A Gun Enthusiast Wants Some Limits
As someone who supports and belongs to the NRA, who holds a Concealed-Carry Permit in Florida, and who constantly demands respect for the Second Amendment, let me say that I strongly support the bill introduced by the Democrat, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, to limit magazines to 10 rounds. Unfortunately, unless it gains support from a lot more people like me, it looks like it is going nowhere.
One of the common denominators of recent mass shootings was the use of high capacity magazines or clips allowing the shooters to fire at least 30 rounds before having to reload. This was true of James Holmes at Aurora, of Jared Loughner at Tucson (where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was so brutally maimed), of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, and, to some extent, also of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine.
I am a shooter; I visit the range in Florida at least once a year, but I can see no reason why limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds would interfere with my pleasure or my attempts to maintain my proficiency. If there are gun enthusiasts who enjoy activities that involve the use of magazines with capacities of 33 rounds or 100 rounds, I say forcing you to reload once in a while is a small price to pay to save some lives. After all, Jared Loughner was only stopped when he paused to reload. It is truly unfortunate that he had already gotten off 30 rounds, and the damage was done.
I am well aware that there are countless numbers of high-capacity magazines out there already, but making their sale and transfer illegal will put a large dent in their availability to people with mental disorders.
Labels: Gun Control
posted by RussWilcox @ 7:30 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I am with you 100%
Bob Dahl
Sorry guys. I'm not with you on this one. If someone was doing their job they could have stopped James Holmes before he murdered those people in the theater.
The same thing applies to the Columbine and Fast and Furious.
Red flags go up in some of these instances and when decent law abiding citizens step forward to expose it, they are flatly ignored. In most cases these brave citizens are held in contempt and ridiculed until the right people step in and stand up with them.
I wouldn't have anything to do with the likes of Frank Lautenburg or any of his gun grabbing ilk.
It's bad enough that this Liberal administration wants our border guards to run the other way when they are threatened by Mexican drug traffickers with high capacity weapons. What's next, do we send them out with six shot revolvers?
Unfortunately Joe, many mental health experts say it is impossible to spot mentally ill people who are likely to go on a rampage. Until we find a way to spot them and their connection to the assembling of an arsenal, responsible gun owners are going to have to accept some reasonable limitations.
Unfortunately, people like the author, with well intent, don't look past where enacting limitations will stop.
Limit to 10 rounds? Then on the next rampage where a 10 round mag is used, will the author rise up and say limit mags to 5 rounds? Then after a rampage of using a 5 round mag, would the answer then be limit to a single shot weapon? Then when that doesn't work...what is the next option?
No, I don't agree with the author at all. He states he is pro second amendment, but those who are truly pro second amendment know putting restriction in place will never end and will only chip away on the rights of law abiding conceal carry citizens.
There have always been and will always be people with mental disorders, there will always be those who intend to do meaningless harm to others, this will not change by limiting the rights of stable law abiding citizens. God Bless the United States – Long Live the Republic.
Post a Comment
<< Home