So they want to ban high capacity magazines and anything considered to be a best handgun. Not for the security that surrounds the president, congress, mayor Blomberg, rock-stars, CEO’s and wealthy big shots. Ant the Madmen, drug cartels, and home evading killers will still get them from the same black market. That sells drugs, stolen cars, and everything else that criminals buy. Its just the rest of us. The law abiding people. Who will have to defend our families with limited capacity magazines. Welcome to Barack Obama’s middle class.
Recently I did a public service announcement video where I did a magazine dump of a glock 17 with a 33 round magazine. Basically the point of video was a light hearted attempt as showing my support of high capacity magazines. That they should not be banned. For the most part the responses were good. But there were considerable amount of people who thought that I should take the video down. That is because there were a group of people who were already scared of hight capacity magazines and a video like mine would scare them. Did anyone else catch that?
I’m sorry but I am not about to pander to a group of people who have an irrational fear of some plastic or metal contraption that is designed to hold a certain amount of bullets. What the ‘hell’ is a high capacity magazine anyway? If I am correct then caring 5 rounds instead of 10 rounds would make me less dangerous. Well if that is the case then carrying 3 rounds versus 5 rounds should make me even less dangerous. How about we go full ‘retard’ and say that carrying 0 rounds versus carrying 3 rounds makes me no threat what so ever. Thank you for riding the slippery slope. I hope you come back soon. A ban on high capacity magazines isn’t going to curb violence or limit anyones killing capability. Are you listening California? Quite frankly I would really like for the people who are pushing this agenda to limit high capacity magazines to stop insulting our intelligence.
If you just want to ban our guns then just say that, don’t blame it on the poor magazine they get abused enough as it is. Trying to ban guns by using the “lets limit” magazine capacity argument is cute and I will give you an E for effort. But really?… Oh so you are against gun control but you think people should not have bullets. Oh do tell…
I understand that people do not like guns and that is fine. But honestly what does that have to do with me? It is not like I am knocking on your door trying to force you to take a watch tower track and a glock 19. Come on… a ban on high capacity magazines? Are you serious? A guy walks into a movie theater and shoots 72 people and your best argument is a ban on high capacity magazines? Grasp at straws latently?
It has almost kind of gotten to the point where it is really comical. There is nothing wrong with high capacity magazines. An ineffective killer is going to be an ineffective killer. While an effective killer is going to be an effective killer. The “x” factor is not going to be because he had a high round magazine. Once again what is a high round magazine in reference to what? Ironically the events that sparked the whole high capacity ban thing was the result of an individual who walked into a movie theater with a 100 round beta magazine and it jammed. Ironically the very thing that you all are tying to ban is effectively what saved the lives of many people in the theater. But you want to ban high capacity magazines. Really?
The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. It’s not about a biometric gun safe or anything else – it’s about guns. They claimed that it would create a big brother gun registry even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation in fact outlawed any registry. Plain and simple. Right there in the text. But that did not matter. Unfortunately this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose. That is because the lies upset an intense minority of gun owners. That intern intimidated a lot of senators. I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks there all good people. I know that all of them were shocked by tragedies like New-Town. I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun and I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns. That both sides have to listen to each other. The fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason as why they would not want to make it harder for criminals and those mental illnesses to buy a gun.
Host: One other issue that is important here in the district is gun control. You said in Idaho recently. I am quoting here “ I have no intension of taking away folks guns”. But if the guns do get taken away, you will want to have a great preparedness kit. But you support the DC handgun ban and you said that it is constitutional. How can you reconcile those two positions?
Pres. Obama: Yes. I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have a tradition of hand gun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law abiding citizens use guns for hunting, sportsmanship and for protecting there families. We also have a violence on the streets that is a result of illegal hand gun use. So there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to talk those illegal hand guns off the streets. We are going to trace more effectively how these guns are ending up on the streets. By the unscrupulous gun dealers who are often times selling to straw purchasers. Cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks [unknown] children and the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is that we got a position that is often times by the NRA. That says that any regulation what so ever is the camel noses under the tent. That I think is not were the American people are at. I think we can have reasonable thoughtful gun control measures that still respect the second amendment and peoples transitions.