CT Sandy Hook Advisory Commission: Ban Guns That Hold More Than 10 Rounds Without Reloading

Sandy Hook Elementary School (courtesy  06880danwoog.com)

“An advisory panel charged with looking at public safety in the wake of the deadly Newtown school shooting agreed Friday to include in its final report a recommendation to ban the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading,” morningjournalnews.com reports. Say what? This new law would ban all AR-style rifles, some lever guns and a whole bunch of handguns. How unconstitutional is that? “‘Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,’ said former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, a member of the panel. And then he dropped this clunker . . .

“The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.”

Commission members said during a meeting Friday that they want to emphasize that there needs to be more regulation of guns that can inflict mass casualties, even if it causes some inconvenience to recreational shooters.

Twenty children and six educators were killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting by a gunman using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.

The commission also decided not to include language from the interim report that would have acknowledged the importance of the Connecticut’s gun manufacturing industry and would have included a disclaimer that nothing in the report “should be construed as a prohibition against the manufacture of any device legal for sale or possession in other jurisdictions.”

Rights are so inconvenient, are they not? The Committee report is not due out ’til . . . wait for it  . . . Valentine’s Day. The chances of the Connecticut legislature taking-up this tyranny-shaped ball and running with it are better/worse than you might think. Watch this space. [h/t BC]

comments

  1. avatar Jimmy says:

    The Sandy Hookers will never stop!

    1. avatar 24/7 Pro says:

      Never stop? Nope! Why would they? They want to START a civil war.

      Because as everybody knows, a “ban” is only as good as the enforcement on it. What these dumb bastards dont realize is that THEY will get taken out if their gun grabbing dreams come true….

      1. avatar Summer says:

        Yeah I’m not really sure how it works for the people WITHOUT guns to think they will win against the people WITH guns. I mean o.O. What’s the last war they witnessed where the winners sat around in a circle and sang and held hands peacefully?

        Also, plenty of us are still willing to die for our freedom, so come and take it bitches.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      The biggest atrocity of all is the near complete silence regarding the root cause of these nutcases going ballistic. Let us not self-reflect as a society to try to find what it is that makes people go on violence sprees

      No, that would be way to hard. Let’s do the easy thing and do the first thing that comes to mind, ban guns.

      1. avatar Summer says:

        The common denominator in almost all of these cases (outside of religious terrorist reasons) is that the gunman was on prescribed antidepressants or ADHD drugs. One possible side effect of these drugs are violent psychotic/homicidal rages or suicidal ideation or both. I’m not kidding. It’s a very rare side effect, but when you dope up so much of the country on antidepressants you’re going to have a significant enough number of people who act out in this way from the drugs. That’s my personal theory. I’m sure there are other things that contribute that we could point to as well (lack of parenting AT ALL comes to mind as a co-factor), but I think this is a pretty big reason. And it’s a factoid you have to dig for in all the stories. MSM won’t mention it. Which leads me to believe they KNOW what the culprit is.

    3. avatar DisThunder says:

      It’s so stupid it ought to be funny. The idea that “inconveniencing” a massacre shooter with reloads every ten rounds can save lives is almost as stupid as thinking that a sign that says “no guns” does it too.
      Offensively, reloads are not a dire situation. Defensively? Less rounds cost lives. When a bad guy is shooting at you is the EXACT time someone needs a 30-round magazine. Recreation my ass.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “When a bad guy is shooting at you is the EXACT time someone needs a 30-round magazine.”

        Incredibly important point.

      2. avatar Summer says:

        This. I’ve also thought about the fact that these people are true idiots if they don’t understand how fast reloading is. When the cops are minutes away how is 2 seconds dropping one magazine and slamming in another loaded magazine going to make ANY difference at all?

  2. avatar czP09jrs says:

    I guess I shouldn’t show them how fast I can do a mag change. Oh well, come and try to take em bitches!

    1. avatar Alex says:

      We need a law that limits the speed you are allowed to change mags. That would help. Right? Guys?

      1. avatar Josh says:

        That would be about as enforceable as the ATFs determination about SIG Braces.

    2. avatar John says:

      Wouldn’t matter if they understood how quickly it could be done. If memory serves correctly the shooter often changed magazines several times during his shooting spree. I recall a statement of how he changed magazines before they were empty, as he was moving through the school, which they attributed to video game behavior.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        Unfortunately the purpose of the report is to justify a political stance. They were not trifled with concerns about facts, rights, or solutions.

        If a suggested law is unconstitutional then it won’t hold up in court and has no value. That they won’t bother to consider that a problem says a lot of how they set out to waste everyone’s time.

        1. avatar Ethan762 says:

          Exactly. They don’t really think they can win – they just want to paint the NRA/Gun owners as obstructionist bastards who love dead children.
          Bloody shirt waving, that’s what this is about – “SEE, WE TOLDS YOU HIGH CUPACIDY CLIPS KILL DER BABIES!!”

          derp derp…

        2. avatar Summer says:

          @Ethan my money is on this being a VERY long game for them. The demonization process is so that the younger generation grows up fearing and hating guns and then when the bulk of the citizens think guns are terrible and icky, we’ll be “little Europe”. Thank God I’ll be dead then. (And will have left no descendants to have to deal with it.)

    3. avatar Andrew says:

      Actually, if I remember the wording of the commission “report” correctly, it suggests banning any guns capable of firing 10 rounds without reloading. Which means any magazine fed gun, since even the ones with standard capacity lower than that have extended mags that breach the limit, e.g. 15 round Pro-Mag 1911 magazines. This would ban shotguns like the Mossberg 500 and Remington 870 since they have extended capacity mag tubes available that, using 2 3/4 shells, would exceed 10 rounds. Overly broad and overly fascist doesn’t even begin to describe this commission’s desires.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        exactly. This would ban any magazine fed weapon.

    4. avatar Chad A says:

      If I recall correctly the Columbine guy only had a backpack full of 10 round mags, didn’t stop him…

  3. avatar Don says:

    That’s dumber than a sack of revolvers… oh wait, ten times six is… HEY! Will the new law ban carrying a sack or revolvers??????? As my hero Red Forman used to say “Dumbass!”

    1. avatar Megalith says:

      Actually, that would be called five brace of revolvers. Get a 10 holstered baldric to carry them in and you’re all set to be a pirate. Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!

    2. avatar franklin the turtle says:

      new York reload lol

  4. avatar Carson says:

    Nanny State Leftists think your rights are an inconvenience to their agenda? Color me surprised

  5. avatar Marc Preston says:

    Who made this “panel” and gave them the power to do anything? Why dont they regulate the mental health issues that truely caused this tragedy??

    1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      Here’s the most ridiculous quote to come out of the commission:

      “The relationship between the accessibility to this kind of weaponry and mass shootings is the single most important common denominator in mass shootings. We’ve spent two years looking at the mental health aspects of this. The relationship to mental health issues is minimal and pales to the relationship to these weapons,” Dr. Harold Schwartz, head psychiatrist at Hartford Hospital’s Institute of Living, said.

      BTW, this commission was appointed solely by Gov. Dan Malloy.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        …so… the good doctor considers these actions rational, born of a sane mind?

        And these are the people who decide if mental patients are fit to reenter society?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Nope, just born of the gun (naturally)

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I think THEY are the ones with mental health issues. Like a very limited grasp of reality.

  6. avatar Texsylvanian says:

    Riiiiiiight. Because that definitely would have changed things in that scenario.

    Most sterling example of liberal hypocrisy ever:

    A concealed carrier stopping a mass shooting is an unrealistic pipe dream, but limiting rounds in a mag will give some hypothetical unarmed hero the split second opening to tackle and subdue a mass shooter.

    Give it up already. U cantz winz

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.”

    Exactly how does one measure the lethality of a weapon? What are the units of measure? Why would one level of “lethality” be okay and another level be horrible?

    Let us assume that the units of measure are “kills per second” which means how many defenseless victims a reasonably fit and motivated attacker can kill without any resistance. If politicians forbid weapons that enable 4 or more kills per second, why is a weapon that enables 3 kills per second okay? And are politicians going to apply this standard to all weapons — including cars, swords, and chemical accelerants (such as gasoline)?

    I hope the insanity of this becomes apparent to everyone.

    1. avatar Zebulon Pike says:

      Regarding lethality, everyone knows that if you are killed with a gun that can hold merely nine rounds you are not nearly as dead as if you are killed with a gun that has a 10 round mag. This has nothing to do with politics, red or blue, conservative or liberal. It is just common sense.

  8. avatar Parnell says:

    Who the hell appoints these idiots? I sure that there wasn’t a single gun owner on this “commission”. What is this fascination with 10 round limits?

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      Anti-Gun Dan Malloy.

    2. avatar David P. says:

      20 dead kids are way too many. Now if we only had 10 dead kids, (This assumes the shooter can load a mag before he goes into the building but magically forgets how to do a mag change after he is in there. You know like the VT shooter did) but then we only have 10 dead kids then everything is sunshine and lollipops. I smell MDA involved in this sudden reccomendaton. I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t hear something like this in BO state of the Union speech on Tuesday.

  9. avatar BradN says:

    Why is 10 considered a magic number? That’s what I want to know.

    1. avatar Youzernayme says:

      Carlin said it in regards to the Commandments. It’s a mentally satisfying number.
      base of the decimal system and whatnot.

    2. avatar Don in PA says:

      Because it’s only 10 away from 0!

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        …and because all you have to do is just drop the “1” and you end up with “0”

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Or you could flip one bit in the file and change the ASCII character ‘1’ (00110001) to a character ‘0’ (00110000) and get “00” in your text.

          Oh wait, can’t let the gun nuts be reminded of 00 Buck.

    3. avatar Gunr says:

      I guess shooting 9 kids is OK, but shooting 10 is an act of aggression!

  10. avatar West says:

    I’ve got a dead horse I could let that commission borrow.

  11. As if anyone really gives a flying “f” about the commission’s recommendations. Several hundred thousand otherwise law-abiding citizens already flipped Malloy off by not registering their firearms and “standard” capacity magazines.

  12. avatar Don in PA says:

    Physical. Security. Morons.

    If you can’t see that a VIP, jewelry, bottles of booze, and cartons of cigarettes are better protected than your KIDS in schools and maybe take a hint from the defensive strategies surrounding those things, you ought not to be advising anyone on anything.

    If you haven’t addressed THIS disparity in defensive strategy FIRST then dead kids are just fuel for your gun control crusade, NOT your actual concern.

    1. avatar Howdy says:

      I am stealing this.

      1. avatar Don in PA says:

        Please do,with gusto!

  13. avatar mike oregon says:

    $@=#!(, Is reality ever going to factor in to this issue? At the worst mass shooting in recent times at Virginia tech the angry mass-hole used a 9mm Glock and 10rd. Mags, he just used 18 of them

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      I agree that Virginia Tech proves this commission is full of crap.

    2. avatar Ebenezer Bowman says:

      Columbine as well, shotguns (5-7rnds), a highpoint carbine (10rnd mags), and a Tech-9 (magazine capacity unknown) and various types of explosives! Gee those limits worked before the AWB expired didn’t they…

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        The Tec-9 might as well have a three round mag, because that’s about its mean time between attempts to double feed.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        ..and on another side note, I got into an argument on line with some dingbat in New Zealand who *insisted* that both of the Columbine shooters had full auto Uzis that they had bought off the shelf. No amount of explaining to her that I lived here and knew the gun laws could dissuade her.

        1. avatar Summer says:

          I love when people not in our country think they know how our country works better than actual citizens. If the situation had been reversed and you’d been pontificating about shit you didn’t know about New Zealand to a New Zealander, you would have been read the riot act for your “American arrogance”. But here a kiwi does it to you and you should just shut up because now you’re a “dumb American” that doesn’t know anything about your own country. SO sick of that shit.

  14. avatar moveableDO says:

    10 rounds is the arbitrary number that many anti-gunners feel is a “reasonable first step” that the masses might actually accept. Then, the number is 7 (NY SAFE Act). Then the number is 1 (Australia). Then the number is ZERO (Nazi Germany). Then there is Auschwitz. I think this progression is actually plausible for progressives.

  15. avatar Pg2 says:

    Hey, how about instead of throwing baby tantrums in reaction to every obvious illegal further encroachment on the 2nd Amendment, this site actually does a little investigative journalism into the topics that are being used to justify these illegal encroachments.

    1. avatar Enuz says:

      Because investigative journalism is about spreading facts and insight into an issue that the general public might not be aware of. This is not a situation where that applies, because this is not a situation of rational thought and consideration. A simple look through the annals of the 20th century will tell you that when people are scared, they don’t try and solve the problem. They try and find a scapegoat to take out their fears on, so they can feel better at night. When they feel scared again? Why, they’ve already found a convenient target to blame.

  16. avatar ThomasR says:

    So an M1 rifle, “The greatest battle implement ever designed” (General Patton) has an 8 round en bloc clip which would be exempt.

    These people and their studied and proudly held ignorance of all things gun related continues to astound and amaze.

    Well, Also ignorance about human nature, history, fact, experience, reality, civil rights and our constitution.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I doubt that, were he alive today, Patton would still think it was the best ever. (If nothing else he’d have loved the M14 with its far greater capacity.)

  17. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    I know of no firearm that holds more then 10 rounds without reloading. Magazines do, but guns do not.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      Don’t go getting “technical” on us now, The idiots upstairs don’t even know the difference between a bullet, and a cartridge!

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      I have 7 lever action rifles within reach. Every one will hold more than 10 rounds. Yes, it is the gun, they do not have detachable magazines.

  18. avatar C.Z. says:

    Can’t almost every gun shoot more than 10 rounds or be made to shoot more than 10 rounds without reloading?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Yes. And that shows the complete idiocy of their proposal (or the genius of it, depending on your stand on gun rights/control).

    2. avatar Jon says:

      For this reason, because it bans so many firearms, essentially banning on around 80 percent of all firearms (guesstimate), I would say it stands a good chance of being thrown out in court as unconstitutional, since it infringes on peoples ability to procure, and thereby own, firearms… but that’s only if people fight it.

  19. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    …In most cases it’s not the gun that holds the ammo. or are they proposing everything be a 10 round inter….you know what, never mind. I don’t want to give these idiots ideas.

  20. avatar pod says:

    People I know love to bring up the one example of the shooting in Washington State last year or thereabouts where an unarmed defender in a university shooting disarmed the attacker while he reloaded his shotgun, and they use it as a basis to say how magazine capacity limits will limit the damage an attacker can do.

    Wrong. It takes mere seconds to reload a weapon with a magazine-style mechanism. Whether the magazine has 10 or 30 rounds it doesn’t matter. A determined attacker will just carry more magazines.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Just like Loughner, his weapon malfunctioned. In the SPU case, I believe it was a double barrel shotgun to begin with and then one of the barrels malfunctioned. That reduced the guy to a slow-loading, single shot weapon. Any normally functioning magazine fed gun would have been a totally different story.

  21. avatar Ern says:

    “…ban the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading…”
    As usual, the remedy does not address the problem.
    To reduce all traffic deaths, no car can go over 20 miles per hour.
    To reduce the risk of fatal heart attacks, no one can weigh over eighty-five pounds.
    Etc…etc…etc…

  22. avatar Sammy says:

    How about a law that limits the number of lies a politician can tell in one breath.

    1. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

      Right after the 1 % get thier big tax increase

  23. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

    You may want to look at currant law. In Ct. No guns can be sold to any one other than FFL holder that can hold more than 10 rounds in a mag. And 1 i chamber but the did allow a grandfather clause and that is what they now want to revoke. Many didn’t register the guns or high capacity mags as it was and if caught face jail time. The law also band any long gun with a pistol grip also on it that put about another 100 different more models on the band weapons list. This would now take those firearms away from thier owners.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      banned, not band

      Grammar is more important than you think.

  24. avatar Logan says:

    Dumb*ss politicians think the best way to stop an active shooter is to wait until they are changing mags, then tackle them or throw a can of beans at them or some crap like that. While using strongly worded requests to stop.

    I’ll use my .40S&W. Let’s see which is more effective.

    Mag capacity limits go hand in hand with gun free zones. Both ideas miss the point that the best way to stop an active shooter is to SHOOT BACK!!!

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Yep. Just shows they don’t care about the first ten victims.

      That’s why it’s just a slippery step to a lower number until they reach zero. “See, we had this magazine limit to 10 rounds, but 10 innocent people still got killed. what can we DOOOOOO?”

      And still, as always, they assume

      (a) Good guys are bad guys (no >10 rnd mags for the law abiding)
      (b) Bad guys will obey the limit.

      What is truly astonishing is that they think we can’t see right through their shtick. We know none of this has anything to do with Sandy Hook or protecting children. That’s just mere emotional manipulation to further acceptance of statist ideologies.

  25. avatar leo says:

    Could they ban on growing idiots in this country? Same ban should apply on letting them crossing our borders. If no guns at all they will go Home Depot and buy axe. They could fire or bomb without guns, how is this 10 rounds will help in this problem?

  26. avatar devil's advocate says:

    All this took place first with The Stockton schoolyard shooting (also known as the Cleveland School massacre) occurred on January 17, 1989, at Cleveland Elementary School at 20 East Fulton Street in Stockton, California . The multiple murders at Stockton received national news coverage and spurred calls for regulation of semiautomatic weapons. “Why could Purdy, an alcoholic who had been arrested for such offenses as selling weapons and attempted robbery, walk into a gun shop in Sandy, Oregon, and leave with an AK-47 under his arm?”, Time magazine asked. They continued, “The easy availability of weapons like this, which have no purpose other than killing human beings, can all too readily turn the delusions of sick gunmen into tragic nightmares.”[1] Purdy was able to purchase the weapons because the judicial system had not convicted him of any crime that prevented him from purchasing firearms. Than California, took measures to define and then ban assault weapons, resulting in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 wich still enforce in that state . On the Federal level, Congress struggled with a way to ban weapons like Purdy’s aesthetically military-style rifle without being seen to also ban more sporting-looking rifles. Later in 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed an executive order (the Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle Ban) banning importation of assault weapons . The federal assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. President Bill Clinton signed another executive order in 1994 which banned importation of most firearms and ammunition from China until set ban owner ship any mags held more than ten rounds until it expire . Than California took more measures on it own like ban all mags hold more than ten rounds any guns your allowed own still in effect bunch other stuff . You think when sad events happen people would rush in doing these measure above yet history show sent this event happen 1989 what they do.

  27. avatar Publius says:

    You want a law banning something that would actually have an impact on school shootings? How about banning LEO’s from sitting in their cars pissing their pants instead of doing their goddamn job and taking out the shooter?

  28. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…a recommendation to ban the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading”

    Interesting….. lets take that at face value and go to the next step.

    Bad guy enters area, say a school or work place, and starts shooting. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang *click*. Now what? Is someone supposed to jump up, run over and tackle the shooter? Or is the shooter supposed to simply put his now empty gun down? After ten is the shooter now bored with the killing and is just going to go away, or go wait out front for the cops to arrive?

    Seriously, what happens next in a situation if we accept that 10 is the magic number upon which to place the ban?

    I have an alternate suggestion for everyone to consider…..

    People who are not in elected positions, or in positions of power like relatives or bosses, when they come up with ideas like this one should be treated like small children. You want to encourage them for trying to help while at the same time making it clear that their ideas won’t work. Reward the positive action, correct and minimize the stupid.

    People who are supposed to know better, like politicians who are supposed to be doing representative work of a body of citizens, require harsher methods like public humiliation. Tell them to their faces when they come up these kinds of ideas and in very simple words like “that is stupid, sit down and shut up.” If possible, laugh directly in their faces. Get as many others to do the same.

  29. avatar DerryM says:

    The language of this “proposal” is very ambiguous. Banning any gun that could fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is a veritable Pandora’s box, since any rifle or pistol that accepts a separate magazine could fire more than ten rounds without reloading given a larger capacity magazine. So, this language takes the focus off magazines and puts it on the gun itself. As other comments have pointed-out some tube fed rifles and shotguns can hold more than 10 rounds, so they are theoretically banned automatically according to this “logic”. If that is the case, then there’s nothing to keep the Politicians from applying the “could principle” to many other firearms and banning them because they could fire more than 10 rounds given a larger magazine. Very devious and sinister.

    1. avatar Jon says:

      I don’t know of ANY handguns — with the exception of derringers, revolvers, and flintlock pistols— that don’t accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, even the ones that have limited magazine sizes for certain states. If there are any semi-autos that only have a 10 round magazine, I’m sure there is some aftermarket magazine available somewhere that let’s it hold more, so I have no doubt these snakes seek for ALL SEMI-AUTOS to be banned —

      — I know that what they really want is for us to only have flintlock pistols. It’s their wet-dream, they salivate at the thought.

      I consider this a declaration of war on the US Constitution, my American birth-rights!

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Yes, Exactly!

  30. avatar Kendahl says:

    We already know that it takes only a second to swap magazines. Even if a mass murderer was limited to revolvers, there are speed loaders as well as the New York reload. I doubt these people have thought about the damage a nut case could do with just a couple of sharp knives.

  31. avatar Michelle says:

    I know the current context is “We’re winning” and “These people are idiots”. But a lot of people are also “just moving” and ceding ground.

    I don’t like the look of this in the long view. A lot of people out there are nodding their heads at this. The common chant of “common sense”, almost as an attached device and trigger phrase, we’re going to see the follow on of “10 rounds” and other restrictions.

    This is incrementalism and conditioning at work here… It had “little connection to mental health”… and more to the fact that it was a Bushmaster. I just can’t get over that concept.

  32. avatar Sc says:

    Those intent on mass killing set the tempo and don’t have to concern themselves with concealing their firearms or spare mags. They also aren’t weighed down with a briefcase or a laptop or bags full of groceries. The law abiding have to carry all their daily crap and conceal a firearm and a spare mag. This allows the attacker to be fully kitted out for a battle and the defender with 21 rounds to defend their lives against massive tactical superiority. Sounds like it will save lives.
    Since I live in occupied territory, my G22 is neutered to 10 round mags. This is what I choose to carry because if I’m limited to 10 round mags, I want the bullets to be the biggest I am comfortable with. If I lived in a free state I would have 10 more 40 cal chances to defend myself with just one mag in the gun and a spare. Actually, if I lived in a free state I’d carry a g17 as I prefer the 9mm and I’d have 14 more chances to defend myself.
    The progs seem to think that mass killings are spontaneous acts of passion. Just some guy walking down the street with a rifle that all of a sudden decides to kill a whole bunch of people with a legally acquired, and compliant firearm. Reality is obviously a foreign concept to them.

    1. avatar Dan says:

      if people are limited to 10 rounds, they’ll just increase the caliber to something more powerful. can’t carry 17rds of 9mm? then i’ll carry 10rds of 357sig.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        You could go “ten by ten” (as in ten by ten millimeter). Ugh. that bit of slang could actually catch on, if and when.

    2. avatar John P says:

      Why bother with a sissy .40 when you can have a 10mm? I mean, if you are already ammo limited….

  33. avatar Burley Ole'Bear says:

    Sandy Hook was never about anything BUT confiscation. It was pre-planned and a false flag.
    There are so many website certificates that were launched 2-3 days prior to the event that were “in memory of…” and “in support of…” that there is NO WAY this was anything but a political play. Put down the koolaid, speak up for your rights and tell the gov to read the damn constitution once in a while. Nowhere in that document does it list the caveat “unless you feel threatened…”

  34. avatar Ted says:

    Yeah, how’d that work in Isla Vista?

  35. avatar Watcher says:

    In 1957 there were over 500,000 institutionalized in State Mental Institutions and we had reasonable involuntary commitment laws. We had no modern “gun control” laws, could buy your M1 Carbine through the mail along with all the 30 round magazines you wanted- yet mass random shootings NEVER HAPPENED!!! Was 1957 America a police state? Doctors and judges made the decision who to keep in the loony bin, and they could not get out until they were no longer a threat to self or a public threat. You still had the rights to a lawyer and judge to prove your sanity and get out if there was no basis for the decision.

    Today we have emptied and closed the State Mental Institutions, created the homeless population, made involuntary commitment impossible until AFTER you commit a crime- and then try and blame guns for the actions of the mental patients!!!

    The Newtown CT shooting- Mother was so scared of her son she told sitters not to turn their backs on him even if they went to the bathroom, was in the process to allow her to involuntarily commit him- but with him not having committed a crime involuntary commitment is virtually impossible and there is no where to send him. In the State of Connecticut, you cannot even use someone’s past history of violence or past psychiatric history against them in an involuntary commitment case. 40 years ago he would have been institutionalized in a State Mental Institution based on his behavior. You know where the largest State Mental Institution in Connecticut is? NEWTOWN- it’s been CLOSED for DECADES! This is NOT a “gun control” issue!

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      “The Newtown CT shooting- Mother was so scared of her son she told sitters not to turn their backs on him even if they went to the bathroom, was in the process to allow her to involuntarily commit him-” What is your source for this?

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Ok, thought had a real source there for a minute. Even assuming this person did actually babysit, and these words were said almost a decade ago, the words, if said , could have meant many things. It’s a joke this passes for legitimate news.

  36. avatar Bob says:

    Don’t forget, we need to ban sharp knives, pointy sticks, and any rocks larger than a tennis ball. Oh and bats longer than 6″, no matter how in inconveniences recreational baseball players.

    Fer der chilens.

  37. avatar Jim Rice says:

    This is very sad. It highlights how ignorant people are about guns. But what concerns me as much is our responses as represented by the comments. I believe deeply that unless we change our tone from combative to engaging, we will continue to build a population of ignorant people who fear guns and their owners. So my reaction to this report would be to first try and understand their rational and then hopefully engage in a conversation of mutual respect. We have the facts working for us; sound rational arguments. We all know that the 10 round limitation is LOL. We must get them engaged first and before trying to persuade. Lobbing hyperbole and f-bombs will not do it and will further polarize the situation.

    I believe that gun owners need to take the high ground immediately by admitting in the dialogue that guns are tools to kill. Handguns, for the most part are tools to kill humans. As such, they are dangerous. They are designed to be dangerous as as defense against tyrants whether they are thugs in a dark parking lot, home intruder or a dictator. The more dangerous the gun, the better. Why? Because more often than not, possession and the skill to use it is a huge deterrent.

    What gun banners fear I think are three things. One, they fear the tool. They are afraid of the tool because of its purpose. They are probably fearful of flying airplanes them selves, SCUBA diving or running a table saw. OK, that’s fine but not for the rest of us.

    Two, they fear we will have accidents with the tool that could hurt them or someone else. That is legitimate and we should respect that. We should remind them that accidents with guns is 3% of annual gun related deaths. (Oh yeah, we have this bigger problem called gangs and drug dealers). But it is a real fear of theirs so we must address it in a respectful manner. That is why I call on every gun owner to step up; take it up a notch or two on training and gun safety. Demonstrate in everything that you do that you are responsible. Collectively, we need to demonstrate that we are actually very responsible possessing and using such a deadly tool. We don’t want them worrying that in the stall next to them in the restroom is someone who is not responsible and accidentally discharges. My point is, whether a fear is rational or irrational, we need to address it openly or lose the political battle and our rights. Demonstrating responsibility and legitimacy will go a long way in that regard.

    Three, and this one is the kicker, they who are in power, fear a well armed and trained citizenry who then, through demagoguery, convince the unknowing and fearful non-gun owners that guns are bad so they support them politically. But, the fact is, based on gobs of historical evidence, that guns are instruments of peace. History bears this out in spades. The Colt 45 was called the “Peace Maker” for a reason. Thugs would not prey on someone with that strapped to their leg.

    So I ask that gun owners constructively engage those who want to ban and regulate guns. Let’s go to the heart of their fears and engage in a conversation. We must start a respectful conversation demonstrating all along the way that we are responsible and the bulwark; the underpinnings of the freedom and liberty they so enjoy today. What we must do is to turn the fear around from being fearful of us as responsible gun owners to fearing the consequences of us losing the right.

    On a closing note: For “responsibility” to have legitimacy, we need to substantially raise the bar with training that goes far beyond target practice and includes risk management, the psychology of killing, scenario simulations, etc.. That is the topic for another blog.

  38. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    You can’t stop a mass murderer by banning tools. Assume all semi-auto firearms, including revolvers, are banned, confiscated, taken out of circulation. Now try and imagine a scenario where a madman inflicts mass casualties with or without a firearm.

    Wasn’t so hard, was it?

    The only good news here is the blatant unconstitutionality of this might give the legislature pause. New York had to back down on the 7-round magazine idea quickly followed by the “only load 7” idea when they realized the size of the can of worms they’d opened up.

  39. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Q: What would a magazine restriction have done to stop [insert spree shooter here]?

    A: Absolutely nothing.

    [Insert spree shooter here] was carrying multiple firearms, extra loaded magazines, and extra ammunition. [Insert spree shooter here] died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound some length of time before being encountered by armed first-responders.

    Q: What can be done to stop spree shootings?

    A: Eliminate target-rich environments full of defenseless victims.

  40. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

    http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=3997&q=517542

    This is the Gov’s website for contacting the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission. It requires a CT address. I suggest using the State Capitol

    210 CAPITOL AVENUE
    HARTFORD, CT 06106

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email