Possibly the most frustrating aspect of political life is that it becomes impossible to find an anchor; a touchstone that you can always depend on to make sense and support your values. I had thought Peggy Noonan was one but this leaves me shaking my head.
Would Another Law Do It?
There are few things that set my teeth on edge more than the ubiquitous misnomer, "fighter jet." The word "jet" is a modifier of the noun "fighter". The aircraft genus is fighter. The fact that it has a specific power-plant tells us more. We wouldn't call a P-51 Mustang a "fighter prop," would we?
One malaprop that rises to the same level is calling a pistol magazine a "clip." It isn't a clip. Never was, never will be.
We had a ban on high capacity magazines. It lasted for ten years. It didn't mean a hill of soggy beans with regard to crime, killing sprees or the proliferation of nut-jobs in society. It did NOTHING!
Wait, it did do something! It made the readily available high-capacity magazines much more expensive. A magazine that used to cost five or ten bucks now would set you back thirty or forty. There are literally tens of thousands of them in circulation. The last ban didn't ban them and the next one won't either.
Loughner used a ludicrous 31 round extended magazine for his Glock. Simply put that is stupid. Why does anyone make a 31 round magazine for a 9mm medium frame semi-auto? I guess because they can. You wouldn't use one for concealed carry. You wouldn't really want to use one for personal defense. When you stack that many rounds atop a spring-loaded device the reliability goes way down. It is simply much simpler to swap magazines after 15 rounds. It takes about two seconds and can be done easily with just a little bit of practice. Don't shoot to slide-lock and you don't even have to chamber a round.
Murder is against the law. Shooting judges and federal officials is against the law. Carrying concealed without a permit is against the law. Would any rational person believe that a prohibition against high-cap magazines would have any significance in terms of deterrent effect? Let's see, I want to kill a bunch of folks but can't get a high-cap magazine. I guess I'll have to give up the plan!
What makes ten a magic number? Would eleven be outrageous? Would nine be significantly better? Could a mad-man kill fewer people with three shots if he approaches to within six feet? Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill a president and grievously wound a governor with a bolt action rifle and three shots? Did Booth shoot Lincoln with a Derringer?
Peggy, you've let me down. You've made the terrible mistake of expounding in an area in which you apparently are woefully uninformed. You've proposed that the President appeal to the ignorance of the liberal mentality and the feminized nation that is morbidly hoplophobic to become a success. Rather than intelligently discussing an issue you've gone emotional and baseless on me.
5 comments:
I had exactly the same reaction to Peggy's column. I was most disappointed in her. WolpackJack
Ed, I recently found your blog via Brigid's HOTR. I like what I see. As to the 30+ round magazine for the Glock, my understanding is that it was originally designed for the Glock 18 (the full auto capable 9mm version of the G17). Somewhere out on YouTube is a video of someone shooting off the G18 using a 100 round drum magazine. It's over in just a few seconds. So, you can understand the desire for someone shooting one of those to have a little extra in the magazine before having to reload. Of course, the begs the question of what purpose a full auto pistol serves.
33 round for 9mm.
22 round for .40S&W.
Thanks for being civil, Ed.
I can't discipline myself to do so with this RINO harridan:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2011/01/filthy-menopausal-collectivist-rino.html
K. Erickson.
The purpose of a full auto pistol is the same exact purpose as ANY other firearm. It doesn't matter if it is full auto or semi-auto or single shot. The TOOL/Inanimate object/Weapon is NOT the issue or the problem.
Immagikman, I apologize for not making my sarcasm clearer. I was in a hurry earlier. I was trying to convey that there is a purpose for the 33 round magazine of which anti-gun folks are unaware or willfully ignorant of; but, if they were/are aware of the mags' purpose, they would then start to question/argue about the purpose behind the purpose so to speak. I absolutely agree that the firearm is a tool and not a problem, and I would love to have a G18 if for no other reason than it's freaking cool.
Post a Comment