Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« West Virginia Senate passes Castle Doctrine | Main | Nebraska considering ban on nonhunting guns »

American Spectator on mass slayings

Posted by David Hardy · 21 February 2008 09:24 AM

Article here. Quite balanced, I thought. At NIU, gun laws wouldn't have helped, and liberal CCW had only a small chance of helping; at Virginia Tech, liberal CCW had a much better chance of helping.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Kirk Parker | February 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply

Nicely balanced until the very end, when he goes off the rails about "high" capacity magazines.

33yearProf | February 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply

A loss of rights is a loss of liberty.

I don't care if it makes irrational lefties "feel" better. If you want to "feel" better, get a sex toy.

Patrick R | February 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply

when he goes off the rails about "high" capacity magazines.
completely agree. I could really care less about "making lefties feel good", in particular when even the admit it wouldn't make any difference.

hga | February 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply

"Movement Conservatives"---don't know about this author, but this magazine used to be part of it and still may be---are generally vaguely for us, but are not part of us, and as this article illustrates pretty much just don't "get it".

I'd score this article as rather hostile in tone ("gun-rights faithful" ???) and substance. Especially in the latter, for we hear the constant call for "compromise", but as usual it's never explained exactly what we'd get in return---implicitly I'd assume losing our rights a little more slowly.

I think not....

After two quick readings of it, that's the only policy prescription beyond maintaining the status quo I see him making.

Rather than preemptive surrender, isn't this a time to continue our political offensive? It's not like the mentally disturbed are going to get better care and stop shooting up victim disarmament zones like schools, especially as the press makes such a big deal of them.

However, our friends at the Chicago Sun-Times assure us that Obama is the answer, although it's not entirely clear how.

HT to the WSJ Best of the Web, with special praise for calling it a "frustratingly elliptical column" (search down to "Obama as Inkblot").

- Harold

Jim W | February 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply

That piece is just trying to move the debate a few inches to the left.

The Mechanic | February 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply

Has reasoned evidence ever influenced the shreiking whack job lefties?
Has no one besides me noticed that in every one of these shooting cases the perp was under the care of a psychiatrist taking -or recently taken off of- psychiatric drugs?
Given the huge money made by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession I'm not surprised how well that angle has been suppressed in the news.

RKV | February 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply

Simply put guys, until we hold those who create the so-called "gun free zones" accountable, either through elections and/or tort law, this isn't going to get better. In fact many of our politicos don't want it to get better. They want ANOTHER excuse to disarm us. So, we're left with yet another reason to have shall issue concealed carry become the law of the entire US.

Henry | February 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply

I think that David Hardy is affected by the reasonable tone of the article - and overlooks the outrageous suggestion about magazines. It's an offer to start the discussion by putting hi-caps into NICS. Where would he stop? Would he accept doing that for all magazines?

Adding hi-caps into NICS would add a significant burden to the law-abiding purchaser when acquiring them. If this led to the use of "lo-cap" magazines (e.g. for the common Glock 17, 10 rounds rather than the 17 round capacity mag which fits into the grip) there would be only a small effect on the law-abiding.

But to what purpose? It would also have only a small effect on the criminals. So why do it?

Leave a comment