[HTML1]

There they go again. Yup. The Brady Bunch is at it one more once, this time with a well-produced 30-second piece of the finest spin this side of the Pecos, a little opus that hopes to build steam for banning “assault clips.” Wait…assault wha?


In this post-Loughner atmosphere, the Brady Campaign evidently feels as if extended-capacity magazines are their ‘low-hanging fruit,’ and the best they can hope for. Or perhaps they feel as if it’s a riff on the camel in the tent meme – get a ban on large magazines, and it’s only a hop, skip, and rhetorical jump over to a ban on, well everything.

Of course, in order to whip up the great unwashed into a cappuccino-like froth, it helps to ignore things like facts, accuracy, and proper terminology. Hence:

  • High-capacity magazines don’t kill people. Nutjobs do. The only thing hi-cap mags do is to cut down on the need for tactical reloads. Worst case, that turns a psycho killing machine into a marginally more-efficient killing machine. Maybe.
  • There’s no such thing as an “assault” anything. Last I checked, assault is a verb. Not an adjective. And unless you’re gonna hit someone over the head with the 30-round magazine, you’re not going to be able to assault anyone with it. Won’t work without a gun. Duh.
  • A clip and a magazine are two different things, people. Please get them straight. Unless, of course, your goal is to have gun guys laughing and rolling their eyes when you show an extended-capacity magazine and call it an “assault clip.” Disarm us/distract us with laughter? Good luck with that.
  • Spin it all you like – it’s still grabbing guns, and it still won’t fly.

They are wiley and persistent. I’ll grant ’em that. (Then again, I’d say the same thing about Wiley E. Coyote, and he’s not exactly the poster-boy for WINNING, any more than Charlie Sheen is.)

The funny part about all this is that, if you look at the Lautenberg/McCarthy bill currently floating about the rarified air in D.C., it attempts to ban ANY magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and make it a crime, punishable by jail time, to even possess one. Nice. Of course, unspoken in all the brouhaha is that this would effectively ban a significant number of handguns on the market as well – say, anything with a double-stack magazine. Glocks? Buh-bye. Springfield XDs? History team. Any modern polymer pistol? On the endangered-species list, without hope of a reprieve from the Department of the Interior, Sierra Club, or OSHA.

To hear the HuffPo-folks spin it, you’d think the ad is a stroke of genius from “one of the nation’s most powerful gun-control advocacy groups.” That’s kind of like damning with feint praise, if you ask me. It’s the equivalent of saying “the most effective Progressive President since Jimmy Carter” or “more open and transparent an administration than the Nixon White House.” Um. Yeah. Not so much.

But the Brady Bunch doesn’t stop there. Nope. They’ve enlisted the help of Kelly O’Brien. “Kelly O’Who?” you might ask. She was the fiancé of the late Gabe Zimmerman, the Congressional staffer who was shot and killed by Loughner. She’s going up on (Capitol) Hill to guilt some mugwump Congressmen to get behind the Laughtenberg/McCarthy bill.

If you watch the video closely, you’ll see that they don’t miss a beat – or a trick. (Although, guys…you need to get yourself a new sound effects editor. The gunfire audio sounds like a Ruger 10-22…not exactly the muy macho machine o’ death you’re using for fearmongering.)

The paper target? A silhouette of a young girl in pigtails. Not to be outdone for those who might not feel a bond to Pipi Longstocking, they throw in some other imagry as well, in that quick-cut montage style we’ve all come to know and loathe – an elderly man, an adult woman, a generic male outline, a postman (Wow! Now THAT’S insensitive? Where’s the PC Police when you need ’em), a graduating college student in mortarboard cap and gown (a little subliminal, but whatever floats yer boat) and back to Pipi. This is followed by the legend “Assault Clips: They Make Everyone a Target,” followed by the call to action: “Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips.”

The spot ends with the Brady Bunch logo, and their new spin, uh…slogan: “Sensible Gun Laws Save Lives.” I’d almost agree with them on that one, but the law I have in mind reads A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That’s really about all the gun law we need, far as I’m concerned.

Recommended For You

46 Responses to Brady Bunch Doesn’t Know a Clip from a Magazine. Duh.

  1. i am so glad yall made a post about this, i saw this earlier and LMAO. Way to discredit themselves before the video even starts with their title. The look on the shooters face is hilarious. wtf is an “assault clip”, i think the brady folks invented a new category here.

    what range would allow these idiots to film this garbage??!!

  2. Here are some clips I wouldn’t mind being banned: paper clips, hair clips, toenail clips, alligator clips, movie clips, video clips, potato clips, clip art, clip joints and above all the Los Angeles Clippers, who have never assaulted anyone. But leave my assault clips alone before I go all Tony Montana on a Pippi cutout myself.

    • Noun 1. clip – a metal frame or container holding cartridges; can be inserted into an automatic gun
      cartridge clip, cartridge holder, magazine

      Wow, what a surprise. They were using the word correctly.

      • A clip is a device which holds ammunition cartridges and is inserted into a gun’s magazine. A magazine is a container which incorporates the function of an ammo clip in its design. So, although your dictionary definition is technically correct, what was used in that Brady Bunch hit piece (no pun intended) was definitely a magazine. They are using incorrect terminology. Semantics aside.

  3. Here in Canada we have had a 10 round maximum capacity magazine law for a great many years. Never once has anyone not been able to buy Glocks, XDs or any other handgun that is factory designed for high capacity magazines. Just because the handgun can have a high capacity magazine has never been a reason for its restriction in Canada. I think your claim that banning high capacity magazines means banning handguns that can use high capacity magazines is a bit disingenuous.

    For the curious, handguns are restricted by barrel length and then by calibre in Canada. We cannot import or purchase handguns with barrel lengths shorter than 4.1 inches (105 mm, to be exact), or any handgun with .32 calibre or less (except for .22 which is fine). I still have high capacity magazines from before the new law (which I have “pinned” to take only 10 rounds {they can easily be unpinned, btw}). If you have a coveted PAL Restricted 12(6) you can buy firearms that are prohibited so long as they are in the country and being sold by a legitimate dealer, but you may not import them.

    • Either way, it’s still not all roses. My “high-capacity” Marlin Model 60 .22 is considered a banned assault rifle in New Jersey because they are morons.

      • Is that only because of the magazine, or are there other reasons? Barrel length? Over all length? Action?

    • We cannot import or purchase handguns with barrel lengths shorter than 4.1 inches (105 mm, to be exact) …

      Ah ha. So that would explain this then.

      • Yep. The CZ P-07 has the same “extended” barrel for export to Canada (and elsewhere). Sadly, we can only have “full sized” handguns unless you are LEO/military or bonded security agents. This leaves several very popular models unavailable in the Canadian market. The idea, as restrictive as it is, is to keep the numbers of easily concealable handguns low. It seems to have worked despite the fact that several thousand illegal handguns cross the border from the US into Canada every year.

  4. As to the video itself and the argument it presents: they aren’t doing themselves any favours by sensationalizing the issue and using such dumbed-down terminology. A bad piece of propaganda that ends up hurting their stance.

    • Last I checked, Canada is not part of the USA. In the USA we have this thing called the Constitution (i.e. the rules of our government). In the Constitution there is this part called the Second Amendment. In the Second Amendment there is a part that states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Therefore, Mouldy Squid your point is irrelevant. What happens in Canada or Russia or China as far as domestic policy regarding potential restrictions on guns is irrelevant.

      • Clearly you missed the last sentence in that paragraph. Brad made a hyperbolic statement. He conflated banning high capacity magazines with banning pistols that use high capacity magazines. I used Canada’s laws as a example of how his argument was somewhat disingenuous.

        My point is not irrelevant; you simply didn’t understand it.

        • I contend that while the Lautenberg/McCarthy bill addresses ONLY magazines, it will effectively ban the guns that come with them, because it criminalizes possession of a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, no matter when it was manufactured. That’s huge. It would mean you’d have to turn in or destroy any hi-capacity magazines. What if that’s all your gun takes? I suppose you could mod the magazine, but what can be done can be undone. And how long would it take before a companion bill appears that would ban any “unauthorized” modifications of extended magazines?

          My contention is that this is the “camel in the tent” strategy, writ large. Get one, seemingly small concession, then chip away at the scope until you achieve your goals.

        • Fair points. Your contention is more than reasonable. All I can do is point out the experience of gun owners in Canada in comparison, which I hope is instructive.

          When the high capacity magazine laws were instituted in 1992, it was assumed by the authorities that owners would “pin” their magazines to limit them to 10 rounds (I have several myself). We were not required to turn in or destroy those magazines. This was done on the honour system with the understanding that if the authorities should inspect your firearms, penalties would be levied against those who did not conform.

          Because there was no real way for the authorities to find magazines that were hidden away, and since inspections are almost unheard of, this law is only really useful when prosecuting gun-crimes. It is, in effect, an unenforcible law and really should be repealed. However, with almost 20 years passed since, it has completely dropped off the radar as part of the debate up here.

          You raise an interesting point about what happens to those firearms that can only take high capacity magazines. It all depends on what proposed legislation would require the owner to do. If, like Canada, the owner is supposed to pin the magazines, then of course there is no problem (outside of objections to the law itself). If you are required to turn in and destroy them, well, there’s the rub. Would established property law cover this, specifically laws specifying confiscation of property by the state? Would there be compensation? Could the legislation be challenged by citing property laws?

          Please understand that I don’t see the need to limit magazine capacity. As I stated above, it is a unenforcible law in effect (as it stands in Canada). It has, however, not kept Canadians from purchasing firearms that can use high-cap magazines and no handguns have been confiscated because of it.

          As Sy pointed out, Canadian firearms regulation has no impact on US legislation. However, I think it is important to point out that these kinds of legislation have less of an impact when introduced reasonably than many people recognize or admit. Citing Canadian law is a way of doing that. Is Canadian firearms regulation perfect? No. It has several problems, is overly restrictive in many instances and suffers from an inability to enforce many regulations. It can, however, illustrate how some regulation can be enacted without overly odious restrictions.

  5. I’ve never been able to speed reload magazines larger than 20 rounds in my pistol. Anytime I try and slam one of those gigantic mags home it always fails to seat. I bet I could fire 100 rounds using lower capacity magazines faster than I could fire 100 with high cap mags.

    Hmm… I feel a test coming on…

    Hey RF, care to throw some ludicrous capacity magazines my way?

  6. Did anyone notice that the shooter placed his left thumb behind the slide while shooting. That’s a good way to get two groves on top of the thumb and start bleeding all over a perfectly good Glock!

    And whats with racking the slide from in front of the ejection port while on trigger no less.

    Of course no actual gunnie would be the star in a Brady bunch movie so they dug up this clown.

  7. Why does anyone care about them using the term “CLIP?” The real danger is demonizing an inanimate object by the use of the adjective “assault.” There is no such thing as an assault clip, assault magazine nor an assault weapon!!!!!!!

    • They can call them “assault tampons” for all I care. But I brought it up to illustrate the lack of knowledge on their front, and their tendencies to throw around words as if they know what they’re talking about.

      That, and I think they realize that “assault clip” falls a little more trippingly off the tongue than does “assault magazine.”

      “Assault magazine” does sound kinda macho, though. Gonna have to get me summa them “assault magazines.” Maybe Playboy or Esquire makes ’em.

      • For a real assault magazine, it’s hard to beat the mid-1990s Computer Shopper. Those bad boys were around 10″x14″, and at least 1″ thick. You could seriously pummel someone with that magazine….

  8. It never bothers me when banners, antis and journalists (was that redundant?) say clip when referring to a magazine. What DOES annoy the hell out of me is when pro-gun people do it. It happens more than you’d think, too.

    Is it an important issue? Of course not. But I’m an a-hole and notice things like that.

    • Irregardless of whether the correct term is “clip” or “magazine” I think we are all in agreeance that this was not cromulent, nor did it embiggen anyone’s knowledge of firearms.

    • The clip-magazine thing never bothered me. My late uncle, a WWII veteran, never called the magazine in his Colt 1911A1 anything but a clip. I’d like to have seen anyone try to correct his nomenclature. That would be interesting. Beautiful pistol by the way, great patina. I have it today.

      Here’s the one I hate, and we see it at TTAG all the time: when shooters call cartridges “bullets.” People, if you put bullets in your magazine, they will not feed and they will not fire. Ok? Grrr.

  9. I’m confused. They said the assault clips are only good for one thing, killing lots of people, but that guy didn’t kill anyone. He only used it for target practice. It looked pretty good for that purpose. Can the Brady Campaign count?

    • “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.”

  10. YouTube page: “Ratings have been disabled for this video…Adding comments has been disabled for this video.”

    Pretty much says it all.

  11. As ignorant as HuffPo commentators usually are, it’s nice to see even a couple of the moderators there stick up for gun rights.

  12. As the pig tail girl silhouette came back, I half-expected a “smiley face” ala Mel Gibson in “Lethal Weapon.” 🙂

  13. Simply wish to say your article is as astounding. The clearness in your post is simply excellent and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Well with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming blog post. Thanks a million and please carry on the rewarding work. Best wishes

  14. Within the mid 1970’s, medical science told us i was doing the work wrong. Now, twenty-first century contractors need to “go eco-friendly” to earn eco-friendly. And also the future appears better (and much more energy-efficient than ever before.) We have used cork, asbestos, glass, plastic, foam as well as dirt to get it done. Yes, whenever you consider the good reputation for insulation, in most its myriad forms, we are able to see precisely how far we have come. http://www.sprasia.com/blog/mariesordat/20140523164350.html http://www.sprasia.com/blog/mariesordat/20140523164350.html

Leave a Reply

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