If you are wondering how in the world the National Rifle Association can publicly oppose restrictions on the sale of high-capacity gun clips — particularly in the wake of the Tucson shootings in which a stone-cold nutcase killed six people and wounded 13 others, using a gun with a 30-round clip — well, wonder no more. The surprise — or, really, the “not such a surprise” — is that it’s not about “protecting gun owners’ rights” as much as it’s about “protecting NRA honchos’ private profits.”
The Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan, non-profit group committed to reporting on the issue of transparency, reports that the NRA’s lobbying efforts are being financed by a number of high-capacity gun clip manufacturers, and that two NRA Board members are actually CEO’s of companies that sell those types of clips. The NRA is opposing a move in Congress to limit gun clips to 10 rounds, saying that high-capacity clips are “standard” for “self-defense.” There is probably no truth to the rumor that the organization added, “and, of course, they’re the coolest thing on the market for mass murders.”
ThinkProgress’ report on the CPI study includes a quick interview with NRA Board member Pete Brownell, who is also CEO of a big gun supply company, which produces gun clips. When ThinkProgress asked Brownell how he felt about the many attendees of the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade show last week in Las Vegas who expressed support for restrictions on gun clip size, he replied, “When you’re defending, you want to have as much of an advantage as possible so it does matter. … It’s just an advantage.” As the ThinkProgress story noted, a 30-round clip certainly was an advantage for Jared Loughner. But as one gun retailer at the SHOT show noted, “If 10 rounds of ammunition can’t do the job you probably shouldn’t own a gun.”
This article appears in Jan 18-24, 2011.
There is a nice bit of information on the NRA and their malarkey in this great article in the New Yorker about the Constitution.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore?printable=true
From the article Ed links to:
“At some forty-four hundred words, not counting amendments, our Constitution is one of the shortest in the world, but few Americans have read it. A national survey taken this summer reported that seventy-two per cent of about a thousand people polled had never once read all forty-four hundred words.”
And this is not a predictable result of public “education” HOW?
Does anyone believe that Jared Loughner would have followed the advice of, “If 10 rounds of ammunition can’t do the job you probably shouldn’t own a gun.”?
As a gun owner, I can’t really see why anyone would need a 30-round magazine for their pistol. MAYBE for target practice, but then again, part of practice is re-loading. I feel very well-protected with a .45 Auto (7-round capacity), a .357 revolver (6 rounds), and a 12-Gauge shotgun (6 rounds). If you need more than that you probably shouldn’t own a gun.
PS, the picture shown (pile of AK-47s)is from Iraq or Afghanistan, not USA. If your caption read “Welcome to Baghdad” or “Welcome to Kandahar”, I would get it. But, I suppose it’s OK for Mr. Grooms to spin the truth for his benefit, just not the NRA.
You people are funny. By your own premise that you can “get it done with 10” you invalidate your conclusion that the ban will make a difference.