Sunday, October 5, 2014

Can Magazine Capacity Limitations Save Lives?

taken from another discussion

When a guy is pulling the trigger and sending lead down on his targets, any interruption, no matter how brief would be welcome. Am I wrong about that? When firing the next round requires only another trigger pull, that next round is almost guaranteed. But when it requires a magazine change, there's at least a momentary delay plus the chance of fumbling the mag, dropping it, anything could happen, all of which are better than another trigger pull and another round fired.

89 comments:

  1. Why not limit cars to 40 mph at all times? It would save thousands of lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another stupid car comparison.

      Delete
    2. Welfare queen: another loser who can't work.

      Delete
    3. I am retired with plenty of money, but thanks for your uneducated delusional opinion.

      Delete
  2. And why would it not cost lives too? Especially since those in self-defense situations don't have a duffle bag full of magazines and multiple guns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, all those thousands of people who successfully defend their lives with more then 10 rounds fired, the ones who couldn't stop the threat with the first 10.

      Delete
    2. I didn’t say anything about thousands, but where are your thousands of examples? You keep pointing to the same two- both of which were jams and not simple reloads.

      But if you really want to look at more than ten shots fired in self-defense, the police have many well-documented examples that we discussed here. There is the 40 some shots they fired at the two women who looked at lot like Christopher Dorner (where they only grazed one), the infamous NYC shooting where they injured nine innocent people, the Cleveland man who got shot 70+ times, etc. And these are the professionals that you keep claiming have better disciple and better training than the masses.

      The bottom line is nobody wants to run out of bullets in a self-defense situation. You want more than enough, and you want to be able to make your own choices. The choice should not be made by you, or anti-gun politicians who don’t give a rat’s ass about your safety.

      Delete
    3. Don't you guys have an expression like, if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, you have no business even owning a gun.

      Delete
    4. Don't you guys have an expression like, if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, you have no business even owning a gun.

      Actually, in my experience, that facile statement is much more popular among people who love attacking gun rights.

      Keep in mind that a) sometimes one must defend oneself from multiple assailants, b) merely hitting an attacker once, twice, or even more times is often not sufficient to immediately stop the attack, especially if, c) the attacker is wearing body armor, which has become more popular among the criminal element

      Delete
    5. Nope. I've never heard that. And hitting your target is different than stopping your target, and also doesn't include how many targets you are dealing with. Additionally, when your life is on the line, everyone prefers to work with a factor of safety. If you stop the threat on your tenth shot, that is WAAAAYYY too close for comfort.

      Delete
    6. Mike Brown was shot at 10+ times, and hit six times before the last one killed him, and that’s from a “trained professional”.

      Delete
    7. "Don't you guys have an expression like, if you can't hit your target with the first ten rounds, you have no business even owning a gun."

      "Actually, in my experience, that facile statement is much more popular among people who love attacking gun rights."

      Kurt is quite right. And as one of "you guys", I don't recall ever saying that. Thet comment sits right up with my sitting and hopefully soon to be former Congressman who likes to comment, "You don't need an assault rifle to shoot ducks". And lets not get started with comments from our Executive Branch...

      Delete
    8. Only incompetent losers need more than 10. If you say more than 10 are required, ipso facto you are an incompetent loser.

      Delete
    9. Maybe you guys are right. So, I guess you'll have to rely on your tactical magazine changes, which you always tell us work so well, at least you tell us that when it's convenient for your argument.

      Delete
    10. So, I guess you'll have to rely on your tactical magazine changes . . .

      I won't. I'll have so-called "high capacity" magazines for the rest of my life, no matter what laws are passed.

      Delete
  3. When a guy is pulling the trigger and sending lead down on his targets, any interruption, no matter how brief would be welcome.

    Well, I have little doubt that the targets would welcome the interruption. I'm going to make my targets' situation as "[un]welcome" as I possibly can. If that means carrying a .45 with a round in the chamber and a 14-round magazine, and two backup mags with 17 rounds (via extended basepads) each, and an FN Five-seveN with a round in the chamber and 20 rounds in the magazine, with two backup mags with 30 rounds each; giving me 130 rounds total, so be it. Hopefully, that's enough to allow me to fight my way to my long guns, and the real firepower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You live in a fantasy world, a sick fantasy world. And just yesterday you compared your guns to seat belts and fire extinguishers.

      Delete
    2. You live in a fantasy world, a sick fantasy world.

      Oh, my world is plenty real, and plenty healthy.

      And just yesterday you compared your guns to seat belts and fire extinguishers.

      What can I say--I'm safety conscious.

      Delete
    3. Jesus, you are a paranoid loser. Do you live in Afghanistan? We don't have the need for such weaponry, unless you are a criminal or a psychotic paranoid loser. Which is it?

      Delete
    4. By the way, it's not all guns and ammunition for me. I also carry pepper spray, a collapsible baton, and a couple blades. There are a lot of places to hang stuff on a wheelchair.

      The pepper spray and baton got added when I went through a period of large, grumpy dogs objecting to my presence on the bike trails. Guns are for human assailants--I figure I have to give dogs every chance to get through the encounter with nothing more than a hard earned lesson. As it turns out, I've never quite had to dispense even one of those so far.

      Delete
    5. Of course you've never used any of that equipment, Kurt. You live in a fantasy world. In the real world you don't need that stuff, but I guess that's not exciting enough for you so you invent reasons to be armed to the teeth.

      Delete
    6. We don't have the need for such weaponry . . .

      Who is this "We"? There is no "We"--no association between you and me, for which I shall be eternally grateful.

      . . . unless you are a criminal or a psychotic paranoid loser. Which is it?

      Well, Endangered Nick, why don't you call me both? Since I know it's an honor to be despised by the despicable, the lower your opinion of me, the more I am honored.

      Of course you've never used any of that equipment, Kurt. You live in a fantasy world.

      No, Mikeb, if I lived in a fantasy world, I would believe that disabled people are never attacked by predatory thugs looking for an easy target, or that, if such an attack does occur, the "Only Ones" will magically appear in order to save me. Fortunately, my reality-based personal security plan does not suffer from such naïve delusions.

      Delete
    7. Kurt thinks he's a hero like Batman with his utility belt.

      Delete
    8. Kurt thinks . . .

      Oh, look: Mikeb has another utterly incompetent mind-reader to hang out with. Isn't that the cutest?!

      Delete
    9. Do let us know when you get attacked, ok Kurt? Until then, I say you're a paranoid, gun-rights fanatic, exaggerating the danger to justify your fetish.

      Delete
    10. Actually, Mikeb, I fully expect to die of natural causes without ever the need to draw a weapon in anger, and I hope that expectation is borne out. If not, though, I'll be glad I don't have to abjectly submit to victimization, like some contemptible, voluntarily defenseless cud-chewer.

      And you're wrong here, too:

      Of course you've never used any of that equipment, Kurt.

      Incorrect. I derive value from that equipment every day, in the peace of mind that comes with knowing that I have the means to defend myself, and thus not be contemptible.

      Delete
    11. "Contemptible." That's another one of those words that for which we have exactly opposite meanings.

      Delete
    12. That's another one of those words that for which we have exactly opposite meanings.

      I suppose so. My definition is correct, and yours is . . . the opposite.

      Delete
    13. No, our definitions are in sync. It's the meaning of it that is opposite. It's sort of an opinion thing.

      Delete
    14. Oh, and please take note, I'm not calling you a liar for your opinion that I'm contemptible. That's another thing you keep trying to accuse me of. I call you a liar when you lie, not for your opinions regardless of how nonsensical they are.

      Delete
    15. No, our definitions are in sync. It's the meaning of it that is opposite.

      So "definition" and "meaning" aren't describing the same thing? That's the two different languages again. In my language, "definition" is defined:

      a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol

      I really need to get to work on my Mikeb-to-English dictionary, but what a herculean task. I gotta admit, I'm a little intimidated by it.

      Oh, and please take note, I'm not calling you a liar for your opinion that I'm contemptible.

      I don't remember saying you had, although it would of course not surprise me if you did call me a liar for that, too. I mean, why the hell not?

      As an aside, it is not I who first noted that to be disarmed is to be contemptible.

      Delete
  4. Of course they can, but gun loons will never admit it, or worse, their delusion makes them actually believe magazine size doesn't make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you admit that it could cost lives?

      Delete
    2. How many lives do you think depend on the 11th round or more?

      Delete
    3. This guy may not have shot more than 10 times, but don’t you think he’d be really nervous having to carefully count ammo in this situation? He was against three armed home invaders, who indecently did shoot more than 10 times in defending their own life from this armed homeowner.

      http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/eastern_new_orleans_dentists_s.html

      I was looking for a particular example of a home surveillance video where a man in his garage got attacked by three gunman, and fired more than 10 rounds at them before they fled. It will probably be hard to find. I’m not saying it’s going to be very often where that happens, but it should never happen because you made that choice to limit somebody else's self-defense capability.

      Delete
    4. But, wait a minute. Weren't you just telling us how tactical magazine changes work so well that practically no time is lost. Now, all of a sudden, the poor attacked gun owners need extended mags?

      Delete
    5. Now, all of a sudden, the poor attacked gun owners need extended mags?

      Has it occurred to you that the "poor attacked gun owners," as you refer to them in your infinite empathy for innocent people defending themselves and their families from vicious, predatory home invaders, might not be packing spare magazines in their pajamas?

      Delete
    6. For one, there is a difference when someone is in a self-defense situation (actively being attacked) and a spree shooter who is the aggressor going after soft targets. Do you know when it really sucks to have to change mags (tactical or not)? When someone is shooting at you. But it’s not like you advocate mass shooting victims shooting back.

      Additionally, spare mags are not as available in a self-defense scenario. It makes concealed carry more difficult, as well as middle of the night home invasions. Where are you supposed to hold spare magazines to make up for your handicapping self-defense when you’re in your underwear or birthday suit? A spree shooter can actively plan for stuff like this.

      Delete
    7. MikeB: “Weren't you just telling us how tactical magazine changes work so well that practically no time is lost.”

      Mike, I wasn’t talking about lost time. The time is about the same (minus a fraction of a second to pull a slide or drop a thumb switch). The point is the gun can still be shot during the mag change if need be. So if someone were to come out of concealment and charge a spree shooter (or try to escape) because they see them changing mags, that could be a big mistake.

      Delete
    8. "But, wait a minute. Weren't you just telling us how tactical magazine changes work so well that practically no time is lost. Now, all of a sudden, the poor attacked gun owners need extended mags?"

      And gun control advocates use the argument that limited capacity magazine could give someone a chance to disarm a person during a magazine change.
      Why exactly should I be obligated to give someone threatening me or my family a chance to do that?

      Delete
    9. Why should we give killers the chance to kill even more people?
      To safeguard your imaginary right to unlimited magazine capacity.

      Delete
    10. "Why should we give killers the chance to kill even more people? "

      We should NOT give killers the chance to kill more people, since you've named them killers, that must mean they have killed before and should be locked up, not out on the streets. If you have the means to identify someone as a killer BEFORE they kill, then you have the ability to lock them up before they can kill and keep them locked up. Let us know how well that works out for you.

      We should NOT be limiting the law abiding the tools to defend ourselves from these killers that you have let back out onto the streets. Your actions and laws WILL NOT STOP those who are intent in committing crimes from obtaining these tools but will disable the law abiding and innocent from the ability to defend from those criminals that have the means anyway to commit those crimes.

      Those "high capacity" standard mags are here and have been here for a very long time and likely number in the billions. This country, even by every effort humanly possible, could never rid itself from them. Even if all production of them stopped here in the US, the supply already in the hands of the people AND governments will last for centuries. Even if you stopped the imports of them, they will still find their way onto our shores. That means the criminals will ALWAYS find them.

      All your laws and actions will do is create a safe environment for the criminal to operate in and have more victims by preventing them from having any proper ability to defend themselves. Every law maker out there KNOWS this, but there are those that wish to do "something" even if its wrong, which is usually to make a name for themselves and which does nothing but further endanger the people.

      And no, its not an "imaginary right", its very real.

      Delete
  5. I'll be happy to limit myself to the size magazines used by local law enforcement and military. The same reasons that make the size they use a good idea also apply to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Specious. Citizens do not have the same responsibility, or interactions with killers law enforcement does. That's why we have a police dept. so regular untrained citizens can sleep at night.

      Delete
    2. "Citizens do not have the same responsibility, or interactions with killers law enforcement does. "

      While I'm sure most are dedicated and try their best, while there is the expectation there is no legal obligation. There is case law stating that. They don't have an obligation to protect the individual, but the public at large.
      And to quote a future philosopher, they canna violate the laws of physics. For example, my town doesn't have 24 hour police coverage, and the county seat is 30 miles away. So there is a potential 30 minute response time.
      Fortunately I'm a trained AND equipped citizen so I have no trouble sleeping at night.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, it's gun loon insanity to say police don't have a heightened responsibility to fight criminals compared to the average citizen. Being a farm boy you obviously have no clue about big city crime and gun abuse.

      Delete
    4. You know little about me Anon. I grew up in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro. However, I don't see how that applies here. In my case, I just have to deal with potential longer response time after I'm able to call.

      Delete
    5. You just described yourself as a rural person, yet, I'm wrong? Seems you are using your twisting tactics again, or outright lying AGAIN. Your whole point was about response time and how long it took because you live in farm (rural) area. Next lie....

      Delete
    6. You seemed to make an assumption that just because I live in a small town, that I'm a farm boy. I'm just trying to set things straight so you understand that I do have some knowledge regarding crime in the city.

      Delete
    7. I made no assumption, you told me you were rural. By your constant lying you come across a s a hillbilly dip shhit.

      Delete
    8. Oh, for the love of- he grew up in the city, and now he lives in the country. It's not that hard.

      Delete
    9. It's not that hard.

      Now, now, TS, consider your audience here, and his . . . limitations. His many, crippling limitations.

      Delete
    10. He did not say he grew up in a city, it's that simple idiots.
      Certainly he shows a lack of understanding of inner city gun problems, or like most gun loons just denies they exist.

      Delete
  6. "Yeah, all those thousands of people who successfully defend their lives with more then 10 rounds fired, the ones who couldn't stop the threat with the first 10."

    "How many lives do you think depend on the 11th round or more?"

    Mike, the problem is that like the NY UNSAFE Act, the number is something that was likely pulled out of someone's fourth point of contact. Hmmm, maybe its part of a plot by the evil gun manufacturers trying to sell more magazines....
    I remember, and I'm sure you do also when the standard magazine for the M-16 was only 20 rounds. But time marches on, and the current standard is 30. I don't recall seeing any real research on which to base the 10 round limit, and if anyone knows of it being out there, I'd love to see it.
    It most likely revolves around what the current capacity is for some of the firearms considered "sporting" and therefor we're allowed to keep them. I also don't know of any research which documents defensive uses of firearms where the magical 11th round won the day even once, much less the thousands you seem to feel are necessary in order to justify "allowing" citizens to own them.
    But on the other hand, there is likely the same lack of documentation on how many police officers have been saved with the 11th or more round. But no one seems to have a problem with the police having them. What it comes down to is that if you're defending your life, be you soldier, policeman, or citizen, the slide locking to the rear in the middle of the action truly sucks. So the choice of ammunition capacity for your firearm is a personal one.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that as crime goes down magazine capacity and the number of guns go up. An irrational response to the crime rate. Irrational defines gun loons.

      Delete
    2. I wish I didn't have so much ammunition loaded and ready to fire.
      Source: No participant in any gunfight, ever.

      Delete
    3. "Interesting that as crime goes down magazine capacity and the number of guns go up."

      Interesting that you should say that Anon. Maybe though you have it backwards, as magazine capacity and the number of guns go up, crime goes down.
      Fortunately, guns ammo and magazines have a pretty long shelf life, so if crime continues to drop, they wont spoil.

      Delete
    4. Of course if there were no guns there could not possibly be any gun shot deaths, or injury. Problem solved.

      Delete
    5. Wishful thinking there anon? If my grandmother had wings she would be a butterfly, or an old bat depending on your point of view. If this or that then we would or wouldn't have this or that.

      Fact is we do have guns and none of your ifs, ands or buts is ever going to change that. Ever. So put on your big boy diapers and face the world. Its only scary in your mind. Problem solved.

      Delete
    6. Just pointing out the stupidity that nothing can be done about gun shot death and injuries. A simple solution which would work. Of course gun loon assholes like you are to stupid to know that. Back to your killing.

      Delete
    7. It may be a simple solution in your mind, but your the one that shows gross stupidity to even think that you could rid the world, much less the US, of all guns. Go get your big boy diapers on because I know you will piss yourself when you realize that it is not possible to ever reach your dreams of a gun free world. Not then, not now nor ever in the future. Ever.

      Delete
    8. "A simple solution which would work."

      Sorry, There was a ban in place for ten years and it was allowed to sunset because there was no discernible effect on violent crime.

      Delete
    9. Another dishonest response SS. The bill was not allowed to expire BECAUSE there was no discernible effect on violence from assault weapons. Please cite me the proof that it was.

      Delete



    10. "The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." [11] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small."
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Efforts_to_renew_the_ban

      I personally think sun setting laws should be done more often. If it doesn't work, then it could die a well deserved death, just like this law.

      Delete
    11. That's NOT why the law was allowed to lapse. I don't doubt there was any evidence one way, or the other. It was a political decision which had nothing to do with evidence as you just statedthere was no evidence.

      Delete
    12. Its OK SS, anti anon wouldn't know the facts if they slapped him square in the face, or would just claim it was the wind blowing instead. He is a typical head in the sand denier. Deny, deny, deny. If he denies it enough then it must become true in his head. He cant figure out that the lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself.

      Gas tank is empty (to a reasonable person as to why the car doesn't run).
      You have no evidence the tank ever had gas in it ( a deniers response to the reason of why the car doesn't run, it must be another reason not found yet).

      Delete
  7. Only a totally inept moron would need more than 10 rounds. But of course the NRA is telling its legions of paranoid loser bozos that they need hundreds to defeat the martians. NRA losers basically stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Only incompetent losers need more than 10. If you say more than 10 are required, ipso facto you are an incompetent loser."

    "Only a totally inept moron would need more than 10 rounds."

    Howdy Nick and Lib. So if what you're saying is correct, then what exactly is the logic of giving those that are supposed to be much better trained in the use of arms a specific exemption to restrictions on magazine size?
    As I said in my previous comment, the reasons that make police and law enforcement using them ok, also apply to citizens using them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, only if you think police and the average citizen have the same responsibilities. You have stated they do, which only proves your delusional gun loon thinking.

      Delete
    2. And just how do they NOT have the same responsibilities?
      The police have the gun to defend themselves from those that seek to harm them.
      The average citizen have the gun to defend themselves from those that seek to harm them.
      I don't see any difference there at all, with the exception that the police have the duty to seek out those that have already harmed others.

      The average citizen has the responsibility to defend themselves FIRST. They, the individuals, ARE the first responder. Their duty is to protect themselves, their family and their property.
      The police have NO duty to protect the individual, only the community at large. The police are the SECOND responder to any crime committed and their duty is to protect the community at large from the criminal that has already committed a crime by hunting them down and bringing them to justice. Which by the way is already too late for the individual who has been the victim of the crime in which the victim could not, would not or has been prevented from successfully defending themselves.

      The only delusional thinking here is that you cant see that. Especially since the courts have frequently affirmed this very fact.

      Delete
    3. You have no clue what you are talking about, so just keep spouting your delusion. You are missing Michael Savage while you are spewing your delusions here.

      Delete
    4. That's the best you have?? Michael Savage? Really?? LOLOLOLs I expected more idiocy from you than this and this is all you can muster?

      It just shows EVERYONE that the truth cannot be argued against except by a lunatic that really has no argument in the face of facts.

      Michael Savage,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, why didn't you include Rush Limbaugh, Mark Davis, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, FOX News and a whole host of others in your little diddy bag.

      Come on man, you could do better! Or not. I LOVE to argue with people like you. You have REALLY disappointed me! Come on, GIVE IT TO ME!! Or is it you that has NO clue.

      Delete
    5. That's the level you think on so there it's a waste of time to say much else. Enjoy your delusions.

      Delete
    6. And that's all you got, what a loser.

      Delete
  9. Here's another guy who needed more than 10 rounds to defend himself. 17 shots, one fatal, 11 misses. And he is highly trained by both the military and police. Imagine how many shots a normal joe would need if someone opened fire on them.

    http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/off-duty-st-louis-officer-fatally-shoots-teen-who-fired/article_2d5a8c2a-97db-5cec-a477-1130d7d26f7e.html?mobile_touch=true

    ReplyDelete
  10. I know its a waste of time to argue with irrefutable facts, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is. So I won't bother to argue the proven fact that small capacity magazines save lives.

      Delete
    2. Proven, hah! What a lie.

      Delete
    3. Yes it is proven. Educate yourself.

      Delete
    4. Show the proof, just don't claim it. I can show PLENTY of proof to the contrary. You first, O educated one.

      Delete
    5. I have many times on this site. Pay attention OH uneducated one.

      Delete
    6. What a LIAR!

      "I have many times on this site. Pay attention OH uneducated one."

      PROVE IT! Oh bloviated one.

      Delete
    7. When you have no clue because you haven't read, or more likely haven't paid attention, only an idiot claims to know, as you just did. Read the archives, not my job to do your homework. You are to stupid to try and teach, you will have to learn on your own. You didn't PROVE your claim and I wonder why you expect people to do what you refuse to do. Take your dishonest games back to elementary school.

      Delete
    8. Read the archives for an anon post?? Yeah right. Look you need to prove it or shut up. Provide the link or slink away. I have been reading and posting here for over six years and no one, NONE have proved that smaller mags save lives, none. There are plenty of examples to the contrary. So put up or shut up. And for every example that you provide, if any, I will be generous and provide two to the contrary. Now be honest yourself, provide them, or your a liar.

      Delete
    9. You are the one who made to claim, where is YOUR proof ? I don't play your games GC and I haven't been here 6 years so add another lie to your list, or is it just stupidity, not a lie.

      Delete
  11. I said you go first and I will counter you two to one. Your the one that first claimed you proved it before so show it, coward. Second, I didn't say you were here six years, I said I was. Learn comprehension and then read. And no, I am not GC. Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey--wanna see something hilarious (and uplifting)? In Colorado, with its ban of 16-round and larger magazines, good people are still legally buying magazines that can be very easily and quickly restored from the low, 15-round capacity, to the normal, 30-round full capacity:

    At a northern Colorado gun show, a seller displayed an entire table full of 30 round magazines that had been “retrofitted” to hold 15 rounds and comply with the controversial law.

    The seller was asked if anyone would care if a buyer removed the modification and turned the magazine back into a high capacity unit.

    “No, but I gotta be careful about how I say things because they would love nothing more than to make me a poster child so I’m very careful on how I say things.”

    The CBS4 producer bought a 30 round magazine for $20.


    Or you can buy "kits" (basically magazine parts), and assemble a magazine of useful capacity in seconds:

    In Colorado Springs at Old Colorado City Surplus, an Army Surplus store, a CBS4 producer bought two brand-new high capacity magazine “kits.”

    The kits consist of the magazine hardware and a spring that needs to be inserted to make the unit operational.

    The clerk opened the package, put it together in 24 seconds and sold CBS4 the 30 round magazine for $25.


    For maximum enjoyment, be sure to watch the video, and have a good guffaw about the "reporter's" breathless, bed-wetting horror, and listen to Tom Mauser bleating about how "disgusted" he is.

    This part is good, too:

    “We have to do something to not make it easy to have people mowed down by crazed shooters. I thought it would be an effective law,” said Mauser.

    Get it? He "thought it would be an effective law." Isn't that a riot?

    That's one of "gun control's" problems. Gun rights advocates hold not only all of the moral high ground, but the ease with which we render these idiotic laws toothless shows that we're vastly more intelligent than the gun restriction zealots, too.

    ReplyDelete