Tvandermyde Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:07 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:07 PM Statement Regarding Saturday’s Tragic Shooting in TucsonICHV Insights Column by ICHV Board Chair, Patrick Thompson . First, let me say, our thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the family of Judge John Roll and the other victims of the shooting attack on Saturday in Tucson. Whether or not the divisive political discourse of our country was the factor in this tragic event, there are several concerns that must be addressed. First and foremost of those concerns has to be the easy access to guns in this country. ICHV has been at the forefront of requiring stricter laws, not only in Illinois but nationally and calling for background checks on all firearm purchases. These requirements include a universal background check that looks at mental health status, criminal records and other restrictions so guns don’t fall into the hands of people who shouldn’t have access to them. Already there are reports that the gunman, Jared Loughner should have been considered a prohibitive purchaser. The lethality of the weapon that was used has to be considered as well. The 9 mm Glock 19 was loaded with a 33 round high capacity magazine. The shooter had 2 additional 15 round clips on him. From 1994 to 2004, those types of clips were banned in this country. Unfortunately, at the behest of the NRA, Congress allowed that law to lapse. Efforts in Illinois to enact such a ban have previously passed the state Senate. ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Another issue that must be examined are the lax gun laws in Arizona. In 2009, Arizona gun owners attended multiple rallies on Health Care Reform featuring President Obama (Congresswoman Giffords’s support of the Health Care package is thought to have been a factor in the shooting spree) carrying guns including assault weapons, but in August of the same year, police removed an armed protester at a public constituent event of Representative Giffords. Unfortunately, the political debate in this country is at its most divisive. Representative Giffords opponents in all of her elections had been endorsed by the NRA, her most recent opponent hosted a $50 fundraiser to shoot an M16 to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” and Sarah Palin posted a map on her Facebook page targeting Democrats including Gliffords with crosshair symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. This divisiveness has to stop. Hopefully, we can move forward and pass common sense gun laws that will save lives and end tragedies such as this. Again, our hearts go out to all the victims of this senseless tragedy and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kermit315 Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:24 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:24 PM Statement Regarding Saturday’s Tragic Shooting in TucsonICHV Insights Column by ICHV Board Chair, Patrick Thompson . First, let me say, our thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the family of Judge John Roll and the other victims of the shooting attack on Saturday in Tucson. Whether or not the divisive political discourse of our country was the factor in this tragic event, there are several concerns that must be addressed. First and foremost of those concerns has to be the easy access to guns in this country. ICHV has been at the forefront of requiring stricter laws, not only in Illinois but nationally and calling for background checks on all firearm purchases. These requirements include a universal background check that looks at mental health status, criminal records and other restrictions so guns don’t fall into the hands of people who shouldn’t have access to them. Already there are reports that the gunman, Jared Loughner should have been considered a prohibitive purchaser. The lethality of the weapon that was used has to be considered as well. The 9 mm Glock 19 was loaded with a 33 round high capacity magazine. The shooter had 2 additional 15 round clips on him. From 1994 to 2004, those types of clips were banned in this country. Unfortunately, at the behest of the NRA, Congress allowed that law to lapse. Efforts in Illinois to enact such a ban have previously passed the state Senate. ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Another issue that must be examined are the lax gun laws in Arizona. In 2009, Arizona gun owners attended multiple rallies on Health Care Reform featuring President Obama (Congresswoman Giffords’s support of the Health Care package is thought to have been a factor in the shooting spree) carrying guns including assault weapons, but in August of the same year, police removed an armed protester at a public constituent event of Representative Giffords. Unfortunately, the political debate in this country is at its most divisive. Representative Giffords opponents in all of her elections had been endorsed by the NRA, her most recent opponent hosted a $50 fundraiser to shoot an M16 to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” and Sarah Palin posted a map on her Facebook page targeting Democrats including Gliffords with crosshair symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. This divisiveness has to stop. Hopefully, we can move forward and pass common sense gun laws that will save lives and end tragedies such as this. Again, our hearts go out to all the victims of this senseless tragedy and their families. Cute. Always the guns fault, and in this case, always the R's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:35 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 04:35 PM IN short NRA -bad, more gunlaws good. BLAH,BLAH,BLAH. Looking for gold in the blood of others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:05 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:05 PM "ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Gee! They look so innocent....kinda cute even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:09 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:09 PM And just to keep things on an even keel and remind us that some things never change..... Did you notice that the morons in this local chapter of L.I.A.R.S. failed twice to use the correct terminology? I guess the ICHV is staffed with that $%(& Mc Carthy's cousins...the ones that point to their wives and introduce them as their sisters, also. They're called magazines, not clips, you jack-wagons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:16 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:16 PM And just to keep things on an even keel and remind us that some things never change..... Did you notice that the morons in this local chapter of L.I.A.R.S. failed twice to use the correct terminology? I guess the ICHV is staffed with that $%(& Mc Carthy's cousins...the ones that point to their wives and introduce them as their sisters, also. They're called magazines, not clips, you jack-wagons. Huh. I must've missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len S Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:17 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:17 PM Again there is a mess and again there were laws against what happened and again they were ignored. The banners will want more laws and we say well the ones you have do not work. Taking a long term view are we not doing the banners work for them? I read a blog on the negligent discharge of a handgun in a kids backpack wounding three. In this blog the question was asked "why didn't the laws against minors having guns, guns in school, or concealed guns stop this before becauseit happened. We know why, people who do not respect the law will not obey it. In terms a news caster can understand, "if the person is going to ignore the law about committing murder, why do we expect him to respect the one about not having a gun, using a normal capacity magazine. ( As opposed to reduce capacity as the banners want.) Of course they will not obey anything. We know it, they know it and the libs know it. So eventually as they keep wanting new laws and we keep saying the old ones do not work eventually they will agree and say " Yep the laws fo not work. The gun lobby has said it often enough. People who would kill would not obey anything else either. The answer America is to fix the Constitution and get rid of guns. As the Gun Lobby has said laws do not work so we should just get rid of the laws and the guns. One law no guns! I used to say "things will not happen in my lifetime, but now with the error net and instant communication things happen much faster. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:39 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 05:39 PM "ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Gee! They look so innocent....kinda cute even.Hilarious One argument I rarely hear against statements like this ("Somebody got killed with guns, we need to limit access to guns!") goes along these lines:* 2nd Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. It's an individual, Constitutionally-protected right* This right is subject to the same scrutiny as due process, and free speech.* Any gun control must ENSURE that nobody's RKBA is infringed* Bad guys WILL fall through the cracks, just as they do when the 4th-8th amendments result in murderers and rapists to walk free, or when our lack of government-gagging and the 1st amendment allows somebody to use hate speech or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Basically: with enumerated Constitutionally-protected rights, we as a country err on the side of freedom. It sucks when bad guys exploit this, but it's the price of freedom. Unless you can repeal the 2nd Amendment, there is no "discussion" to be had. I realize this line of reasoning may sound rather cold, or callous, but murderers walk free on some judicial technicality and go murder again. But we, as a society tolerate it. What makes the anti-gunners think they're right for expecting us to NOT tolerate bad things when the 2A-protected rights are abused? So is this an argument worth making? Or is it counter-productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted January 22, 2011 at 06:56 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 06:56 PM They're called magazines, not clips, you jack-wagons. I dont have any clips that exceed 10 rounds anyway... It always takes 3 of them to load one of my magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houndawg Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:05 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:05 PM They're called magazines, not clips, you jack-wagons. I dont have any clips that exceed 10 rounds anyway... It always takes 3 of them to load one of my magazines. I have a few 10 round clips, but most of mine are 8 rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:19 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:19 PM They're called magazines, not clips, you jack-wagons. I dont have any clips that exceed 10 rounds anyway... It always takes 3 of them to load one of my magazines. I have a few 10 round clips, but most of mine are 8 rounders. http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Federal%20XM193%20on%20stripper%20clips.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:47 PM Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 08:47 PM kimit the amount of rounds he can carry and he will just bring multiple guns make a 12 round limit when killings still occur by bad guys who bring two 10 round guns they will then say its time to limit carry to only one gun at a time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted January 23, 2011 at 02:38 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 02:38 AM Again there is a mess and again there were laws against what happened and again they were ignored. The banners will want more laws and we say well the ones you have do not work. Taking a long term view are we not doing the banners work for them? I read a blog on the negligent discharge of a handgun in a kids backpack wounding three. In this blog the question was asked "why didn't the laws against minors having guns, guns in school, or concealed guns stop this before becauseit happened. We know why, people who do not respect the law will not obey it. In terms a news caster can understand, "if the person is going to ignore the law about committing murder, why do we expect him to respect the one about not having a gun, using a normal capacity magazine. ( As opposed to reduce capacity as the banners want.) Of course they will not obey anything. We know it, they know it and the libs know it. So eventually as they keep wanting new laws and we keep saying the old ones do not work eventually they will agree and say " Yep the laws fo not work. The gun lobby has said it often enough. People who would kill would not obey anything else either. The answer America is to fix the Constitution and get rid of guns. As the Gun Lobby has said laws do not work so we should just get rid of the laws and the guns. One law no guns! I used to say "things will not happen in my lifetime, but now with the error net and instant communication things happen much faster. Just a thought. HUH?????????? Did I miss something???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan Posted January 23, 2011 at 02:53 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 02:53 AM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:20 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:20 AM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic...I saw a video of a fellow who shot 6 rounds from a revolver and reloaded and fired another six faster than most people could fire a semi-auto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:33 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:33 AM As we all know there were a lot of firearms that were designed with a standard factory capacity of more than the brady gold standard of 10 rounds. I love it when legislators suddenly determine that its enough, but those decisions affect weapons from the past. I submit just a few oldies but goodies: Browning highpower: 13 rounds Baretta 92: 15 rounds Glock 17: 17 rounds Sig 228: 13 Rounds Sig 226: 15 rounds I still love to throw out to a MCarthy type politician the Browning Highpower.Silly thinking that the patent for the highpower goes back to 1923. And that all the above listed pistols are VERY much in common use including on many police departments as issue weapons in the past, for defense of their officers and soldiers as sidearms while on duty. All tested and proved reliable on battlefields and crime ridden streets around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:45 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:45 AM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic...I saw a video of a fellow who shot 6 rounds from a revolver and reloaded and fired another six faster than most people could fire a semi-auto. That may be Jerry Miculek, competition shooter. Shoots Smith revolvers. He's been timed at shootin six shots, reloading and shooting six more in 2.99 seconds. And on target too. Google his name, several clips there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashdump Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:56 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 03:56 AM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic...I saw a video of a fellow who shot 6 rounds from a revolver and reloaded and fired another six faster than most people could fire a semi-auto. That may be Jerry Miculek, competition shooter. Shoots Smith revolvers. He's been timed at shootin six shots, reloading and shooting six more in 2.99 seconds. And on target too. Google his name, several clips there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:15 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:15 AM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic...I saw a video of a fellow who shot 6 rounds from a revolver and reloaded and fired another six faster than most people could fire a semi-auto. That may be Jerry Miculek, competition shooter. Shoots Smith revolvers. He's been timed at shootin six shots, reloading and shooting six more in 2.99 seconds. And on target too. Google his name, several clips there. ...several clips?? SEVERAL?? DEAR GOD!! "ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted January 23, 2011 at 05:34 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 05:34 AM "ICHV calls on our state legislators to enact a ban on these clips designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Gee! They look so innocent....kinda cute even.Hilarious One argument I rarely hear against statements like this ("Somebody got killed with guns, we need to limit access to guns!") goes along these lines:* 2nd Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. It's an individual, Constitutionally-protected right* This right is subject to the same scrutiny as due process, and free speech.* Any gun control must ENSURE that nobody's RKBA is infringed* Bad guys WILL fall through the cracks, just as they do when the 4th-8th amendments result in murderers and rapists to walk free, or when our lack of government-gagging and the 1st amendment allows somebody to use hate speech or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Basically: with enumerated Constitutionally-protected rights, we as a country err on the side of freedom. It sucks when bad guys exploit this, but it's the price of freedom. Unless you can repeal the 2nd Amendment, there is no "discussion" to be had. I realize this line of reasoning may sound rather cold, or callous, but murderers walk free on some judicial technicality and go murder again. But we, as a society tolerate it. What makes the anti-gunners think they're right for expecting us to NOT tolerate bad things when the 2A-protected rights are abused? So is this an argument worth making? Or is it counter-productive? I don't think it is counter-productive, I use a variant of it at times. Often we hear in Chicago that the heavy restrictions make cop's jobs easier. I point out that stripping the 4th and 5th Amendments would really make their job easier but we don't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:29 AM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 11:29 AM If they ban CLIPS how will I load my SKS???? I'll have to convert it to Magazines I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:15 PM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:15 PM Dan reminded me: If they ban CLIPS how will I load my SKS???? I'll have to convert it to Magazines I guess. How will I load my Mosin-Nagant's if I have to give up my "clips?" Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:20 PM Share Posted January 23, 2011 at 04:20 PM Silly people, I can load, like a lot of you guys, three 10 round mags in a very short time. a ban of the 33 round mag would be just plain dumb. Its never the gun that causes the problem its ALWAYS he person NOT the GUN. But then again these are the experts that can't tell the difference between a clip and a magazine. Pathetic...I saw a video of a fellow who shot 6 rounds from a revolver and reloaded and fired another six faster than most people could fire a semi-auto. That may be Jerry Miculek, competition shooter. Shoots Smith revolvers. He's been timed at shootin six shots, reloading and shooting six more in 2.99 seconds. And on target too. Google his name, several clips video segments there. OK Smart aleck!!! Is this better!??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smittyp83 Posted January 24, 2011 at 07:29 PM Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 07:29 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted January 25, 2011 at 03:23 PM Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 03:23 PM Anyone that can do that doesn't need a 30 round magazine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted January 25, 2011 at 03:28 PM Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 03:28 PM How will I load my Mosin-Nagant's if I have to give up my "clips?" Jim. I recently had a "hehe argument" with an old timer about emptying a clip in a Nagant in a split second, he said it was impossible with a bolt action rifle. I had him rolling hard until I said. "It's simple,insert clip, push, you now have an empty clip" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:01 PM Share Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:01 PM So, the purpose of those "clips" is to "kill as many people as possible?" So is the purpose of foods sold at Costco is to "get as fat, quickly as possible"? And the purpose of a 24 pack of beer is to get "drunk as quickly as possible" vs. a 6 pack? and the purpose of a ream of paper is to "print more stuff, as quickly as possible"? Their arguement makes no sense. They blame the magazine, not the criminal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:09 PM Share Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:09 PM So, the purpose of those "clips" is to "kill as many people as possible?" So is the purpose of foods sold at Costco is to "get as fat, quickly as possible"? And the purpose of a 24 pack of beer is to get "drunk as quickly as possible" vs. a 6 pack? and the purpose of a ream of paper is to "print more stuff, as quickly as possible"? Their arguement makes no sense. They blame the magazine, not the criminal... I like those analogies. Now going off on a related tangent... I always think similar thoughts when I see the media showing a "cache of weapons and ammo" on a table at a press conference following a bust. And then speculating that obviously the suspect was planning a massive killing rampage for having so much ammo. My girlfriend used to think it was crazy for me to have "so much ammo" (i usually have only around 1000'ish rounds of 9mm, a few thousand .22, and a spattering of others)... but I've turned her into a believer that "you can never have too much ammo" through simple cost analogies such as those. Same reason there are 24+ rolls of toilet paper stashed in the bathroom. I certainly don't expect to go on a wiping rampage. They were just on sale, so I stocked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.