What Part of No Don't They Understand?

Via a link from WoG, comes this little gem from Mercury news.

Setting aside the other obvious BS spouted by the author of this piece, I would like to focus on one part, the quote David used in his post:

"Gun Rights Activists did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment."

They didn't call David, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm pretty sure I'm so low on their list of names to call for a comment that I don't really matter much to them, but I'll give it a try anyway.

No. Nyet. Nada. Nein. Non. Mei. Nai. Uh-Uh.

For too many years, gun owners have been portrayed as knuckle dragging neanderthal hick hayseeds. For over 70 years we have given ground to a group whose sole idea of compromise is to give them everything they want in order to save, well something.

We hear things like compromise and common sense, all the while being portrayed as blood thirsty, willing to kill old people and babies to satiate our blood lust.

We gave in 1934, in order to pass the first real federal gun control act, to make sure that possession of certain types of vilified guns and accessories like a Thompson, or short-barrelled rifle/shotguns, and suppressors were made taboo and only available to the wealthy.

We gave in 1968, while more of our freedom and liberty were sacrificed in order to keep the Sirhan Sirhans and protesters of the day from getting their hands on weaponry. We stood by while easily affordable firearms were deemed too cheap to possess, while a petty tyrant sitting in a cushy office in a far away building decided for us what was 'sporting' and what wasn't with the stroke of a pen.

Even in our victories we've seen defeat. A bill to protect gun owners from an out of control bureaucracy (seems something never change, do they?) we got the shaft again, this time by a still controversial amendment that banned future manufacture of fully automatic weapons thus ensuring that only the truly wealthy can afford them.

We stood by in 1993 and 1994 while tragedy after tragedy was laid at our feet and more restrictions were placed upon us. Magazine capacity bans. Bans on cosmetic features. Bans on names. None of this did anything to stem the tragedies, but it made the hanky-wringers happy. We could debate the effectiveness of this particular law all day long, but the long and the short of it is it didn't work. It didn't ban anything. Weapons specifically named under the ban were still available, only they had different names and offending features such as bayonet lugs and threaded barrels were removed. Standard capacity mags that were readily available before 14 Sep 1994 were still available after 14 Sep 1994, they just cost a little more.

The only bone thrown to us in this mess was a sunset clause. 10 years, if left alone, this law would disappear. It was a contentious issue, a president who touted his NRA creds baffled gun owners by saying that if the extension came to his desk, he would sign it. When that law failed to garner the support it needed, I cheered. And I waited. I got my first no-ban gun a month after the sunset.

In those 7 years and change since that law sunsetted, crimes committed with sport utility rifles, and other weapons with standard capacity magazines have not gone through the roof. The only thing that has gone up is the media hysteria over such crimes when the do occur.

The Virginia Tech shooter didn't need extended mags. He needed the standard capacity mags that came with his gun, because he had time to reload. The Tuscon shooter stupidly used a 33 rd magazine used by competition shooters and hobbyists that is known to jam, thinking he could do a lot of damage. He did some, but because his weapon jammed, because he was using a magazine known to do so, he was able to be subdued by bystanders.

So, mister editorialist, I leave you with these questions. What exactly is a 'high capacity magazine'? I mean, I have rifles whose standard capacity is between 4 rds and 100. There are belt fed guns, perfectly legal for us mere peons to own, that take belts of 5 rds up to 250 or more. I have had pistols whose standard capacity is anywhere from 6 to 19 rds.

If, as you all like to claim, no one needs these magazines, and that possession of same is evidence of a desire to kill as many people as possible, then why on earth do the police need them? Are they somehow protected from the urge to kill large swathes of people by the magical talisman on their shirt? Are they imparted with some power during training at the Police Academy that wards off this urge, this desire?

What say you, Mister Gun Grabber?