the slide, insert fresh magazine, release slide. That is a lot to do under stress and competent handgunners practice clearing a jam. Even with everything going well it can take me five seconds or longer.

Reliability of feeding is important. It is well known among competent gunners that extended magazines, especially the 30+ round kind are prone to failure to feed. Since he had a 33 rd magazine and only fired 31 rounds and was tackled while the slide was back it is almost certain that he was attempting to clear a jam. Be thankful that he did have a monster magazine instead of a reliable standard magazine. With a standard magazine he could have quickly reloaded and kept on shooting. The VT killer did. The Luby's killer did. The Ft. Hood killer did. They all used standard magazines.

[Starboard Tack]

203. How do you know that? Are you clairvoyant?

[GreenStormCloud]

210. One does not have to be clairvoyant to know that people change methods...

...to respond to changing conditions.

[RSillsbee]

166. I'm sorry but that ad made me laugh my ASS off

Assualt Clips? seriously? The world itsself does not contain that much fail

[matt819]

9. But is it wrong?

Does an assault clip allow the user to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds? Yes.
Is an assault clip necessary for self defense? No.
Does it have any other purpose other than allowing someone to kill as quickly and indiscriminately? Yes
Is this an appeal to emotion? Sure. What are you going to do? Make an intellectual argument for a pressing need to purchase these over the counter? Give me a break.

[WatsonT]

15. To justify a ban

the burden of proof lies with the one pushing it, not everyone else to refute it.

Everything should be available and legal unless a compelling reason can be made for it to be illegal.

Like say a study linking people who legally buy these clips to increased rates of murder. One will not be presented because such a link doesn't exist.

You don't get to ban things because your gut says it's a good idea. We tried that with prohibition and it was a terrible idea. So present facts to back such a ban.

[forty6]

103. "the burden of proof lies with the one pushing it" WHY?

What possible benefit to society are these inventions?

Let's invent more deadly gases, more bazooka's more atomic weapons...just because we can!

And when we invent these deadly things, let's challenge everyone in the nation to come up with a "burden of proof" for banning them....otherwise, let any legally "sane" adult own them, it's a free country!

You see how silly your argument can be?

The only "burden of proof" needed is their deadliness. "Quod erat demonstratum"

[lawodevolution]

136. High cap magazines have nothing to do with the other things you listed

High cap magazines are not dangerous and are not evil. There is no need to ban them just because you are afraid of them.

[forty6]

161. Other than their common intended use: to kill human beings. n/t

[Glassunion]

169. Exactly!

That's why only the police, government agencies and some select civilians should only be allowed to have them: to kill human beings.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Damnit, mine must all be broken.

I want my money back.

[lawodevolution]

200. So you think magazines kill people?

[Callisto32]

159. The funny part....

is that you think you made an argument.

[beevul]

195. Because thats how our society works.

All things are allowed until and unless they are forbidden.

The burden of proof, when it comes to changing a thing from allowed to forbidden, therefore, lies with the people pushing to make a thing forbidden.


In this case, expect resistance, and ultimately failure, in forbidding "assault clips".


And rightfully so.

[LanternWaste]

117. I've never read that as the reason for prohibition

"You don't get to ban things because your gut says it's a good idea. We tried that with prohibition..."

I've never read "feeling good" as the reason for prohibition, let alone a primary reason; I've read that its originators pushed for its passage as a means to destroy the political corruption of the saloons, the political power of the German-based brewing industry, and the need to reduce domestic violence in the home as reasons cited (Max Henius 'The Error in the National Prohibition Act', & 'Alcohol, State and Society' by Stephen White), but certainly not the precise reason you yourself cited.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

46. nonsense

Assault clip is a Frank Luntz/Josh Sugarmann propaganda buzz word. Do you know anything about guns yourself, or just parroting the ad?
Someone who has little or know knowledge on a subject has no business telling someone who does "what they need"
Some target completions use them.
This is an emotional appeal because there is no intellectual argument for banning them.
Emotional appeals based on disinformation or lack of information never makes good policy.

[Travelman]

89. + 10,000

Spot on.

[Callisto32]

158. Last I checked...

the burden of proof/production rests upon a prohibitionist.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. You forgot 'does an assault clip exist'

because no, it does not.

[GreenStormCloud]

225. The U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs and you are not the Needs Czar.

Does an assault clip allow the user to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds? Yes. That same rate of fire can be done with 10 rd magazines. Reloading a semi-auto is fast. They are designed to be quickly and easily reloaded. "Assault clip" is just a gun controllers scarry name for it.

Is an assault clip necessary for self defense? No. Until the situation arises I have no idea how many shots I will need. There was a recent posting of a guy that had to defend himself against four armed attackers. He shot all four but ran out of ammo also. He had a 12 rd magazine.

[onehandle]

11. Those 'people.' With their 'emotions.'

'Pfft, Rebel scum!'

[Maineman]

13. Gun violence is not emotional ???

Killing or injuring dozens of people very quickly is not emotional?

[Maineman]

20. A high capacity clip is good for what exactly?

[slackmaster]

26. Watch the video. It shows a man using a high-capacity magazine for a peaceful purpose.

:argh:

[Maineman]

33. Practice shooting a child is peaceful ??

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

70. Please provide a link to anyone in the Gungeon advocating doing that

I dare you to try.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hangingon]

45. Not a child.

Please read the full article. In HuffPost's confused lexicon that is a "printable, target practice sheet".

[cleanhippie]

47. The only one ever practicing shooting a child is the guy in that video.

All of those silhouettes are fabricated by the brady bunch to evoke the exact emotional response you just gave.

[GreenStormCloud]

171. And in the movie "Men In Black" N/T

[Hoopla Phil]

221. I noticed that similarity too. Very odd isn't it?

[onehandle]

52. Pretending to shoot a child is a 'harmless fantasy.'

Perfectly 'normal.'

:sarcasm:

Sarcasm tag added for those who don't get quotation marks.

[gejohnston]

55. only in the add

that target exists nowhere else

[slackmaster]

68. He wasn't pretending to shoot a child. He's an actor shooting at a paper target.

In order to create an emotional response.

[Remmah2]

129. No such target exist.

Only in the video.

[one-eyed fat man]

236. The only ones shooting at kiddie targets

are gun control shills and hacks.

[slackmaster]

67. You see a man shooting a child. I see a man punching holes in a piece of paper. For money.

Paid to shoot at a unique target in order to create an emotional reaction. Why is that?

[Cherchez la Femme]

104. 'Emotional' is NOT a dirty word

Having 'Emotions' is NOT a negative thing.

Have you no shame at all?

[slackmaster]

106. I find it telling that you inferred from what I wrote that I think emotions are negative

I said no such thing.

Have you no shame at all?

I have shame when it's warranted. In this case, it isn't. I see the propaganda for what it is. I can look at it objectively, without being swayed emotionally as intended by its creators. I'm proud of my ability to do that.

In the Huffington Post piece, the author calls the ad "chilling". It chilled him, and I'm sure it chills many other people, but not me.

[Cherchez la Femme]

109. Gee, in which place?

you've repeated yourself all over this thread.

As for the 'shame at all' comment -- best I could do atm when I really wanted to give you a pithy two-word phrase.

[slackmaster]

110. Your ire moves me even less than the vile Brady propaganda piece

:hi:

(I am having an emotional reaction to the video, BTW. Just not the one intended by its authors.)

[Callisto32]

162. No, but they are piss poor things to base deicisons about controlling the actions of others upon.

Emotional decisions can be fine, "I won't eat broccoli, because I don't LIKE" broccoli is fine.

I think I will control everybody else's behavior because I don't like something....not fine.

[cleanhippie]

204. Who said it was? Oh, just you.

Why do you make things up?

Have you no shame at all?

[Missy Vixen]

Imagine the "emotional reaction" when Christina-Taylor Green's parents found out she was dead.

Imagine the "emotional reaction" when 33 people a day are cut down due to gun violence in the United States of America.

I am SO sick and tired of reading NRA talking points, and frankly, I don't give a shit about "target competitions".

There is NO other reason for high-capacity magazines than hunting humans. After all, they're just "collateral damage", and their families should just "understand".

It is really telling that there are those who choose to demonize Sarah Brady for actually attempting to do something to protect others from her husband's fate. Then again, I'm sure certain parties would think it was an honor, wouldn't they?

:eyes:

[rl6214]

131. Why don't you work on car safety instead

You could save many more people that way because many more people are killed in car accidents daily than are killed by guns.

[Missy Vixen]

141. Cars aren't made specifically to kill

Perhaps you should work on your arguments. We've heard them all before; they're no more true or relevant than they have been the past 23430493804 times they've been trotted out after yet another spree shooting in the USA.

[Glassunion]

142. But what about when we are discussing registration and licensing?

We register and license cars? What's this difference if we want to register and license firearms?

[Missy Vixen]

143. Again. Cars are not manufactured specifically to kill.

Guns are. As someone else has tried to note (while citing appropriate law,) ammunition is never mentioned in the Constitution. After all, in those days, it was a freaking musket that took 20 minutes to load.

[Glassunion]

147. If I may quote you...

"There is NO other reason for high-capacity magazines than hunting humans."

That's why the police need them. Right?

[rl6214]

148. Ammunition is part of arm

You know, the right to keep and bear arms.

Do some research, it doesn't take 20 minutes to load a musket.

[GreenStormCloud]

173. Actually a musket took about 20 [b]seconds[/b] to load.

Pour gunpowder in barrel, wrap bullet in cloth patch and put in muzzle of gun, use ramrod to push bullet all the way down and tap it, take out ramrod,cock hammer, pour small amount of powder in primer pan, aim and fire.

[oneshooter]

196. The Brown Bess was a smooth bore musket, no patch issued or required. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

208. True. It had a faster rate of fire and could sustain it.

Not having the tight clearance of the Kentucy Rifle enable it to keep shooting even with considerable fouling. After a few shots the Kentucky Rifle had to be cleaned out. Of course the KR was the height of accuracy in its day and had a longer range than the Brown Bess.

[rl6214]

145. Cars aren't meant to kill, but they do

That means they aren't doing what they are supposed to do when they kill. I would think that makes killer cars that much more important.

And I've heard all your arguments before as well. If you want to be a bleeding heart and make a difference, work on something that will save the most people.

[rrneck]

155. Kill who? nt

[Callisto32]

163. BUT BUT BUT...guns are DIFFERENT!

No, they are not.

Guns and cars are the same thing. They are tools, the use to which one puts that tool is up to the user.

Frankly, I wish this analogy would die, because people like you who are bad at analogies piss me off royally, but until then, is posting "but that's DIFFERENT" any less irritating than the action for which you censure another?

[PavePusher]

186. You're right, cars are not intended to kill....

yet they do so at a higher rate than objects you claim are.

Logically, you should direct some of your energies to car safety.

[beevul]

190. Maybe you ought to consider the viewpoint of her parents...

Maybe you ought to consider the viewpoint of her parents, before hijacking her name in support of something they themselves do not support.

Or is that asking too much?

John green:

"we don't need any more restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States where we are more free than
anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening, and I think thats the price we have to pay."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ir9437zO0


As he ended the NBC interview, he defended America's freedoms.

"This shouldn't happen in this country or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this," Green said. "So I prefer this to the alternative."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-youngest-victim-christina-green-had-zest-for/

[YllwFvr]

216. Mine have never been used to hunt human beings

I demonize sarah brady because hers is a campaign based on disinformation and emotion. Logic and facts would be better to argue with, and the awb did nothing. The back ground checks they got passed is the only points they get.

[rl6214]

130. It's a target, made by the brady's I'm sure to appeal to emotion

They could have used a simple circular target but it wouldn't have gotten the emotional response like it did out of you.

[Callisto32]

160. I have been a member of the shooting culture my whole life.

I have NEVER seen a target that disgusting....until the Brady Bunch decided to make another "PSA."

Just like the old one about the EEEEEVVVIIVVIVIVVVLVVLVL FiveseveN, where the "ex cop" says that a guy who was shot with a 1 oz slug is probably okay, because the slug didn't penetrate the vest....


Real experts on danger and weapons, they are.

:eyes:

[aikoaiko]

191. Is that what you saw?

:rofl:

[Bandit]

76. I think it is like a vibrator

the more bullets one can fire in short time period = orgasm. Unless one is using the gun for the purpose it was invented (killing) there is no real reason the clip can not be limited to six or even nine bullets. I would imagine even the hot shots could hit their target with six shots..

[AtheistCrusader]

182. So, are you going to advocate limiting the police to the same number of rounds?

If not, why not?

[Travelman]

91. Defense, among other things

You shoot until the attacker is down, no matter how many rounds it takes. In more than just the occasional case, it take more than just six or eight or ten rounds to make that happen.

It doesn't work like the movies. It's not one bullet and the attacker freezes, gets a weird look on his face, and falls down. In a whole lot of cases, it takes several rounds to drop someone, particularly someone who is jacked up on angel dust or something. I'm not interested in running out of bullets with someone still coming at me.

[AndyTiedye]

122. Some People Miss a Lot

[msanthrope]

3. I don't see why gun owners have a problem with ammunition control.

After all, we regulate cars and tobacco for health and safety.

Why not regulate ammunition to ensure public safety?

[cleanhippie]

7. Are cars and tobacco a civil right?

And do you agree then with the policy of warrantless wiretapping? After all, its for public safety.

[msanthrope]

19. Is ammunition? After all, you don't dispute the illegality of armor-piercing rounds, right?

[cleanhippie]

21. So you sidestep the issue with a strawman?

[msanthrope]

23. No--it's just that you haven't pointed out where ammunition is in your Constitution.

So you haven't explained why cars and tobacco, which aren't in the Constitution, aren't just like ammunition, which also isn't in the Constitution.

You see, this is why laws like 18 US922 exist.

[cleanhippie]

24. Because I am not going to argue against your strawman.

Yours is a ridiculous argument that deserves no rebuttal.

And until you address your initial absurd claim, we cannot move on.

[msanthrope]

29. You are the one who brought up the Constitution. You are hoist on your own petard.

Show me your claimed constitutional authority for absolute, unregulated possession of ammunition--and explain to us all why federal laws like 18 US Sec. 922, as it relates to ammunition, are therefore, illegal.

[cleanhippie]

40. Hoist yourself. YOU are the one that made the fallacious argument to begin with.

Let me know when you are ready to have an honest conversation.

[msanthrope]

49. No, dear, YOU are the one who brought up the constitution, not I. Post # 3

mentions health and safety, and you replied full of constitutional hauteur....

[cleanhippie]

56. No dear, YOU are the one that compared cars and tobacco to a civil right.

Besides, your OP was a strawman, as the main OP has nothing to do with ammunition, brady wants to ban magazines, not ammo.

[msanthrope]

59. Really, where did I do that? Quote it?

You have yet to establish how ammunition is a 'civil right.' Kindly cite the case on point which backs you.

[cleanhippie]

61. Your post, #3. Total strawman, has nothing to do with the OP whick is takling about magazines

But since you insist, here ya go.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000929----000-.html

Only armor-piercing ammo is restricted (you know, the third move of your goalposts).

[msanthrope]

66. Strawman that you replied to? So, under your theory of ammunition being a 'civil right'

tell us all how this restriction is unconstitutional....


I await your analysis.

[Hangingon]

53. Please call the BATFE and ask if it is constitutional to own

common hunting or target ammunition. Or call your local US Attroney.

[msanthrope]

60. Sigh--you are confusing your branches of government.

The judiciary decides what's constitutional.

The executive branch may, or may not tell me what is legal.

[cleanhippie]

62. Has the juduciary decided that ammo is NOT covered under the Second Amendment?

:popcorn:

[msanthrope]

69. Tell us. You are the one claiming ammunition is a 'civil right,' not I.

You made the claim. Show us the case on point.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

82. Thank you!!! I find it relaxing and fun!

On your second paragraph--someday it's going to dawn on the gun lobby that Scalia's Heller was a gift to gun control.

[Hangingon]

98. Well why don't you try to find some backing for this ...

strawman from constitutional scholars. Nice the way you do that little turn about wrong branch to deflect the blow to your fallacious reasoning. I sent you to the US attorney to see if they would if they would make a case for your contention.

[Straw Man]

137. Surely you don't believe that the right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't include ammunition.

That would be just... silly.

[LanternWaste]

118. One type of ammo is moral, righteous and God-fearing.

One type of ammo is moral, righteous and God-fearing. Another type is not... :shrug:

I imagine there is a precise and relevant ethical difference between the two... :shrug:

[Hangingon]

51. The correct cite is 18 usc 922

I struggle to see how it covers your point.

[cleanhippie]

58. Give it a sec, it will move the goalposts to armor-piercing ammo.

Already did it in several other posts.

[Hangingon]

102. Yep. I was chided for not knowing my branches of govt.

Yet It slides back and forth between law and Constitutional claims. Thanks for doing the Lord's work Clean.

[msanthrope]

63. I missed a blank space. Thank you. Did you check my spelling?

Because I'm pretty sure I spelled 'ammunition' incorrectly a few places, and it would do you good to search, I bet.

[oneshooter]

164. The only AP ammo that is illegal is handgun ammo. AP rifle ammo is legal to own.

[Callisto32]

165. What do you mean by armor piercing round?

Steel core 5.56x45?

SLAP

"Teflon" bullets?

[GreenStormCloud]

176. Armor piercing rounds are legal. Most hunting rifle ammo will go through body armor. N/T

[WatsonT]

12. Cars/tobacco are not in the constitution

and no on is seriously out there trying to eliminate either.

Also neither have anything to do with self defense or the preservation of rights.

Like saying we regulate what can and cannot be shown in movies, so why are people so up in arms about their first amendment rights elsewhere?

[msanthrope]

22. Where is ammunition in your consitution? n/t

[WatsonT]

25. Aw geez, not this canard again

Yeah you can have a gun, but it can't be loaded.

Likewise you can vote, but have no right to expect those votes to be counted.

[msanthrope]

31. No, you can have a gun, and it can be loaded, but what with is subject to regulations such as

18 USC 922, et seq.

Or are you stating that federal regulations on armor-piercing rounds are illegal?

[WatsonT]

38. You didn't say armor piercing

you said "ammunition".

And like with free speech you can regulate it **if a compelling reason can be given that overrides the loss of freedoms**

No such reason exists here.

[cleanhippie]

48. Of course not, it keeps moving the goalposts.

[msanthrope]

57. So you agree that federal regulation of ammunition, such as armor-piercing rounds,

is a good thing? Constitutional?

Actually, you have misstated the constitutional view on free speech. Regulation of speech is not in the government's purview--that would be content-based restriction and not allowed. Time and place restrictions are, however, permissible. Note the difference--'speech' itself cannot be regulated, but time and place restrictions on where said speech can take place are permissible, but must generally be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

While speech is a fundamental right, you've failed to note how ammunition is.

[WatsonT]

64. It can be acceptable if a compelling reason is given

I'd prefer no such regulations exist, but in extreme situations it can be warranted.

Can you please cite such a compelling reason to ban these magazines?

[msanthrope]

74. You are applying an incorrect standard.

In order to claim strict scrutiny, (and therefore a compelling reason to regulate) you must first prove how the right to possess armor piercing bullets infringes a fundamental right. (and heck, I'd say ANY fundamental right, not just the 2nd. Let's open the whole bag.)

Please note that I was not the poster who raised the issue of 'civil rights.' It is a bit silly, IMHO, to a priori assume that possession of ammunition is a fundamental right in the absence of the ability to cite a case on point.

I don't think government, therefore, needs a 'compelling reason' to ban these articles, because you haven't proven that their banning interferes with a fundamental right.

So when you prove that, I'll give a 'compelling' reason. In the meantime, I think it would be rational review, and the obvious health and safety reasons would suffice.

[WatsonT]

80. Maybe because an unloaded firearms is useless

and thus someone without one cannot be considered armed.


It's absurd to assume that the 2nd amendment protected guns but not a crucial component.

When you get down to it triggers aren't specifically mentioned either. Or barrels.

"I don't think government, therefore, needs a 'compelling reason' to ban these articles, because you haven't proven that their banning interferes with a fundamental right. "

So the default position should be a ban, and we have to prove the need to not ban it? I disagree.

[msanthrope]

85. Triggers and barrels are regulated, aren't they?

If I remember correctly, triggers and barrels are regulated in all sorts of ways, right? Certain triggers aren't allowed, and certain barrels aren't, right??? Triggers are modified, too, by trigger locks and regulation, aren't they?


And shouldn't all manufacturers have minimum safety standards for manufacture?


No--the default should not be 'ban' but 'regulate' for health and safety. It's what keeps the drug supply relatively safe. It's what keeps food, air, and water, relatively safe. In the case of these magazines, rational review would apply, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

124. No, triggers and barrels by themselves are not regulated other than for export

The configurations in which they may be assembled into working firearms are regulated.

For example, a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches long is regulated as a Short-Barreled Rifle under the National Firearms Act. A smooth-bore handgun is also an NFA item. But the barrels themselves are just parts, unregulated.

[msanthrope]

174. "The configurations in which they may be assembled into working firearms are regulated."

Which means they are regulated.

I think you are attempting to parse a distinction without a difference.

[slackmaster]

181. The parts alone are not regulated. Anyone can buy them mail order. They are not tracked.

So the parts are not regulated.

What's regulated is USE of the parts, i.e. behavior.

[TPaine7]

198. False

There is no time or place where disclosure of national defense secrets to unauthorized persons is permissible. There are content restrictions on what can be communicated to anyone without clearance and a need to know.

[MicaelS]

128. Your focus on armor-piercing ammuntion is a diversion

ALL, repeat ALL, current center-fire rifle ammunition, including all the popular hunting calibers, containing a jacketed bullet (i.e not pure lead), will penetrate any level of SOFT body armor. SOFT body armor is Level II to Level IIIA.

Some ordinary center-fire pistol ammunition, which does NOT penetrate soft body armor when fired from a handgun, DOES penetrate soft body armor if fired from a carbine length (16 inch) or longer barrel. This is due to the increase in velocity, and thus energy, produced with a longer barrel.

Level III armor is a ceramic or steel strike plate inserted into a soft armor carrier. It only protects the center vitals. Level III is rated up to 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball ammunition.

Level IV protects is also a strike plate and will protect up to .30-06 Springfield M2 armor-piercing ammunition.

Since there are center fire rifle hunting calibers up to the .700 Nitro Express used for hunting big game, there is no known armor that a human can wear that will stop them.

Thus the only "real" armor piercing ammunition that would be practically affected by 18 USC 922 is military surplus AP clearly labeled as Armor-Piercing.

More information on levels of armor protections at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest

[rl6214]

133. Ammunition is included as arms.

[PavePusher]

188. Pens, pencils, ink, paper, computers, radios, television.....

No mention in the First amendment. Turn all yours in to the nearest government office immediately. Please.

[oneshooter]

197. Where is it in YOURS?? n/t

[Zoeisright]

83. Wow, what a dumb post.

Cars didn't exist when the Constitution is written. Do I really have to point that out? And no one knew about that tobacco is a killer. Do you understand that the Constitution was written in the 1700s?

Christ.

[WatsonT]

86. Neither did the internet

I suppose the first doesn't apply there.

[msanthrope]

93. self delete

wrong post.

[Maineman]

32. Gun owners often use some very low quality logic - which is scary.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Yes, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier!

Hammers don't drive nails, carpenters do.

Bats don't hit homeruns, hitters do.

Fast balls don't hit batters, pitchers do.

[msanthrope]

34. Well, I love appeals to the Constitution!!!!

Okay!!!! Show me Originalist intent on armor-piercing rounds.

[Maineman]

39. You replied to the wrong post.

[msanthrope]

44. No, just didn't use the sarcasm tag.

:-)

[cleanhippie]

41. You just keep moving those goalposts, don't you.

Your original fallacious argument went down with one reply, so you have now moved your goal posts TWICE.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

88. See post #83 above--it's close enough. n/t

[gejohnston]

54. At least we use logic

instead of having specially made targets for a TV ad. My problem with Brady and their allies, other than the fact that they are all Republicans, is their intellectual dishonesty. If you have to use disinformation to fight your cause, then your cause is not worth fighting for.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remmah2]

134. Actually there's been some outstanding responses.

Many which are logical and do not rely on cheap shots at emotion, fear, or vulgarity.

[florida08]

37. neither do I

[cleanhippie]

42. For starters, this ad has nothing to do with ammuniton at all.

It has to do with "assault clips" which is a made up term by the brady bunch.

[Travelman]

94. One of the top reasons is that it is UNIVERASALLY

a bunch of people who don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of who are so busy telling everyone else how many bullets they may have. You may as well have a bunch of locomotive engineers deciding how airplane pilots do their job: it's a bunch of people who have not one clue about what they're talking about going off and making decisions for others who know the subject far better.

[hack89]

112. Sure - when you actually demonstrate a threat to public safety.

When it come to large magazines, I don't think one incident is sufficient.

What do you consider reasonable restrictions on ammo?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

116. But since they are in fact very rare, there is no need, is there? nt

[Missy Vixen]

119. Would you like a list?

I'm sure I could list out a few school/workplace shootings that would have been even MORE deadly with the addition of a 32 bullet magazine! Imagine the fun!

:sarcasm:

Again: Those who love their guns more than anything or anyone else don't give a shit about the never-ending grief of loved ones and friends of the dead. Just admit it.

[hack89]

123. But there are millions of high cap mags out there

surely you have actual examples instead of vague threats of what might happened? If they are not being use to slaughter people now, what do you think is going to change in the future?

More people are killed with baseball bats than with high cap mags. You are trying to solve an imaginary epidemic.

[rl6214]

139. Would YOU like a list?

Cho, the VA Tech shooted fired 172 rounds, reloading 17 times. Simple math, 172 divided by 17 = 10 round magazines and NO ONE could step in and stop him during any of these 17 reloads. So how is a ban on 30 round magazines going to stop this killer?

[Missy Vixen]

146. Imagine how much more efficiently he could have killed with a 30 round magazine!

Why, he could have doubled the death toll! He was inefficient!

:sarcasm:

[rl6214]

187. No because it's been proven that 30 rd mags are inefficient

and prone to jamming. The death toll may have been lower if he had a 30 rd mag.

[one-eyed fat man]

207. Have you listened to the video?

There is cell phone footage of the Virginia Tech shooting. You can listen to the shooting in the back ground, unhurried, methodical, punctuated by pauses where he reloaded. Cho had almost a half hour to wander the building expending 174 rounds, reloading 17 times using "ban legal" 10 round magazines. Cho had a almost a half hour to wander around Norris Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkrDYR-pd7I

This is about the last two minutes shot by a student with his cell phone. Note the stalwart campus cops milling about with no apparent sense of direction or urgency waiting for the "real" police and occasionally yelling at students to "Get away." Remember, this is after Cho came back on campus after mailing his manifesto to NBC news after having killed two people in a dorm room hours earlier. Dressed in "de rigueur" black trenchcoat and backpack, like he came from central casting, Cho walks past the campus constabulary unnoticed.

Listen to the shots. There are a couple spots where wind noise overpowers the audio, but close to the end you hear a blast where SWAT finally breaches the barricaded door. They rush in and almost immediately, in the face of an armed response, Cho kills himself.

Except for an 86 year old Holocaust survivor who tried to barricade a door no one took any action to thwart the shooter. I still wonder why someone did not break the "In case of emergency" glass on one of the fire axes in the hallway and try to find the opportunity to use it. Autopsy reports indicate a number of the victims simply cowered under their desks meekly waiting their turn to be shot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

213. Thank you for countering hysteria and moral panic with empirical evidence.

It will not work on the bitter-enders, of course- but it might help with the more honest and open minded.

[spin]

180. A ban on 30 round magazines wouldn't work but one person with a concealed weapon ...

might have stopped him.

Of course, had concealed weapons been allowed on campus, he might never have picked VA Tech as his shooting gallery.

[GreenStormCloud]

226. Not likely. Perhaps you should look at the facts.

A semi-auto pistol is fast and easy to reload with a fresh magazine. It takes about a second. The Luby's, VT, and Ft. Hood killers all reloaded several times. Cho at VT reloaded 17 times. Limiting the magazine size to 10 rounds does not mean that the shooter stops shooting at 11 rounds. It merely means that he pauses for about a second. The extended magazine that Loughner had did stop the shooting as the magazine caused a failure-to-feed jam with the gun. With his gun jammed he had to stop shooting while he attempted to fix the gun enabling the people to jump him.

Extended magazines are notoriously unreliable.

[florida08]

4. that was chilling

and I agree

[cleanhippie]

8. Agree with what?

[florida08]

35. ?? with what?

Banning 32 load assault clips

[cleanhippie]

43. Why?

What purpose would it serve? How would it save any lives? How would it keep criminals from shooting anyone?

[florida08]

99. I'm a gun advocate

We have rifles and handguns. My spouse has CWP but there are still places he can't enter even with a permit.
Sometimes logic and reason have to be applied in certain situations. I do think banning this size clip will save more lives than it will protect. We don't have them and have never felt the need for them.

[Upton]

101. That's your choice..

but if you are truly a gun rights advocate as you claim, you wouldn't be trying to impose your support of an extended mag ban upon others...

[Cherchez la Femme]

105. You gotta be joking,

forget your sarcasm tag?

"but if you are truly a gun rights advocate as you claim, you wouldn't be trying to impose your views upon others..."

Only the *approved* views, right? :rofl:

[florida08]

111. I'm not imposing anything but saving lives

Just like I would support banning the use of 20 year old outdated nuclear facilities that would endanger innocent lives when it's built on a faultline. With freedoms comes responsibility. I think even police officers would support this ban.

[hack89]

194. How do you propose to make criminals obey your ban?

there are millions of these high capacity mags out there - how will they all magically disappear?

[YllwFvr]

217. No officers I know would support a ban

Im in the law enforcement field. Im all for people owning guns, large cap mags are fine.

[cleanhippie]

138. So you can offer no reason to ban them?

But because YOU don't use them, its okay?

What am I missing here?

[PavePusher]

189. Then please....

show us the evidence. Numbers, stats, anything that shows your beleif to have some validity.

[xchrom]

5. ...

:applause:

[WatsonT]

10. Man these people are loony

yeah because 32 bullets is exactly the amount needed to kill what looks to be a small girl.

10 certainly couldn't do the trick.

[onehandle]

14. Cue someone to produce a story about an 'out of control' small girl...

...that didn't drop until the 11th bullet.

[cleanhippie]

18. Cue the nonsensical strawman

[slackmaster]

17. Oh FFS. Ad says it's only good for one thing then shows a man using it for something else entirely.

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

[onehandle]

28. If only we could all be like Nomad.

Emotionless... Armed to the teeth...

[slackmaster]

30. I like lions because ice cream has no bones

[Rage for Order]

27. LOL!!!!

:rofl:

I object to them showing a man pulling the trigger. They are insinuating that all men want to murder little girls with pony tails, old people with canes, and sundry other innocent people.

:eyes:

[Remmah2]

135. In other words telling lies? nt

nt

[jpak]

50. The only reason to have a high capacity magazine is to kill lots of people very quickly

ban them

the end

yup

[WatsonT]

65. That's like saying the only reason to have internet is to spread idiotic propaganda

ban it
yup

Just because you would use both in such a manner doesn't mean everyone will.

[slackmaster]

72. Well, it is for that and for pictures of people having sex with animals.

:hide:

[WatsonT]

75. Lies!

You leave out the videos of people having sex with animals and the lolcats at your peril!

[jpak]

73. What is an acceptable death toll?

How many gun deaths does the GOP/NRA tolerate before it becomes unacceptable?

A far as I can see, all gun deaths are OK with them

yup

[WatsonT]

77. To make that statement first

correlate legal gun ownership rates with violence committed via guns.

/be sure to take suicides and legitimate self defense cases out of those stats. If there is a correlation why be sneaky in your data manipulation?

[rrneck]

156. It might be worth it

to get rid of drivel like his.

[Cherchez la Femme]

107. You're just being emotional

didn't you know, emotions have no place regarding guns and killing people? :sarcasm:

That statement is sadly true -- for psychopaths

[aikoaiko]

192. Please keep posting, You, more than most, help the RKBA cause.

[Upton]

71. How pathetic this group is....

using a tragedy to try and push their authoritarian agenda aimed directly at law abiding gun owners..

[russspeakeasy]

81. Am I paranoid? Lately, when I see Huffington Post as the

originator of information I wonder. Really? Or are they just
in it for the headlines?

[Kingofalldems]

90. Settled law, gun grabbers, strawman, the NRA says----

Loads of cliches every time guns are discussed.

[onehandle]

96. They have a phrase generator on some Ayn Rand site somewhere.

I just know it.

[Upton]

100. President Obama:

"I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

[Missy Vixen]

115. How about a drinking game?

The arguments are so predictable, the rest of us should get some enjoyment out of this...

:sarcasm:

[mvd]

92. I don't like guns and favor controls

There are only two reasons why I don't support a full ban:

1) the gun culture in the US wouldn't be ready for it

2) I still fear people in power having the only ability to have arms. In fact, the only time I would own a gun is if I'm under imminent threat.

[onehandle]

108. Those who disagree would stop reading at the end of your subject line.

And call you a gun grabber.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

120. Shh. nt

[cleanhippie]

121. Tsk, Tsk. As someone who has been here a while, you should know better.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


:shrug:

[rl6214]

125. Dancing in the blood of her fiance

Disgusting.

And WTF is an assault clip? A 2 round 'clip' can be an assault clip if in the wrong hands.

[Remmah2]

132. With two left feet. nt

nt

[Missy Vixen]

144. Perhaps you should explain your statement

I often wonder if those who believe any mention of the dead of a random shooting would ever have the balls to confront grieving loved ones and friends with the news they were simply "emotional", "celebrating" a death by mentioning it, or "dancing in the blood of the dead".

One would think it to be a very short conversation.

:eyes:

[Remmah2]

150. Do you know what "dancing in the blood of the dead means"?

nt

[rl6214]

153. I have had to deal with the deaths of loved ones

none of them felt the need to manufacture a cause because their loved ones died from a gunshot. They know it is not the weapons fault.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remmah2]

149. Gun nuts?

LOL

[rl6214]

151. Her opinion means no more than yours does

Cute:

"Again: The gun nuts love their deadly little toy more than they love anyone or anything else in life. They are the only people who could equate a mention that a loved one is dead due to random gun violence with "celebrating" it in any way."

Trotting yourself out in front of the world to push a cause is not quite a "mention".

Again, Cho, the VA Tech shooter got off 172 shots, reloading 17 times while he killed 32 people in a GUN FREE ZONE. He used 10 round magazines. How is a ban on 30+ round magazines going to affect that sort of situation? Why didn't someone jump out and stop him while he was reloading during his rampage? There were 17 opportunities.

[Remmah2]

152. Lack of civility?

How there be a discussion when emotion clouds judgement?

[Remmah2]

154. Clearly you do not comprehend the phrase. nt

nt

[Remmah2]

126. How can you ban something that does not exist? nt

nt

[RSillsbee]

157. Source: Huffington Post

That's all I needed to hear

[spin]

168. An example of how to use raw emotion to influence people ...

The video totally ignores the simple fact that firearm massacres have happened without the use of extended magazines and also the fact that the reason Loughner was subdued was because his gun jammed due to the extended magazine.

Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

The Brady Campaign has once again invented a new term "assault clips". Obviously, the correct terms" standard, extended or high capacity magazines just doesn't ring the emotion bell hard enough.

As usual the Brady Campaign is interested in pushing another useless "feel good" law. They could devote their efforts to helping the President in his efforts to improve existing law and ensure that unstable purchasers are restricted from purchasing firearms. Obama's ideas might actually accomplish something and perhaps prevent a future massacre and in order to get them passed into law, he needs all the support he can get. Unfortunately the Brady Campaign is more interested in pushing emotion button of people in order to restore their sinking donation levels.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pullo]

172. The gun in the ad fired only 17 rounds.

As usual, the gun control proponents fail to be accurate in their representation of firearms.

[Nolimit]

214. That's the same as a standard 9mm magazine for a glock

That's weird that the Brady Campaign would show a malfunctioning hi-cap magazine. I think they inadvertently made a case against banning hi-cap mags by showing they don't work so well and can be a liability to the shooter. Plus their length gives leverage that allows them to be wrested from grasp easily.

[DonP]

175. This reminds me of that old National Lampoon cover - Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog!

Except that was a joke and funny.

This is just pathetic.

Here a GOP run organization (yes the Brady center is all GOP from Helmke to the Bradys) creates a phony ad and a phony phrase "assault clips" (come on people!) and a bunch of progressives get their heartstrings and wallets pulled artificially. They shut off any higher centers of their brain and react from the gut doing exactly what the Brady clowns wants them to do revitalizing another wedge issue just in time for the 2012 elections.

Most of the people here would freak equally as much if it was a pencil outline of a dog or cat too and mail in $5 to PETA.

Funny, these are some of the same people that freak out at any target with a vaguely human shape, but here it's just fine because it suits their particular brand of prejudice.

Barnum was obviously right. Suckers!

[onehandle]

177. Started as actual breaking news. Swept into the gungeon.

Never to be seen again.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

183. The creation of disgusting propaganda is only mildly newsworthy

It's not very important.

[cleanhippie]

205. Where it should be.

Right with the rest of the anti-gun nonsense.

[AtheistCrusader]

179. Good thing he had a stunt paper target.

Because he didn't hit shit for grouping in the first camera angle when he's firing downrange.

Also, it's 'magazines' not 'clip'. Go ahead, ban 'assault clips'. Ban Unicorns while you're at it.

[beevul]

193. Yes indeed, a shilling new ad. Shilling indeed. N/T

[Dr_Scholl]

199. Assault clip? Lol!

That's idiotic even for them.

Murder and violent crime are at historic lows right now, even though there are more guns than ever in this country. How exactly is banning high capacity, or really normal capacity, magazines going to make the country safer? It's not. All it would do is piss off and alienate a lot of voters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

202. The *Brady Campaign* invented those targets in order to sway the weak-minded.

And they certainly worked....

[krispos42]

206. "assault clip"

:rofl:

Of course! Especially if the guns that use them have "assault grips" and "assault stocks"!


:banghead:

[Hoopla Phil]

222. Does anyone think that such a magazine ban would pass constitutional muster?

I don't think it has a snowball's chance in Hades.

[Remmah2]

235. Never underestimate emotion and deceit.

Politicians will also posture for political favors and campaign donations.

[Hoopla Phil]

238. I just don't see a magazine ban passing muster as set out by Heller.

The 2A is about "arms" not firearms. With 4 or mags being produces for every firearm that accepts them, they are rather "prevalent". They also have are very valid use for the "militia" should it ever be called up. If you read Heller, and all the citations in it, there is now way (IMO) that a magazine ban could be constitutional.