Thirty years ago, a disturbed young man with a $22 revolver almost ended the lives of President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, James Brady. Like other anniversaries of historic events, this one is cause for reflection, particularly about the impact of the shooting on our nation's continuing struggle to stem the tide of gun violence.
For 30 years, a wheelchair-bound Jim Brady, drawing strength from the unyielding devotion of his wife Sarah, has fought to overcome the indescribable damage inflicted by a single bullet. With uncommon courage, Jim and Sarah took on another battle as well. It was four years after the shooting that Sarah, infuriated at the gun lobby's efforts to gut our gun laws, picked up the phone, called the headquarters of the National Rifle Association, and delivered this message: "My name is Sarah Brady, and you've never heard of me, but I am going to make it my life's ambition to try to put you all out of business."
Looking back, we know that Jim and Sarah did not exactly put the NRA out of business. But they have made a difference -- by exemplifying the very idea of the "citizen activist" taking on an intimidating special interest lobby. President Clinton once asked, "How many people are alive today because of Jim and Sarah Brady?" He answered his own question: "Countless."
Jim and Sarah rallied Americans from every corner of society to support the Brady Bill -- one of the great public policy triumphs of the last 30 years. By requiring background checks on gun purchases from licensed dealers, since its passage in 1993, the Brady law has stopped two million gun purchases by convicted felons and other dangerous individuals. A year later, the Bradys successfully led the fight to ban military-style assault weapons and large-volume ammunition clips, another critical public safety law. Its unfortunate expiration in 2004 helped to put one of those military-style ammo clips in the hands of Jared Loughner, giving him the firepower to shoot 32 times in about 16 seconds in Tucson, killing six and wounding 13 in the time it takes to read this sentence.
For more than 20 years, I have had the privilege of being part of Jim and Sarah's crusade, an experience of both exhilarating triumph and deflating frustration. It seems so clear that additional sensible measures should be enacted to strengthen our gun laws and save lives. For example, we ought to build on the success of the Brady law by extending Brady background checks to encompass all gun sales, not just sales by licensed dealers. And we must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips. Why hasn't such legislation long ago been enacted?
Usually such a question prompts a discussion of the NRA's outsized political power -- its resources, its tactics of threats and intimidation, and the commitment of its cadre of true believers. Indeed, in recent years, the gun control issue has become so dominated by the question of whether stronger gun laws can be enacted, that it has left little room to address the real issue -- whether stronger gun laws should be enacted.
With some notable recent exceptions, since the 1990s the media, led by many in the political punditry, has become so accustomed to assuming that nothing can be done to reduce the bloodshed that it has paid less and less attention to the gun violence problem itself and its solutions. We also have seen politicians who believe in stronger gun laws stop talking about the issue because the political barriers are perceived to be "just too difficult."
The focus on politics has become oddly self-fulfilling. The more the national conversation focuses on the dominance of the gun lobby, the more we suppress the policy debate that could overcome that dominance.
Indeed, the only way to alter the politics of the issue is to have a vigorous debate about solutions. The fact is that for every historic law that has made our country a better place -- from Social Security to civil rights to environmental protection -- there was a time when enactment seemed politically impossible. I remember well when many saw the Brady Bill as a quixotic quest. But arguments change minds, new voices change minds and, most important, the idealism of citizen activists like Jim and Sarah Brady changes minds.
In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, President Obama has called for a "new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He's not calling for a discussion about politics. He wants a discussion about solutions. If we follow his advice, we will have taken an important step toward making America safe for all our people.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Because such "high capacity ammo clips" are in fact standard issue mags for the majority of firearms in this country. They are not military firepower, but tools made for civilians.
The reason such legislation has not been enacted is because it's a horrible idea with no popular support. The 1994-2004 AWB died a natural death and will never see the light of day. Put if out of your head that it will ever be the law again.
High capacity magazines are not and have never been confined to the military. The military does not use "military style" firearms, they use actual military firearms.
"Why hasn't such legislation long ago been enacted?"
Because enough people have realized that the the 1994 law you refer to was completely ineffective and was one of the most poorly crafted laws ever passed. And that it was passed by the gun control lobby misleading people as to what it actually did. Even today there are plenty of people who still mistakenly believe that this law banned machine guns, but thankfully their numbers are dwindling.
There's an easier answer they can't argue against. It's the same one that should have been brought up when Hughes claimed he didn't understand why anyone would object to the Hughes Amendment:
"Because it's wrong."
A provision which was included in the bill at the NRA's request. Sarah and HCI wanted waiting periods.
"to ban military-style assault weapons "
By creating the definition of such items out of thin air and misleading people into believing that they were banning machine guns.
"and large-volume ammunition clips,"
Magazines, not clips, and again they did so by creating a definition out of thin air, setting a completely arbitrary threshold.
I seem to recall the NRA proposing four concrete solutions that were summarily rejected by you and your colleagues.
I summarized their proposals on the relevant thread:
1. Prosecute violent criminals and felons with guns under federal law and put them away for a long time.
2. Stop governmentÂÂ-sponsoreÂd gun-runninÂÂg Mexico.
3. Stop giving violent criminals a media platform to prevent copycats.
4. Take mental health seriously in this country to ensure potentiallÂy violently disturbed individualÂs are identified and prohibited from purchasinÂg firearms.
By ignoring or dismissing these proposals (and the fact that the singularly most successful part of the Brady Law, the instant background check, was evidently an NRA proposal), you demonstrate that ending gun violence is, at best, a tangential goal for you.
They use such words to hide their real goal.
Want common sense proposals? Listen to the NRA. They want to reduce crime too. The difference is, they want to reduce crime WHILE protecting the rights of law abiding citizens.
Every time you and Paul post one of your trite blogs, I go and buy another gun and ammunition.
Of course that won't stop the totally rampant black market or widespread straw purchasing that proceeds totally unabated by law enforcement.
Of course Henigan doesn’t bother to mention that Sarah Brady ran afoul of a state law similar to the one he’s pushing now when she purchased a rifle for her son (straw buyer). If Sarah can get caught up in a legal mess over guns, what chance do the rest of us have if Henigan gets his way?
Finally we come to the misnomer of the big bad NRA. The NRA is powered financially by my dues (and four million other like minded folks). The Brady Campaign doesn’t even allow for membership. Their funding source comes from a multimillion dollar foundation (that also has no membership) and a billionaire (George Soros). The reason the NRA is so effective in state and federal legislatures is that they represent millions of voters (four million members and tens of millions of gun owners), not just a couple of rich entities.
As I am sure you know, most full frame semi auto handguns (except 1911 style .45s) are sold with (in most states) with magazines holding from 12 - 20 rounds. To me and most other firearms users would consider these magazines standard, not HC.
Not to mention rifles. The AR -15 style rifle is the most popluar rifle in the United States, thanks in part to the attention given to it by the gun grabbers. They are sold with 30 round magazines standard (again, in most states). Other popular rifles can certainly include Rugar 1022s which come with a 10 round magazine, everyone I know that owns one, has purchased after magazines holding from 20 - 50 rounds.
I believe that most people that have purchased a semi-automatic firearm, handgun or scary black rifle, have purchased multiple magazines for their firearm. This is just common practice. I typically purchase as many as 5 additional magazines for my firearms. Based on this, I believe the number of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, or as defined by GGs as HCM, in circulation in the US is much higher than 14,000,000. I actually believe it well over 100,000,000.
My personal problem is guys carrying pistols around on city streets.
For whatever reason , some people gain greatly by creating a climate of fear and their "answer" is to carry around pistols. It is sad.
A wise man once said , some 2000 years ago , first , be not afraid.
And as soon as you can demonstrate that mandatory gun safety courses would actually reduce accidents with guns, we can talk. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but I suspect that the percentage of gun accidents caused by lawful gun owners who have taken safety courses is roughly equal to the percentage of lawful gun owners who have taken safety courses....i.e. that it makes no difference.
"After saying that I also think a back ground check, a safety course, and a waiting period wouldn't hurt..."
Why a waiting period? You already own four guns, what if you decide to get another one? Why should you have to wait 10 or more days to take possession after paying for it? Computerized instant background checks take minutes (mostly spent waiting on the phone on hold), so that isn't the reason. So you can "cool off" before you do something crazy, like kill yourself or someone else? But you already own four guns! If you wanted to do something crazy you already have the means.
One could barely make an argument for a short waiting period if someone is buying their very first gun, but if someone already has one or more guns, what is the benefit of a "cooling off" waiting period every time another gun is purchased? There is none.
Waiting period laws are typical of "gun control" laws that seem oh so "sensible" and "reasonable", but are really nonsensical and useless.
If she actually said this, she has had a woefully unsuccessful life.
Just look at the profitable scam they have going !
Semper fi
Look at which way most of the comments on this thread lean: distinctly to the right and opposed to gun control.
Now for the kicker: It's on the Huffington Post.
To Gun Banner Too: Congratulations for making the most incoherent and illogical post on here. You win a toaster. Collect it at the local food bank. 22mm armor piercing ammunition??? Holy smokes, I would pay money to see someone carry a weapon that could fire that.... wow.
"Let’s not forget Laughner Style Clips of 22mm amour piercing ammunitionÂ. "
Ammo is often in mm sizes. Such as the 7.62mm. But a 22mm round would be almost a inch in diameter. Perhaps you were speaking of the capacity of the clip/magazine?