Should not humans have the same protections as ducks?
Submitted by Rick Vogel on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:11am
While watching coverage of Gabby Giffords and her poignant resignation appearance in the House it caused me to recall the Tucson tragedy and how the carnage might have been lessened had there been laws in place controlling the size and types of magazines and clips available to the general gun owner. Limiting the number of rounds that could be fired before the shooter would have to reload led me to consider the irony of an existing Federal Law that applies to every state.
It is illegal to hunt migratory birds, waterfowl, doves, ducks, etc, anywhere in this nation using a shotgun larger than 10 gauge and one that does not have its magazine permanently plugged to LIMIT it to no more than 3 shells, 2 in the magazine and one in the chamber. This dates to the early 20th century and was designed to stop "market hunters" and others from obliterating entire flocks with high-capacity magazines or large bore "punt" guns that could fire up to a pound of lead shot. Having been an avid duck hunter growing up in south Alabama with Mobile Bay being a major flyway I never met a serious hunter who disagreed with the law. If you can't hit a bird on the wing in three shots, the fourth or fifth won't matter.
Indeed, we have laws in all 50 states that limit the number of migratory birds that can be killed by a hunter before having to RELOAD his weapon. As ironic as it seems, we do indeed attempt to protect the number of game birds a hunter can kill at any one time by the use of strict gun and ammunition laws while at the same time refusing to barely discuss, much less offer, the same protection to the citizens of this country.
While it is true that a shotgun is rarely the choice of the well armed, unhinged, maniacal killer, an assault rifle or handgun definitely is and it is usually equipped with a high-capacity magazine. These type of clips should be banned federally as they are in several states! Being the owner of several firearms do I clamor for gun control, no, only for some common sense restrictions on how much killing can be accomplished before having to reload. The Tucson killer fired 31 shots from his Glock 19 handgun equipped with a high-capacity 33 round magazine before attempting to reload another. Had his first clip been limited to 12-15 rounds...how many people might still be alive?
The NRA spends millions of dollars every year fighting to defeat the few sensible gun equipment laws that would offer humans the same protections that are afforded ducks. The NRA argument being that this would be a first step toward total gun control and eventual government confiscation of citizen owned firearms. How specious is this argument? By most estimates, including the NRA's, there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in America, perhaps some 250,000,000 owned by private citizens, the rest by law and military interests.
There is NO viable way to confiscate 250,000,000 guns even if some government agency was of the mind. It would be an impossible, unconstitutional task, so to argue that outlawing high-capacity magazines would be the first step toward accomplishing this is a self-serving lie being fostered by the National Rifle Association not to protect gun rights but purely and simply to support its gun and equipment manufacturing corporate sponsors and their large donations.
Support a Federal ban on high-capacity magazines and clips.
First posted in RV's "TheMountainBlog" themountainblog.blogspot.com
Bravo, Sir!
And as a NC lifetime Sportsman license holder and gun owner for over 20 years, I whole heartedly agree. The NRA has become an extreme organization, devoid of all reason, that chooses sides on Second Amendment issues via emotional kneejerk-reaction, rather than discussion and rational thought. I left it long ago.
"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
I agree.
A year or so ago the NRA gave Palin an assault rifle so she could likely continue her "sport" of hunting wolves from airplanes. The NRA also had Sean Hannity, Newt the Fruit, and Rev. Falwell Jr. speak at their last convention. The NRA has devolved into an organization of fanatics and fools. I used to be a proud member. Haven't been for years. I've written to them appealing to their better nature. Like Congress and officials of organized religion, their answer to complaints is to stick their heads further into the ground and wave their middle finger in your general direction.
Stan Bozarth
Some shooting ranges/clubs require NRA membership
I believe this is because of liability insurance that membership includes, but I don't like it. I don't believe I would join one of these because I don't feel you should be forced to support a right-wing advocacy group just to enjoy a sport. It is such a difficult world for a liberal gun enthusiast. I think it would be interesting to see a liberal gun club. I am not sure if there are enough liberal gun enthusiasts though as it almost sounds like an oxymoron. I enjoy target shooting and believe in the 2nd amendment. With that said I also believe there should be common sense limitations to gun ownership such as magazine capacity discussed here.
I'd join the club
I have several weapons and would be happy to join an organization the promoted sane policies around gun ownership.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Mag capacity
1st, As anyone with any military/law enforcement/self-defense training and some common sense knows, carrying/using a firearm for protection from criminals is quite different from hunting ducks. Hunting duck is for sport (and to eat,) hence the regulations to keep too many ducks from being killed. It is NOT legal to hunt human-beings period! Everything there is wrong/bad to do with a gun is already illegal, the last thing we need is more restrictions than there already are. I'm a Police Officer and a former Marine, and high capacity (aka normal capacity) magazines help when defending yourself from any enemies. And let's not also forget what Thomas Jefferson said about the 2nd amendment and tyranny in government as a last resort.
Maybe some of you should read the 2nd Amendment, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. That includes the whole aspect of gun ownership, including the capacity of your magazines. If the government is restricting you on any issue relating to firearms, it is an INFRINGEMENT.
But hey, that's just plain common sense, something lacking with most people (especially liberals) these days.
Should not humans have the same protections as ducks?
1st, As anyone with any military/law enforcement/self-defense training and some common sense knows, if you read this post without preconceived notions you would see that nowhere does it pertain to law enforcement or the military.
To suggest that the general public's right to own any type of weapon is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment...well hey, I got to agree with you, there really does seem to be a pervasive lack of just plain common sense.
The thing that most right wing conservative gun owner seem to forget is that there are plenty of us "liberals" who are firearm enthusiasts, defenders of the 2nd and like myself also with military law enforcement experience who don't see things as they do but still cherish the right of gun ownership. Few things in life are absolute, unlimited choices of civilian weaponry is surely NOT one. RV
Well, Chris, if everyone had more than 2 brain cells to rub
together and some sense of moral and ethical responsibility about them, then the whole issue of magazine size and what kinds of weapons and ammunition people can own without a permit, etc., would likely be in the distant past. Like Black Talon ammo.... How'd you like just anyone to get that stuff? (Yes, I know...it's not mfg'd any longer.)
I've known people I wouldn't trust to peel a banana properly. The idea of an assault rifle in their hands is scary. An assault weapon with a huge magazine in their hands is even scarier. What does anyone need with a 30+ round mag for their Glock? Why don't we all just buy an M60 and a Barrett .50? Me, I'd like a 60mm mortar. When the neighbor's music gets too loud...whoosh...
And, thanks for the insults. Being a cop or a marine doesn't make you a stud-muffin around here. Lots of folks here (bed-wetting liberals like me) have served in combat and lots more have more common sense than most.
BTW if things get so bad here that intelligent, reasonable people think they need or actually need assault weapons to protect themselves, we're well and truly screwed. In the meantime, it will just be mostly those who think owning a fancy gun makes them a bigger person who buys them.
Some of us were likely reading the 2nd Amendment before you were born. Get over yourself. Be polite or buzz off.
Stan Bozarth
Like Black Talon ammo....
"Black Talon" was just a line of hollowpoint ammunition. You can still buy basically the same thing under a different name today.
I don't know why anyone "needs" a 30-round magazine for their Glock. I personally think they (long handgun magazines) are lame, but the whole "need" argument can apply to so many other things that we don't necessarily "need." "Why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit," etc...
OK SPlib
1. I know about Black Talon and the replacements available. 2. Perhaps I should have said "do" instead of need. I'm not into ethereal arguments about "need."
You apparently didn't get the point of my comment.
Stan Bozarth
Common sense
Copy that, Stan! RV