Previous Post
Next Post

How many “high capacity” AR-15 ammunition magazines are there in the United States of America? One million? Ten million? More? What are the odds that a federal law could eliminate a psycho-killer’s access to a 30-round AR-15 ammunition magazine? More to the point, how can MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blame Republicans (and “Blue Dog” Democrats) for the death of a little girl shot by a homicidal maniac? Simple. Mr. O’Donnell lives in a world where personal responsibility doesn’t exist. Where the government is responsible for everything from pre-natal care to housing to education to the number of bullets fired by a spree killer into a crowd of innocent bystanders. Mr. O’Donnell’s rationale for a “high capacity” mag ban bill is in perfect synch with this world view. He wants to limit/eliminate the average Americans’ ability to protect themselves to protect them. Like I said, nuts.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The gun grabbers will say any old thing. It doesn’t even have to make sense to an intelligent rational human being. Don’t bother with logic, fact or historical proof, just keep beating the drum.

    So long as the mantra includes the propaganda points in the gun grabber’s playbook it’s all good: “Ok folks, now look into the TV, watch the spinning bobble, repeat after me: Guns bad, high-capacity magazines bad, Second Amendment bad, More..laws..could..prevent”

  2. I’m sure he would be perfectly okay with 11 rounds in a magazine, then.

    If he were being intellectually honest he would demand getting rid of all magazines, period, and leave guns as single-shot firearms.

      • Oh, I understand that’s the ultimate goal. I mean that *all* those who call for a limit to an arbitrary ten rounds aren’t being intellectually honest.

      • Actually, the bigger picture is loss of individualism and to collect everyone into the communal or group identity. Individuals who insist on being armed to preserve individual rights and responsibilities are holdouts against that worldview.

        I used to wonder why these people looked at every problem and could only see a government based solution rather than private based solutions. Now I know.

  3. Douchebag.

    Still waiting for him to start worrying about the 3,000 babies dying each day in their mothers wombs. He can’t even get concerned for the 10,000 per year done late term.

  4. Mr. O’Donnell is viewing this as some sort of zero-sum math equation, while ignoring the fact that the Giffords shooting was actually one of the very few incidents where the shooter DIDN’T reload.
    Sandy Hook saw Lanza reload several times, and there was even an attempt to tackle him that ended badly. (massive understatement here)
    Columbine saw the use of both legal and illegal magazines (Tec-9 32 rounders and Hi-Point 10 rounders) and there was no reduction in their lethality.
    V.T. saw the use of ten round magazines and 15 round magazines and we saw how much safer the students were with only 25 rounds. The five fewer rounds gave people just enough time to….huddle in terror for a few more seconds. Yay. (not)
    And the most damning incident of all, the Cologne massacre.
    The killer there used a GARDEN SPRAYER as a flamethrower, as well as a homemade spear and a homemade mace.
    Also the whole Texas stabbing incident.
    But let’s ignore all of those shall we? They’re different somehow, right?
    Gun-free zones. They work so well, we should expand them nationwide like Mexico, the UK and Australia! I can almost taste the safety right now!

  5. I really don’t understand all of the frothing at the mouth for magazine capacity limits. All of the information I have read, which came from the DOJ after a study of the original AWB, and the current letter to the Obama administration, it stated that magazine capacity limits will not have a statistically significant effect in shooting deaths.

    I want to know what metric these people used to arrive at the conclusion that 10 rounds is the right amount and 30 rounds it too much for the average American to own. They have not proven that magazine capacity limits will change anything. Anecdotal evidence of a few instances is not enough to make sweeping changes across the country to infringe on the good people of the country.

    I do not buy into the fact that if people have fewer rounds in a mass shooting that more lives will be saved. What we have seen is that many of these shootings they will plan around the limitations of their weapon systems. They instead bring multiple weapons to the shooting (Shotgun back up by a rifle and handgun(s), perform New York reloads, 10×10 round magazines, crowd suppressant gas etc). In order to prevent all situations, the government would have to play whack a mole every time some idiot went on a shooting rampage to make new laws to try and prevent the last mass shooting.

    I also do not believe that there are very many instances where the shooter having to reload gave anyone a chance to charge or tackle the shooter to stop them. You would have to determine if the shooter was actively reloading or just moving to the next target rich area. This means you have to move from cover. If you choose the wrong moment, you get shot. If you choose right moment, you still have to close the distance in less than 3 seconds. Part of those few seconds will be assessing whether the shooter is reloading or not so unless you are next to the shooter it will leave almost no time to close the distance. Then there is the issue of wrestling with the gunman. If they are physically large than you, then that will probably not end very well. In essence, it is a fantasy.

    What this all boils down to is it infringes on the good people and really does nothing to stop mass murdering psychos who may plan their attack for weeks or months. The laws do no solve the problem which is the mass murderer.

    • “If they are physically large than you, then that will probably not end very well. In essence, it is a fantasy.”

      While i agree that tackling the guy is a joke (especially considering who champions the idea), to be fair, the shooters are almost without exception pretty damn scrawny.

    • “In order to prevent all situations, the government would have to play whack a mole every time…”

      You must be new here. This is exactly the way our government functions. There is absolutely no forethought or attempt to plan ahead. They’re always “fighting the last war” in Washington. They don’t know any other way.

      • Not really new, just saying keeping the meme going that the government is reactionary and fighting the past battles.

    • The other question: why exempt cops? Why don’t they want to abide by a 10-round limit? If it’s so “common sense,” and the cops DO operate under the same rules of engagement as WE do, then why isn’t the 10-round limit to be imposed on EVERYONE? Stop here: whatever excuse the cops give is good enough for ME. End of story.

    • Don’t buy into the idea that actually addressing problems is the plan, the powers behind all this simply want to ban all civilian possession of guns.

    • I saw a posting on another blog comparing the US and the Netherlands in areas like gun ownership rates, murder rates, and a few other areas related to guns and violence. It’s not apples to apples. The Netherlands does not have Mexican drug violence like we do, they do not have poverty rates like us, they do not have healthcare disparity rates like us and a slew of other issues that make our gun violence so high. At the end of the day, it ain’t the guns that are the problem.

  6. The notion that the Giffords shooter was jumped when he stopped to reload is another one of those “truths” that upon inspection doesn’t hold up. According to the LA Times, the shooter actually did reload. It was when his gun jammed after reloading that he was jumped.

    Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed

  7. When it’s reasonable to go from 30 rounds to 10 it will be reasonable to go to 5 rounds when the 10 rounders don’t work. After that? like DRE said “there aint nothin after that”, Randy

  8. When faced with a compelling argument, you attack. The man is insane. Others you call troll.

    What he said about Loughner is exactly right and it’s one of the best arguments for prohibiting larger-capacity magazines. Lanza is another one. Holmes too.

    Some of us have been saying this all along.

    • Think rationally. Ten bullets and reloading doesn’t save a life if he then goes on to continue shooting. As other shooters can use 10 capacity magazines as illustrated and…people still die. Hi Point 10 round mags shoot the same bullets that are used in a Glock 17. The number of the round does not change death whether it is the 12th round from the first mag or the 2nd round from the 2nd magazine or whatever round from whatever mag in whatever shooting mayhem ensues.

      Think about that. Other shooters have used 10 round magazines to the same effect of people being shot and killed. The only thing a shooter needs is time and a victim rich area. If you want to stand there and be shot instead of shoot back this is all well and good but…a nation that thinks like that is a nation full of waiting victims. Let’s prevent that shall we?

    • Might as well point out one pile of horseshit in the pasture, and claim that it smells sweeter than all the other piles…

    • Mikeb30200- Just an observation but I get the feeling you don’t go out shooting much. Because if you did you would understand the problem with this line of thinking and how it doesn’t work in the real world.

        • I respect the debate, all opinions can be weighed on merit, but Mikey bunchanumbers is not an honest actor.

          He is baiting everyone in an attempt to make this blog look bad. For example: “Why don’t you say what you mean and drop the silly attempts to pigeon-hole me based on my comments.” Hello E-thug, thems fightin’ words!

          It’s not surprising that the responsible guys here don’t fall for the trap. But maybe we can do better by preemptively disarming this conflict.

          Is there an appropriate blanket rebuttal to his baiting that we can all use. Something a rangemaster might say, or at least something gun-ish?

          I like “Tap, Rack, Bang!” as it denotes he is having a malfunction of the brain and needs to clear it.

        • you do have some experience,

          it makes sense that a criminal would be abhorred by the idea of a armed population. Less safe environment for the likes of you.

    • Mikebnumbers–

      What you need to understand is that changing magazines is essentially no hinderance to someone on the *attack* but is absolutely a disadvantage to someone on the defensive.

      The whole tackle-the-bad-guy-when-he-changes-magazines has odds of probably 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 of actually working. Why? Because the shooter has already cleared the immediate area. Do you think he’s going to be shooting at people 50 yards away and then tackled by someone 5 feet away he ignored? Nope. They work in an expanding radius, which buys them plenty of time to reload. Seeing as how these nuts come prepared with four guns and 500 rounds in a tactical vest and cargo pants, they’re well-equipped to do damage.

      Your average concealed-carry good guy has her gun loaded and *maybe* two backup magazines–one (or zero) is more likely. If it’s a revolver, she is probably NOT carrying a speedloader on her belt because of the size. The difference between a revolver and a non-neutered 9mm with a SINGLE backup magazine is the difference between 6 rounds and 31 rounds. Those extra 25 rounds can make a world of difference to the children saved by ending the next Newtown or Aurora quickly.

      A law abiding citizen can just as easily go home at night having not murdered anyone with 31 rounds just the same as she can with 6. But, when disaster strikes, and you have to react defensively, the extra capacity can make all the difference to the parents of innocent kids.

      Plenty of anti-gun activists think it’s immoral to kill in self-defense. What do you think the police are going to do when they arrive? Ask the mad killer to pretty-please stop killing the kids? Nope, they shoot to stop the threat–they same as you should.

      If you were a teacher or janitor in a school when a madman broke in and starting killing kids, which is the most effective and moral thing to do:
      1. Say to yourself “I obey the law. This is immoral, and I am above it. We can do better.”
      2. Defend the children with a chair, notebooks, pens and scissors.
      3. Call the police. Wait 5 minutes. Hope they come with guns.
      4. Reach to your hip or the nearest safety locker for the defensive weapon. End the threat. Now.

      If you really and truly believe that passing laws against guns will stop criminals from having guns, explain to me how the following can still exist:
      1. Rape. We passed laws against rape. It still happens.
      2. Burglary. This is illegal, yet criminals don’t seem to obey.
      3. Battery. We made beating people with fits and feet illegal, yet fist and feet kill more people than rifles.
      4. Killing your mom and stealing her guns. Believe it or not, government had the foresight to demand strong punishments and to “send a message” to the Adam Lanzas of the world. Unbelievably, he didn’t obey the law–he killed his mom and stole her guns.
      5. Murdering kids. We have laws against shooting kids in the face and torso. Weird how the threat of a “stiff penalty” didn’t deter the killer.
      6. Murdering kids in a school with a firearm within the 1000 foot safety perimeter. This is so doubleplus supersecret illegal it’s unfathomable. It. Still. Happens.

      Sorry for the long rant, Mikeb. I’ll turn it back over to you. In all seriousness, please explain to me how gun control laws will stop people who don’t obey the law.

      • Well, Nick, I’ll respond to your final point first, at the risk of repeating myself. Bad guys get guns from good guys. There are four major ways this happens. Gun control laws and better restrictions on the good guys, the source of guns used in crime, are exactly what we need.

        And your first point: “What you need to understand is that changing magazines is essentially no hinderance to someone on the *attack* but is absolutely a disadvantage to someone on the defensive.”

        Does that really make sense to you? I’d say the need to change magazines affects everyone the same depending on their individual ability and skill in changing them. Lanza’s changing 5 times instead of 15 directly resulted in more dead kids.

        • That’s a load of bull and you know it. In a victim rich environment, reloading has no effect on body count Dunblane much? Oh and I don’t care where “bad guys” get their guns. It does not give you the authority to take mine. Try to usurp that authority by force and I will reply with force. Just like I would for any other criminal scumbag trying to take my property.

        • Sorry Mikey, I won’t be disarmed while we wait 20 years for your supply chain theory of arming criminals to be proved or disproved.

          Come up with a surefire way to disarm criminals tomorrow and we’ll talk.

        • Mikeb–

          I tried to post a response, but it’s not showing up. Maybe it’s too long. A summary:

          Bad guys clear the area near them, and people begin to run away. Their targets are moving away from them, so they have an increasing personal safety zone, which gives them plenty of time to reload.

          The Columbine killers had so much free space that they had the time to play with their little pipe bombs and set a small fire in the cafeteria. They had enough time to strut like tough guys. They had plenty of time to reload and regroup while the victims cowered in the library.

          When cornered or trapped with a killer advancing and closing the distance, the last thing a victim needs is to reload any more often than necessary. The odds are already against the victim from minute one.

          Magazine changes are very different for offensive vs. defensive use.

        • The answer here is POLICE. Why do they want to be exempt? After all, they, like us, can only shoot if/when their life, or the lives of other innocents, is in immediate danger. So, if “large capacity clips” are only meant to “kill as many people as possible,” then why aren’t police asked to abide by the restriction as well? What is their excuse for wanting exemption? Well, it kinda goes something like this:

          1. Criminals often travel in groups. So, with an average of 5 shots exchanged in the “average” gun fight/encounter, a policement facing more than two criminals is outgunned at the outset.
          2. When faced with an attacker out to KILL YOU, the body undergoes several involuntary reactions, none of which help marksmanship. This means you’re going to miss. Maybe a LOT. More ammo, then, can literally mean life.
          3. Hyped on meth or crack, an attacker might be hit several times and still be able to fight on. Police and FBI learned this the hard way, when 2 bank robbery suspects continued to fight after being shot repeatedly, killing several agents before finally expiring. In short, it ain’t like Hollywood; people don’t always drop to the ground once they’ve been shot. In fact, with some through-and-through wounds, the target didn’t even know he was hit.

          Now THINK: as a CCW permit holder, or an armed homeowner, we might run into the same bad guys as the cops do. We don’t have partners, bullet proof vests, a “K-9 officer” or back-up waiting nearby for our call. Is it fair, or even moral, to ask us to accept a restriction that the professionals will not? (And an arbitrary restriction made by people who know nothing of guns and gun fight statistics?) My answer is NO. If you’re a thinking person, yours should be too.

        • Are you guys seriously trying to have a rational debate with mikey here? You must be new to the blog. He just admitted that we need to oppress good guys in order to repeat the failed theory that it’ll keep guns from bad guys. He just admitted that he wants to endanger your lives and the lives of your families (which he has no problem with, since you’re ‘the other’ to him) in order to soothe his own damaged psyche and give himself false comfort.

          He is the definition of an enemy, tyrant, and useful idiot. He’s a sociopath and violent killer who simply hasn’t found his calling yet. You cannot have a rational debate with sub-human filth that refuses to recognize individual rights, much less come up with a logical argument. My suggestion? Simply take comfort in what he is: a real-life monster who constantly reminds us with his presence why we need guns more than ever. Because people like him, the reason why the 2A was created in the first place, exist. And there are many more living all around you.

          So, thank you, once again, mikey. If we didn’t have a headache like you every now and then, we might grow lax in our conviction that we need our aspirin more than ever.

      • Nick, nothing to apologize for, you nailed it.

        These whack-a-doodles keep missing the point that you so precisely articulated. Sometimes I wonder how these folks such as these function in society when the obvious so easily escapes them.

      • Great, mikey gets to come on here and openly threaten my life and the lives of my loved ones with his oppressive agenda, but I’m censored for wishing him ill in return in a tongue in cheek fashion.

        Keep bitterly clinging to that failed moral high ground of politeness and decency toward our monstrous enemies. Because it’s worked so well so far and, you know, they show so much in return. Be sure to give a smile and tip of your hat to the SWAT team when they come for you also.

    • “What he said about Loughner is exactly right and it’s one of the best arguments for prohibiting larger-capacity magazines. Lanza is another one. Holmes too.”

      But you conveniently ignore the fact that:

      1.) VA tech was committed by a shooter using two handguns, a Glock 19 and a walther P22. He also used 10 round magazines (despite the Washington Post publishing 15 rounders due to faulty research). VA tech is considered the worst shooting at a educational institution and second to the Bath school massacre (committed with fire bombs).

      2.) The University of Texas massacre was committed with a remington 700 bolt action rifle

      3.) The Columbine shooters used a 12 gauge pump action shotgun and a hi point carbine (where he notably carried 13x 10 round magazines). And a Tech 9 9mm pistol. No “assault rifles”.

      4.) The Red Lake Massacre? A glock handgun and Remington shotgun.

      You also ignore that

      A.) “Assault weapons” (defined as pistols and rifles with magazines over 10 rounds and shotguns over 3) are used in 1/5th of 1% of all gun crimes

      B.) According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, 393 were killed with ALL rifles last year. Scary “assault weapons”? who knows.

      But despite these “facts”, you have never addressed the issue of gun free zones creating helpless victims out of people, you have never addressed the implications of SSRIs, you have never addressed the fact that Adam Lanza failed a background check and not a single deputy was sent to his house to ask questions.


  9. O’Donnell has never made a secret of who he is. Well, maybe he did, at one time, but he doesn’t anymore. He’s a full-blown United Nations, one-world-government, redistributionist, eugenicist, progressive. He’s just not a fan of individual liberty. Of course, if the shooting ever does start, he’ll be one of the first people dragged out into the street, regardless of who’s winning at any given time.

  10. MSNBC? I don’t even need to look at it. Put NBC and MSNBC out of business, and in the meantime boycott Microsoft technology products as well.

  11. You have struck at the heart of the matter RF. “Mr. O’Donnell lives in a world where personal responsibility doesn’t exist.” Unfortunately, I think we are all living in a world where personal responsibility doesn’t exist…

  12. I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again: The means of achieving liberals’ ends is irrelevant; all that matters is achieving those ends. Lying, cheating, obfuscating, exaggerating, misrepresenting, destroying the opposition – all are perfectly acceptable toward achieving the liberals’ end goal of decimating the 2nd Amendment.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here