Donate

Viewer mail

So I got this email from a gun owner…
Mr. Rothman – I watched your debate regarding why a 33 bullet clip is no different than a 10 or 16 clip as you said the clips can be changed out in a 1/2 second. I am not an owner of this type of gun and you are probably correct that some very skilled people can change clips as fast as you state, but don’t you think that the only people who would really benefit from a 33 bullet clip would be a less skilled user of the weapon as they wouldn’t have to fumble with changing clips?  (Sound like the AZ killer is not as skilled since he was slow in reloading). It seems to me that a clip holding this many bullets does not add any benefit to a responsbile user and those people who can change clips in a 1/2 second wouldn’t need this size of clip anyways. I felt from your interview you did not really believe what you were saying and that a 33 round clip really isn’t necessary.  Don’t you think if he had a 10 round clip less deaths would have resulted?  I am a gun owner (hunting-type) and not some left wing nut.  Just a concerned citizen who thinks that some weapons are really not necessary. Thank you for your time. (Name redacted)
Here’s my reply.
Thanks for writing. The Constitution says, and the Supreme Court recently affirmed — twice — that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right. When it comes to freedoms, citizens don’t need to show necessity; the onus is on the state to show that any restriction of a civil right is “necessary.” Numerous studies attempted to find any impact that the ten-year “assault weapon” ban had on crime. They could not. The biggest problem is that “compromise” with gun-banners is always one-way. If we agreed to a ten-round magazine limit, next year’s proposal would be for five rounds. When they get rid of the scary-looking black rifles, do you think they won’t go for your scoped deer sniper rifle next? We’re in this together. We hope you’ll join us.
Be Sociable, Share!

3 comments to Viewer mail

  • Rob

    I have a Glock 19, and it is significantly harder to reload a 33 round mag, than a standard magazine.

    Bottom line is there are Hundreds of Millions of full capacity magazines out there. They have been in private hands without issue for decades.

    We cannot allow the actions of one mad man to tear away freedoms and the right to self defense from the millions of Americans that lawfully use firearms every day.

  • Angie

    What’s worse: the fact that the author who penned this gem doesn’t think he’s a left winger or his opposition to high cap mags? I own a Springfield XDM 9 mm, 19+1 capacity and I am a threat to no one except those who threaten my life. And, if high cap mags are good enough for police they are good enough for me, so nice try, but I won’t be falling for the “they’re not necessary” bit.

    Assuming that this was a real letter from a real gun owner and not trash written by a gun-hating troll, this gun owner really needs to be clued to the fact that 1.) hunting is not in the Constitution but guns for defense are, and 2.) his/her hunting long guns are just as deadly as my self-defense handguns. If this person doesn’t want to own high cap mags then they shouldn’t buy any, but trying to dictate what we should and should not be able to own and use when it comes to the RKBA is something only a bleeding heart gun-hating freedom-despising liberal or ignoramus would do.

    Anyone ever heard the saying, “Death by a thousand cuts”? The gun haters can’t outright take away the 2A, so instead, they slice away at it bit by bit, and this issue is the perfect example. Sure, let them take away high cap mags, military style features, etc … Once the libs get to something this letter writer does care about, then he will understand his folly! Once you lose your rights it’s almost impossible to ever get them back – talk to someone from a gun-hating country, they will tell you all about it.

    You did great Mr. Rothman, and there’s only so much you can do when you’re dealing with a news channel that’s trying to create the news instead of report it. Keep up the good work and thank you!

  • THE WRITER OF THIS LETTER TO MR. ROTHMAN HAS OBVIOUSLY NOT HAD HAPPEN TO HIMSELF, OR TO ANYONE HE KNOWS, A BOGUS FELONY CONVICTION(9.5 YEARS AGO), WHICH EVEN THOUGH SENTENCE IS COMPLETE THEREOF, AS MYSELF, IS RESTRICTED FROM GUN OWNERSHIP FOR LIFE IN MINNESOTA. WHERE ARE MY CIVIL RIGHTS? WHERE IS THE, AS MINNESOTA LAW STATES ITS LAWS SHALL BE, “REASONABLE” STATUTES? AGAIN, TRY TO GET YOUR RIGHT BACK ONCE ITS BEEN TAKEN! GOOD LUCK!