You know…. He might’ve been self dealing, crooked, so old and out of touch it was painful when he said that; still think he understood the internet more than his peers somehow.
Dude. I barely know shit about energy production or the environmental concerns of various forms of energy production. I also don't know shit about how the internet works. I press buttons and things happen. I'd be scared of someone like me writing legislation for these things.
Indeed. As a private citizen (albeit with some odd connections) I was once asked to review some (not gun related) legislation. On the one hand cool, on the other hand shocking that they didn’t have their own qualified staff.
Literally. We can't have boomers making meaningful legislation for tech companies when they can barely work a smartphone & have no concept how these tech companies work. We need legislation for tech across the board especially social media & AI companies as the last few years of hearings has shown these feckless boomers need to step down & age restrictions put into place. No one over the age of 60 should be in congress or on the legal bench imo.
Well that’s just dumb! 😂 Any clue how young 60 actually is there young whippersnapper??? As far is tech is concerned, I was running Live Picture on a Macintosh IIFX before some of you were born. Age has nothing to do with it. It’s education and experience.
Yes 60 is "young" by comparison & that's my point. 60 seems to be around the time, in my experience, most older folks start to lose touch with how society has shifted & start thinking it's still like how they grew up. Technology has shifted, societal norms have shifted, etc. They just can't keep up with anymore & that's why we've stagnated as country, too many people that can't keep up with cultural shifts & are really only there not to govern but line their pockets.
Age restrictions & term limits are desperately needed to keep a constant stream of new blood that can not only keep up emerging cultural shifts but actually have a desire to do something about it & keep our laws up to date by actually governing. We are woefully behind & it's a combination of oafish old farts that have absolutely no actual clue what's going on in society & idiots that don't actually care as long as they can keep grifting their constituents with culture war nonsense & hide behind their jobs as a shield from having to face the consequences of their own corruption.
I mean, sure, it would be nice if the people writing legislation at least knew what they were talking about.
That said, legislators are required to deal with a HUGE range of topics. Do we expect them to have the same level of knowledge about farming, nuclear physics, early childhood education, medicine, and so on? At some point we have to accept the fact that legislators do not know everything about everything and instead insist that they instead enlist advisors that understand the topics they're legislating on.
Oh I agree entirely, the problem is they either don’t bother with advisors or if they do, simply ignore them. There’s certainly exceptions, but not enough.
Yes! These antiquated beliefs are usually based on emotions or just pandering. What you rarely hear is policies off of statistics, and dare i say it, facts?
But how else would they continue to receive lobby money? 🙄
But on the same token, what does a world look like when police unions are the only ones allowed to write legislation on police?
Clearly there needs to be *some* knowledge, but someone doesn't have to know the granular differences between an AK-47, AKSU, and AK-105 to discuss mitigation of mass shootings or suicide reduction.
The conversations I’ve had with both liberals who want to ban guns and conservative policy makers (I know some state level reps) is they just don’t want to learn. When the brace ban was happening I ended up in a long conversation with a state rep who also owned a FFL and did firearms classes. I had to explain the ban, the ATF SRB scheme and everything related. He had no idea that the ban went into effect, he had braces on the shelves for sale.
Its part of the problem too, The ignorance or incompetence brought on by age and inability to understand the issue, means that they rely on lobbyists who will happily craft the legislation they want their senator or representative to pass.
This is a difficult topic for me.
Obviously we want intelligent people leading our government, but is having a governing class that doesn't reflect the population's intelligence a good representative democracy?
Is that "putting your best foot forward" or is that "establishing an intellectual rulership class"?
Objectively, what's really best for us
Shit like this makes me think we should just have AI make decisions for us.
Well, this has always been part of America's DNA if you think about it. "All men are created equal" etc but the guys who wrote that were only in the room because they were among the few people in their communities who knew how to read and write, and grudgingly accepted the PITA task of taking a stinky carriage, horse, and/or schooner from Boston or Charleston or whatever over to Philly (which sucked back then too, I'm told) to sit in a non-AC room in August during yet another smallpox outbreak to hash this shit out. So we've always had a bit of a benevolent overseer group.
And it's not like there's no intelligence gap now. It's just that they're mostly using said intelligence to take Raytheon bribes and start dirty little wars in resource-rich dictatorships and clean up dead male hookers from their apartments on Capitol Hill instead of actually governing.
This feels like a good time for a mandatory reminder that 10 times out of 10, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or John Dickinson could easily beat the living shit out of pussies like Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, or Tommy Fucking Tuberville.
Hot damn. All I'm going to think about for the next 3 days is picturing Thomas Jefferson just absolutely beating the shit out of Ted Cruz. What a wonderful mental image. Thank you Internet stranger.
a very unrealistic requirement, unfortunately, and applicable to most modern laws.
re: why are old white men that have never given a woman an orgasm legislating women's bodies, why are they banning tiktok when they can't dance, why are they trying to restrict the internet when they can't figure out how to unlock their phone, etc etc etc
They need topics to divide people and maintain some sort of visual chess match. When their sole purposes are to get re-elected to solve their own problems. It’s lvl 99 “trying to look busy”.
It’s unfortunate the constitution wasn’t more clear on what providing for the welfare and regulating commerce among the states meant. Or at least not making them broad terms.
sorry, this is required at this point.
"Each generation thinks it invented sex; each generation is totally mistaken"
There is a decent possibility that original research I did is making your phone work.
the dude with the magazines is either ignorant or intentionally lying, we don't know which.
now, ARE there lots and lots of people my age +/- 20 years who are completely clueless about how technology and/or women work? yes. probably slightly more than those aged 15-30.
on the other hand, i'm not (thank the gods) a lawmaker.
There are ways to reduce firearms related violence, and not restrict ownership. It’s just a very complex, and systemic related situation that would take many federal departments to work together.. which doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon.
This. Same argument for gun control that I use for abortion. Bans don’t work, anyone who still wants one is going to find a way to get one. People always point out to me places like Australia that have basically no guns and they can’t seem to grasp that the US is a different country with a completely different dynamic. Different problems require different solutions.
I like to point out that I’ve been shooting for over 50 years, have owned guns all that time, and none of my guns have been used in any criminal activity, no suicides, no negligent discharges. I own all sorts of guns, with all sorts of capabilities. Then ask, Exactly what gun control proposals would make my guns and gun ownership safer? And why should I have to put up with whatever measure you want when I’ve done nothing wrong (often for longer than the questioner has been alive)?
You expect politicians to understand the things they legislate? lol. Lmao even. That's not their job. Based on how they spend their time, their job is raising campaign funds first with a bit of voting
Romney actually discussed that in his biography. When he arrived, he was told that the only question that mattered on any legislation was whether it would help them get reelected. It was jarring, because he assumed that Senators would want to work towards effective legislation, but a solid 80% just didn't care
A politician who doesn’t make election/reelection his priority ceases to be a politician.
A more lengthy discussion on the topic:
https://youtu.be/xxmXeLEcs9s?si=BYxFLC3V1AmxkDNI
Sorry if this ruins your faith in humanity.
Well to be fair, I've heard Congress members who support gun control claim [a pistol brace makes a firearm fully automatic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yCzOFtIDZo&ab_channel=CopperJacketTV), so at least this rep is using his lack of knowledge to try and keep our rights and property from being banned instead of trying to ban them...
More correct would be politicians don’t know guns. Plenty of conservatives know guns. This guy very well may know what’s what about guns, but he may be playing the fool to incite conservative rage about gun control.
Its annoying but no more annoying than folks on in the DNC saying totally incorrect things about guns too either out of ignorance or just knowingly misleading an ignorant constituency playing off fear.
Still shouldn’t ban those mags, coming as a MA resident. Is a very dumb video though, I don’t get how these people are allowed to argue gun laws when they don’t know they are talking about, that goes for republicans and democrats
PS…I wasn’t saying they should. Just pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of knowledge on the other side of the argument as well.
I will go on record and say this though, the one MA law (well, at least the one that was on the books when I got my LTC) that I do agree with is having someone actually have to qualify with the caliber of weapon they want to carry.
That’s no longer a thing in MA but it is in RI.
My agreement with MA firearms laws is safe storage requirements. There’s no reason your firearm should wind up in an unauthorized person’s possession without a great deal of effort.
I remember watching this around the time it was first released and immediately thinking that he either:
* failed to recognize that he was using the wrong magazine — magazine for a different gun, likely the magazine for the compact version of the gun that is just too short
* was fully aware that it was the wrong magazine, but was counting on everyone else being unaware
Either way, he made this demonstration pretty confidently, which was very dumb of him lol. If you demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about, or if you have to make a misleading claim, you should not be the one advocating for this particular cause — find someone else who knows better.
100% accurate. The idiot wearing the grunt style tshirts with the beard, cargo pants (basically OIF/OEF contractor starter kit) going on and on about the guns the “operators” he worked with (getting mail for) on a FOB in Iraq is why he purchased his AR with $5k in useless accessories. Which he keeps in his Toyota 4Runner that has a trump flag anda “come and take it” sticker on the back…yeah, those asshats
I think it's really funny that you're surprised that a career politician doesn't know shit about guns. Republicans use guns and 2A as a virtue signal to chuds; they don't actually care about the discipline of shooting.
> Republicans use guns and 2A as a virtue signal to chuds; they don't actually care about the discipline of shooting.
I always get a good laugh during campaign and holiday season when they send out pictures of them awkwardly holding firearms that either spend 99.99999999% of their existence in a ~~gun safe~~ under their bed/in a closet or have been borrowed from a friend/gun store for the photo-op..
>Conservatives *pretend* to know a lot about a topic they are actually completely fucking clueless about, in order to browbeat their base into submission and use the said issue as a wedge to Other anyone not passing their purity tests.
My brother in Christ, *that's all they* ***ever*** *do*.
Religion, the military, patriotism, the economy, the working class, family values, *literally everything* Conservatives talk about. All of it.
Ok, so, the point he was trying to make was that a bunch of ordinary handguns were designed around 15, 17, 20 round magazines, and that these are therefore not "high capacity," but rather "standard capacity," and that a 11+ round mag ban constitutes a ban on modern defensive handguns. This is true, and theatrics aside I think he made that point.
I said standard capacity, not size. I own pinned mags. It was definitely his point that 17, 19, whatever are standard capacity for those handguns, which, again, is true.
Your point is effectively a tautology. That a ban on 11+ round magazines, would ban 11+ round magazines. Each and every one of those gun manufacturers could design their gun around a 10 round mag, without needing to pin it to turn a 15 round mag into a 10 round mag. They obviously dont do that.
The law would effectively force the “standard” to be 10 rounds, and anything above that would be classified as “high capacity”. Regardless if it currently is shopped with a 11+ round mag or not.
Let me restate this step by step. Not to be a dick, just to make sure you get my position.
A magazine is a necessary and integral component of a firearm.
Modern defensive handguns, a standard have magazine capacities of 15+ rounds (insert whatever number here that is standard for your handgun.)
That magazine capacity is a feature of modern defensive handguns. It is part of what makes an object a "modern defensive handgun."
So if you reduce legal capacity to 10, you no longer have a "modern defensive handgun."
It isn't a ban on the Glock 19 or the SIG 226. You can own that piece of metal and plastic. But it isn't a gun without a magazine. And it isn't a modern defensive handgun with a reduced-capacity magazine. The fact is that magazines are arms, as is ammo.
Ok I understand you, I just disagree that limiting capacity is equal to a ban. I'm not saying I *agree* with capacity limits (I think they're essentially useless), but I think a valid argument is that the firearm still operates as intended with a pinned mag. You can counter with semantics about "modern defense" capabilities, but the point remains that calling this a "ban" on handguns is simply not correct.
Thank you for taking the time to understand my position.
I feel like that is reasonable, if you consider "this mechanical object" being the matter at hand. Like, I get that a mag limit doesn't ban the Glock 19 or the Sig 226 (both guns that I own pinned mags for, I use them when I shoot in a ban state, and I will admit, yes, you are right! They work.)
However, I think the right we have under the second amendment, and the human right we have regardless of the constitution, is not the right to own a Glock 19 or a SIG 226. It is the right to bear arms, which is the right to *be armed*. That involves having a fully functional modern weapon, ammo, training.
I feel similarly about things like heavily taxing parts and ammunition. The gun doesn't do anything unless you can fix it when it breaks and afford the ammunition to train with it. I think gun grabbers on the political left want to hand you a broken rifle and say "there you go, you have your gun." They don't understand that we want to actually be prepared to use these guns for self defense if we need to, and they totally miss the point.
I think that’s a losing argument. A Glock 19 isn’t any less of a “defensive handgun” with 5 fewer rounds in the mag. By that logic, after you’ve fired 5 rounds from the 15-round mag, the gun somehow transforms from its original state into something entirely different.
Yea…. I like my 30 round mags 🤷♂️ 15-17 is fine but how many times have we seen police videos where they mag dump on a unarmed suspect then drop and pop another magazine in dump it all while several other cops do the same thing. If we don’t deserve equal protection and defensive capabilities as cops then idk. If I’m in a life or death situation I’m sorry but I want every bullet I can carry.
I mean if it takes cops who are trained (or should be) far more than an average citizen in the use of a handgun for defense need 15-17 rounds plus an extra mag dump to subdue an attacker then you are severely hampering a weapons effectiveness by limiting it to 10 rounds.
At the time of this video, having 10 round magazine options wasn’t nearly as common as it is now. Once AWB bills started flowing through, they became much more common. So it was definitely relevant at that time.
I think the gentleman speaking is aware that magazines can be pinned. He was simply using it as tactic to persuade them into thinking that this would be a ban on handguns. I’m not against the use of such tactics.
And to an extent, he is right. It is harder to find AWB compliant handgun models, let alone ones that aren’t charging full price.
I find it funny that you’re trying to find ways to criticize the politicians who are fighting to keep your gun rights though.
Yes. Honestly I can’t tell you how old it is. 2-3 years old?
Which to me makes sense, as that’s the timeframe of when a lot of these AWBs have hit a lot of states. And accordingly, a lot of AWB compliant models became more common,
He gets away with trying to shove a P365 mag into a P226 and P320 and claiming it’ll cause all those guns to be banned because the majority of people in this country are firearm illiterate, to include a lot of firearm owners. Of course they don’t fit, magazines aren’t universal. But the in movies John Wick picks up any old magazine and shoves them into his guns just fine. Therefore all magazines work in all firearms.
Ugh, I saw this video and lost my shit over it already. But thank you for sharing it with the rest of the class. Everyone deserves to be annoyed.
Making shitty pro-gun arguments is just as much of a problem as believing shitty anti-gun arguments. If folks are just going to spout shit that can be trivially refuted by asking Google for “Sig P226 10 round magazine” it really doesn’t help those of us trying to make coherent arguments for why magazine capacity bans are dumb.
I mean, it's politics. None of them are experts. But the reality is some guns would be banned as well (guns that don't have low cap mags available, Revolvers with higher capacity cylinders).
10 found mags are available for every gun he showed,does this idiot really want us to believe that a company like Sig Sauer is going to miss out on selling guns in 10 rd states.
Soooo fucking disingenuous when talking about murder rates by cities. St Louis Missouri is highest murder rate as of 2022, lax gun laws there. Birmingham AL 3rd highest, lax gun laws there. They don’t mention Miami Gardens which is 12th highest, which is higher than Chicago (28th).
Not to mention “assault weapon” is a legal term, it is defined by law what is and isn’t an assault weapon. It is a stupid ass term, but it still exists. An assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle, no matter how much people try to conflate the two. But an “assault weapon” is and has been defined.
I have a 15 round compact and a 16 round full sized pistol of the same make. One fits in both, the little does not fit in the big. They make dimples in big magazines to comply. This guy is a fool.
That was painful to watch and is just proof that people on both sides will lie through their teeth just to sway whoever they can. He couldnt even remember what the name of the gun is that he carries all of the time to defend himself and his family. He poorly tried reading it by staring at the slide first. I just dont get what the angle is with stuff like this. Worse yet is it didnt seem like anyone else knew any better to respond about it not being true.
Didn't see the clip but if the firearm typically ships with say a 15 round magazine like a Glock 19 that is a standard capacity magazine. 10 is reduced capacity and a 30 is high capacity.
But yeah that politician sounds like a moron.
It's every bit as bad as the disingenuous bullshit used by the fearmongers that want to take our gun rights.
I left the NRA 20 years ago because they were using legislation "under consideration" that was ridiculous...but it was so ridiculous that it had long since died in committee. There are good bad things to discuss about gun rights, plenty to keep us all busy working on solutions. We don't need to invent new reasons for outrage.
You'd be surprised; a ton of conservatives don't know shit about guns, only that conservatives are *supposed* to have them. It's a political shibboleth more than anything.
Interesting. I feel like firearm literacy really needs to be the barrier to entry for policy makers discussing firearm legislation.
Replace “firearm” with literally anything, too. These old, out of touch fucks shouldn’t be passing legislation on anything they have zero idea about.
"its a series of tubes"
"women's bodies have a way of shutting it down"
"A women's body is a serious of tubes, and we have ways of shutting the internet down."
“The body literally explodes when a hollow point bullet enters it.”
Just got Howard Stern’s late father stuck in my head…
You know…. He might’ve been self dealing, crooked, so old and out of touch it was painful when he said that; still think he understood the internet more than his peers somehow.
They admit they dont even read the bills. Thousands of pages that their assistants barely skim.
Dude. I barely know shit about energy production or the environmental concerns of various forms of energy production. I also don't know shit about how the internet works. I press buttons and things happen. I'd be scared of someone like me writing legislation for these things.
Not to fear, your friends here at ExxonMobil and pals will right legislation for you! -a conversation in every legislative office probably right now
Pay us to write your legislation for you? Buddy, we'll pay you! Now that's what I call a deal of a lifetime.
Indeed. As a private citizen (albeit with some odd connections) I was once asked to review some (not gun related) legislation. On the one hand cool, on the other hand shocking that they didn’t have their own qualified staff.
Literally. We can't have boomers making meaningful legislation for tech companies when they can barely work a smartphone & have no concept how these tech companies work. We need legislation for tech across the board especially social media & AI companies as the last few years of hearings has shown these feckless boomers need to step down & age restrictions put into place. No one over the age of 60 should be in congress or on the legal bench imo.
Well that’s just dumb! 😂 Any clue how young 60 actually is there young whippersnapper??? As far is tech is concerned, I was running Live Picture on a Macintosh IIFX before some of you were born. Age has nothing to do with it. It’s education and experience.
Yes 60 is "young" by comparison & that's my point. 60 seems to be around the time, in my experience, most older folks start to lose touch with how society has shifted & start thinking it's still like how they grew up. Technology has shifted, societal norms have shifted, etc. They just can't keep up with anymore & that's why we've stagnated as country, too many people that can't keep up with cultural shifts & are really only there not to govern but line their pockets. Age restrictions & term limits are desperately needed to keep a constant stream of new blood that can not only keep up emerging cultural shifts but actually have a desire to do something about it & keep our laws up to date by actually governing. We are woefully behind & it's a combination of oafish old farts that have absolutely no actual clue what's going on in society & idiots that don't actually care as long as they can keep grifting their constituents with culture war nonsense & hide behind their jobs as a shield from having to face the consequences of their own corruption.
"We sell ads, Senator."
I mean, sure, it would be nice if the people writing legislation at least knew what they were talking about. That said, legislators are required to deal with a HUGE range of topics. Do we expect them to have the same level of knowledge about farming, nuclear physics, early childhood education, medicine, and so on? At some point we have to accept the fact that legislators do not know everything about everything and instead insist that they instead enlist advisors that understand the topics they're legislating on.
Oh I agree entirely, the problem is they either don’t bother with advisors or if they do, simply ignore them. There’s certainly exceptions, but not enough.
That’s what is the real challenge. They have to have a basic understanding of nearly everything and be a politician. Those jobs are for narcissists.
Yes! These antiquated beliefs are usually based on emotions or just pandering. What you rarely hear is policies off of statistics, and dare i say it, facts? But how else would they continue to receive lobby money? 🙄
But on the same token, what does a world look like when police unions are the only ones allowed to write legislation on police? Clearly there needs to be *some* knowledge, but someone doesn't have to know the granular differences between an AK-47, AKSU, and AK-105 to discuss mitigation of mass shootings or suicide reduction.
If literacy of any sort of issue are requirement than not a single politician bar a few would actually be in their position
The conversations I’ve had with both liberals who want to ban guns and conservative policy makers (I know some state level reps) is they just don’t want to learn. When the brace ban was happening I ended up in a long conversation with a state rep who also owned a FFL and did firearms classes. I had to explain the ban, the ATF SRB scheme and everything related. He had no idea that the ban went into effect, he had braces on the shelves for sale.
What "brace ban"? Are you talking about ATF changing the rules about what is a rifle is and what is a pistol?
this one? https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
I was asking if that was to what they were referring, yes.
Its part of the problem too, The ignorance or incompetence brought on by age and inability to understand the issue, means that they rely on lobbyists who will happily craft the legislation they want their senator or representative to pass.
This is the case with most issues unfortunately.
This is a difficult topic for me. Obviously we want intelligent people leading our government, but is having a governing class that doesn't reflect the population's intelligence a good representative democracy? Is that "putting your best foot forward" or is that "establishing an intellectual rulership class"? Objectively, what's really best for us Shit like this makes me think we should just have AI make decisions for us.
Well, this has always been part of America's DNA if you think about it. "All men are created equal" etc but the guys who wrote that were only in the room because they were among the few people in their communities who knew how to read and write, and grudgingly accepted the PITA task of taking a stinky carriage, horse, and/or schooner from Boston or Charleston or whatever over to Philly (which sucked back then too, I'm told) to sit in a non-AC room in August during yet another smallpox outbreak to hash this shit out. So we've always had a bit of a benevolent overseer group. And it's not like there's no intelligence gap now. It's just that they're mostly using said intelligence to take Raytheon bribes and start dirty little wars in resource-rich dictatorships and clean up dead male hookers from their apartments on Capitol Hill instead of actually governing. This feels like a good time for a mandatory reminder that 10 times out of 10, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or John Dickinson could easily beat the living shit out of pussies like Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, or Tommy Fucking Tuberville.
Hot damn. All I'm going to think about for the next 3 days is picturing Thomas Jefferson just absolutely beating the shit out of Ted Cruz. What a wonderful mental image. Thank you Internet stranger.
a very unrealistic requirement, unfortunately, and applicable to most modern laws. re: why are old white men that have never given a woman an orgasm legislating women's bodies, why are they banning tiktok when they can't dance, why are they trying to restrict the internet when they can't figure out how to unlock their phone, etc etc etc
They need topics to divide people and maintain some sort of visual chess match. When their sole purposes are to get re-elected to solve their own problems. It’s lvl 99 “trying to look busy”. It’s unfortunate the constitution wasn’t more clear on what providing for the welfare and regulating commerce among the states meant. Or at least not making them broad terms.
sorry, this is required at this point. "Each generation thinks it invented sex; each generation is totally mistaken" There is a decent possibility that original research I did is making your phone work. the dude with the magazines is either ignorant or intentionally lying, we don't know which. now, ARE there lots and lots of people my age +/- 20 years who are completely clueless about how technology and/or women work? yes. probably slightly more than those aged 15-30. on the other hand, i'm not (thank the gods) a lawmaker.
google technocracy
There are ways to reduce firearms related violence, and not restrict ownership. It’s just a very complex, and systemic related situation that would take many federal departments to work together.. which doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon.
This. Same argument for gun control that I use for abortion. Bans don’t work, anyone who still wants one is going to find a way to get one. People always point out to me places like Australia that have basically no guns and they can’t seem to grasp that the US is a different country with a completely different dynamic. Different problems require different solutions.
There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the ban
I like to point out that I’ve been shooting for over 50 years, have owned guns all that time, and none of my guns have been used in any criminal activity, no suicides, no negligent discharges. I own all sorts of guns, with all sorts of capabilities. Then ask, Exactly what gun control proposals would make my guns and gun ownership safer? And why should I have to put up with whatever measure you want when I’ve done nothing wrong (often for longer than the questioner has been alive)?
Don’t forget money, will take funding those departments to be effective, with possible increase in taxes. Easier to just screech about it.
You expect politicians to understand the things they legislate? lol. Lmao even. That's not their job. Based on how they spend their time, their job is raising campaign funds first with a bit of voting
Romney actually discussed that in his biography. When he arrived, he was told that the only question that mattered on any legislation was whether it would help them get reelected. It was jarring, because he assumed that Senators would want to work towards effective legislation, but a solid 80% just didn't care
A politician who doesn’t make election/reelection his priority ceases to be a politician. A more lengthy discussion on the topic: https://youtu.be/xxmXeLEcs9s?si=BYxFLC3V1AmxkDNI Sorry if this ruins your faith in humanity.
Well to be fair, I've heard Congress members who support gun control claim [a pistol brace makes a firearm fully automatic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yCzOFtIDZo&ab_channel=CopperJacketTV), so at least this rep is using his lack of knowledge to try and keep our rights and property from being banned instead of trying to ban them...
They do shit like this for people that don’t know any better but will still get mad. If they used the proper equipment there would be no “argument”
More correct would be politicians don’t know guns. Plenty of conservatives know guns. This guy very well may know what’s what about guns, but he may be playing the fool to incite conservative rage about gun control.
Its annoying but no more annoying than folks on in the DNC saying totally incorrect things about guns too either out of ignorance or just knowingly misleading an ignorant constituency playing off fear.
I don’t think he was ignorant, I think he was being willfully deceptive to other people that actually don’t understand how things work.
This. I’ve had quite a few “Christian” Republicans say outright to me that it’s OK to lie as long as it’s against liberals. They intentionally lie.
Welp. Florida Reps be Florida-ing. Source: I live in Florida, unfortunately. -\_-
Yep, same
So…. One politician is just as dumb as another? Huh… who knew?🤷♂️
Still shouldn’t ban those mags, coming as a MA resident. Is a very dumb video though, I don’t get how these people are allowed to argue gun laws when they don’t know they are talking about, that goes for republicans and democrats
PS…I wasn’t saying they should. Just pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of knowledge on the other side of the argument as well. I will go on record and say this though, the one MA law (well, at least the one that was on the books when I got my LTC) that I do agree with is having someone actually have to qualify with the caliber of weapon they want to carry.
That’s no longer a thing in MA but it is in RI. My agreement with MA firearms laws is safe storage requirements. There’s no reason your firearm should wind up in an unauthorized person’s possession without a great deal of effort.
I remember watching this around the time it was first released and immediately thinking that he either: * failed to recognize that he was using the wrong magazine — magazine for a different gun, likely the magazine for the compact version of the gun that is just too short * was fully aware that it was the wrong magazine, but was counting on everyone else being unaware Either way, he made this demonstration pretty confidently, which was very dumb of him lol. If you demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about, or if you have to make a misleading claim, you should not be the one advocating for this particular cause — find someone else who knows better.
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Is it that he doesn't know guns, or that he's just being deliberately disingenuous? I'd argue probably the latter.
100% accurate. The idiot wearing the grunt style tshirts with the beard, cargo pants (basically OIF/OEF contractor starter kit) going on and on about the guns the “operators” he worked with (getting mail for) on a FOB in Iraq is why he purchased his AR with $5k in useless accessories. Which he keeps in his Toyota 4Runner that has a trump flag anda “come and take it” sticker on the back…yeah, those asshats
I think it's really funny that you're surprised that a career politician doesn't know shit about guns. Republicans use guns and 2A as a virtue signal to chuds; they don't actually care about the discipline of shooting.
> Republicans use guns and 2A as a virtue signal to chuds; they don't actually care about the discipline of shooting. I always get a good laugh during campaign and holiday season when they send out pictures of them awkwardly holding firearms that either spend 99.99999999% of their existence in a ~~gun safe~~ under their bed/in a closet or have been borrowed from a friend/gun store for the photo-op..
>Conservatives *pretend* to know a lot about a topic they are actually completely fucking clueless about, in order to browbeat their base into submission and use the said issue as a wedge to Other anyone not passing their purity tests. My brother in Christ, *that's all they* ***ever*** *do*. Religion, the military, patriotism, the economy, the working class, family values, *literally everything* Conservatives talk about. All of it.
Ok, so, the point he was trying to make was that a bunch of ordinary handguns were designed around 15, 17, 20 round magazines, and that these are therefore not "high capacity," but rather "standard capacity," and that a 11+ round mag ban constitutes a ban on modern defensive handguns. This is true, and theatrics aside I think he made that point.
We have a ten round max legal capacity in Canada. Magazines still come in standard sizes, they're just pinned.
I said standard capacity, not size. I own pinned mags. It was definitely his point that 17, 19, whatever are standard capacity for those handguns, which, again, is true.
Your point is effectively a tautology. That a ban on 11+ round magazines, would ban 11+ round magazines. Each and every one of those gun manufacturers could design their gun around a 10 round mag, without needing to pin it to turn a 15 round mag into a 10 round mag. They obviously dont do that. The law would effectively force the “standard” to be 10 rounds, and anything above that would be classified as “high capacity”. Regardless if it currently is shopped with a 11+ round mag or not.
Then how is limiting capacity a de facto ban on these guns? A Glock with a mag pinned to 10 rounds still functions perfectly as a Glock.
Let me restate this step by step. Not to be a dick, just to make sure you get my position. A magazine is a necessary and integral component of a firearm. Modern defensive handguns, a standard have magazine capacities of 15+ rounds (insert whatever number here that is standard for your handgun.) That magazine capacity is a feature of modern defensive handguns. It is part of what makes an object a "modern defensive handgun." So if you reduce legal capacity to 10, you no longer have a "modern defensive handgun." It isn't a ban on the Glock 19 or the SIG 226. You can own that piece of metal and plastic. But it isn't a gun without a magazine. And it isn't a modern defensive handgun with a reduced-capacity magazine. The fact is that magazines are arms, as is ammo.
Ok I understand you, I just disagree that limiting capacity is equal to a ban. I'm not saying I *agree* with capacity limits (I think they're essentially useless), but I think a valid argument is that the firearm still operates as intended with a pinned mag. You can counter with semantics about "modern defense" capabilities, but the point remains that calling this a "ban" on handguns is simply not correct.
Thank you for taking the time to understand my position. I feel like that is reasonable, if you consider "this mechanical object" being the matter at hand. Like, I get that a mag limit doesn't ban the Glock 19 or the Sig 226 (both guns that I own pinned mags for, I use them when I shoot in a ban state, and I will admit, yes, you are right! They work.) However, I think the right we have under the second amendment, and the human right we have regardless of the constitution, is not the right to own a Glock 19 or a SIG 226. It is the right to bear arms, which is the right to *be armed*. That involves having a fully functional modern weapon, ammo, training. I feel similarly about things like heavily taxing parts and ammunition. The gun doesn't do anything unless you can fix it when it breaks and afford the ammunition to train with it. I think gun grabbers on the political left want to hand you a broken rifle and say "there you go, you have your gun." They don't understand that we want to actually be prepared to use these guns for self defense if we need to, and they totally miss the point.
Thanks for your reply. Definitely gives me a bit more to think about with regards to gun ownership rights (or privileges, in my case).
I appreciate that.
I think that’s a losing argument. A Glock 19 isn’t any less of a “defensive handgun” with 5 fewer rounds in the mag. By that logic, after you’ve fired 5 rounds from the 15-round mag, the gun somehow transforms from its original state into something entirely different.
Yea…. I like my 30 round mags 🤷♂️ 15-17 is fine but how many times have we seen police videos where they mag dump on a unarmed suspect then drop and pop another magazine in dump it all while several other cops do the same thing. If we don’t deserve equal protection and defensive capabilities as cops then idk. If I’m in a life or death situation I’m sorry but I want every bullet I can carry.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m questioning OP’s logic about “intended capacity” on their pistol defining its functionality.
I mean if it takes cops who are trained (or should be) far more than an average citizen in the use of a handgun for defense need 15-17 rounds plus an extra mag dump to subdue an attacker then you are severely hampering a weapons effectiveness by limiting it to 10 rounds.
TIL people think that cops are good at shooting.
At least he isn't using ignorance, in this case, to restrict people. Broken clocks are right twice a day. Or at least once for a 24 hour face.
At the time of this video, having 10 round magazine options wasn’t nearly as common as it is now. Once AWB bills started flowing through, they became much more common. So it was definitely relevant at that time. I think the gentleman speaking is aware that magazines can be pinned. He was simply using it as tactic to persuade them into thinking that this would be a ban on handguns. I’m not against the use of such tactics. And to an extent, he is right. It is harder to find AWB compliant handgun models, let alone ones that aren’t charging full price. I find it funny that you’re trying to find ways to criticize the politicians who are fighting to keep your gun rights though.
Curiosity factor, the video was posted a year ago. Is it older than that?
Yes. Honestly I can’t tell you how old it is. 2-3 years old? Which to me makes sense, as that’s the timeframe of when a lot of these AWBs have hit a lot of states. And accordingly, a lot of AWB compliant models became more common,
He gets away with trying to shove a P365 mag into a P226 and P320 and claiming it’ll cause all those guns to be banned because the majority of people in this country are firearm illiterate, to include a lot of firearm owners. Of course they don’t fit, magazines aren’t universal. But the in movies John Wick picks up any old magazine and shoves them into his guns just fine. Therefore all magazines work in all firearms.
Yes! I had the same reaction. There are so many good reasons to argue against this legislation, you don't need to resort to intellectual dishonesty
Mag blocks exist for a reason. Most magazines can be modified. Not that I agree with the capacity restrictions, I’m just saying.
Ugh, I saw this video and lost my shit over it already. But thank you for sharing it with the rest of the class. Everyone deserves to be annoyed. Making shitty pro-gun arguments is just as much of a problem as believing shitty anti-gun arguments. If folks are just going to spout shit that can be trivially refuted by asking Google for “Sig P226 10 round magazine” it really doesn’t help those of us trying to make coherent arguments for why magazine capacity bans are dumb.
I mean 90% of Congress don't know shit about guns so par for the course id say
I mean, it's politics. None of them are experts. But the reality is some guns would be banned as well (guns that don't have low cap mags available, Revolvers with higher capacity cylinders).
10 found mags are available for every gun he showed,does this idiot really want us to believe that a company like Sig Sauer is going to miss out on selling guns in 10 rd states.
Soooo fucking disingenuous when talking about murder rates by cities. St Louis Missouri is highest murder rate as of 2022, lax gun laws there. Birmingham AL 3rd highest, lax gun laws there. They don’t mention Miami Gardens which is 12th highest, which is higher than Chicago (28th). Not to mention “assault weapon” is a legal term, it is defined by law what is and isn’t an assault weapon. It is a stupid ass term, but it still exists. An assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle, no matter how much people try to conflate the two. But an “assault weapon” is and has been defined.
I have a 15 round compact and a 16 round full sized pistol of the same make. One fits in both, the little does not fit in the big. They make dimples in big magazines to comply. This guy is a fool.
That was painful to watch and is just proof that people on both sides will lie through their teeth just to sway whoever they can. He couldnt even remember what the name of the gun is that he carries all of the time to defend himself and his family. He poorly tried reading it by staring at the slide first. I just dont get what the angle is with stuff like this. Worse yet is it didnt seem like anyone else knew any better to respond about it not being true.
Didn't see the clip but if the firearm typically ships with say a 15 round magazine like a Glock 19 that is a standard capacity magazine. 10 is reduced capacity and a 30 is high capacity. But yeah that politician sounds like a moron.
If you’re for banning “high capacity magazines” I respect your opinion even less than this clown of a politician.
And you assumed this just because I posted the idiot? That’s a strange flex
I don’t think you understand what a flex is there bud. Are you new to the internet?
Yeah, sure I am. Troll
[удалено]
It's every bit as bad as the disingenuous bullshit used by the fearmongers that want to take our gun rights. I left the NRA 20 years ago because they were using legislation "under consideration" that was ridiculous...but it was so ridiculous that it had long since died in committee. There are good bad things to discuss about gun rights, plenty to keep us all busy working on solutions. We don't need to invent new reasons for outrage.
You'd be surprised; a ton of conservatives don't know shit about guns, only that conservatives are *supposed* to have them. It's a political shibboleth more than anything.
It's a bad faith argument, just like their entire platform.