Fact-Checking Wayne LaPierre

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Recently, on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association why he would not support decreasing the number of permissible rounds held in ammunition magazines, as a way of reducing the number of dead. He proposed, for the sake of discussion, reducing the number of rounds in a magazine from, say 20, to 10.

LaPierre’s reply:

“I don’t believe that’s going to make one difference. There are so many different ways to evade that, even if you had that. You had that for 10 years when (Sen.) Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in ’94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it – it didn’t make any difference.”

What was LaPierre talking about, and did what he said make sense?

In 1994, President Clinton signed Feinstein’s bill that banned the manufacture of additional semi-automatic weapons. It did not eliminate those already in use. Dylan Klebold, one of the two gunmen at the April 20, 1999, massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, relied primarily on a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, attached to a strap hung over his shoulder. To the casual eye, it looks like a short machine gun—and in fact, the original design was for a machine gun.

As the Denver Post reported some months after the Columbine attacks, “Klebold’s TEC-DC9 was made during the congressional debate by a Miami gun maker who tripled production to beat the ban – and called it his best year ever.”

So the gun LaPierre was referring to was manufactured before Feinstein’s bill even went into effect. On this count, his statement is highly misleading.

Furthermore, at Columbine, where 12 students and one teacher died and 24 others were injured, Klebold carried one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine. He fired the semi-automatic 55 times that day. Had he had smaller magazines, as suggested by Gregory to LaPierre, he would have had to stop to reload far more frequently, thereby stalling the onslaught, at least briefly, and gaining precious seconds for precious lives.  

So LaPierre’s even raising the issue of Feinstein’s bill was a red herring—a distraction from the substance of what Gregory was saying. Thus, while it was true that Feinstein’s bill did not prevent the carnage at Columbine, the proposal Gregory was referring to…very likely would have.

Feinstein, whose original bill was allowed to lapse after a decade by Congress, is planning new legislation that will permit those who already own various semi-automatic-type weapons to keep or transfer them, but ban their manufacture, sale, transfer or ownership by anyone else. It will also ban weapons that can accept the sort of detachable magazines Klebold used in Columbine, as well as handguns holding more than 10 rounds.

LaPierre and the NRA will almost certainly oppose the legislation.

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]



Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


51 responses to “Fact-Checking Wayne LaPierre”

  1. Izu Osirus says:

    Just Browsing

    While I was browsing today I noticed a excellent post concerning

  2. Title

    […]here are some hyperlinks to web pages that we link to mainly because we consider they may be really worth visiting[…]

  3. Title

    […]one of our guests just lately recommended the following website[…]

  4. AZ520 says:

    This isn’t about the NRA, high cap magazines or so called “assault rifles”. Leaders are failing to recognize the real issue America is facing…prescription drugs to combat mental illness aren’t always the answer and could be viewed as the problem. Many of those involved in these mass shootings have been taking these meds. But why would the government raise questions about pharmaceutical companies that puts money in their pockets?

  5. notalent says:

    I think it’s kind of ironic that our nation spends over half of our discretionary spending budget on the pentagon( War Machine), but we seem overly concerned with disarming the populace. This is the “Media-War Machine”, and this is our new reality.

    We have seen conspicuous fraud from the U.S. media, including essentially “Advertisements for War”, and yet we tend to embrace them as bastions of integrity in times of crisis. It almost seems that we seen “theft and treachery” upheld as “laws of the land”.

    Realpolitik: politics based on practical and material factors rather than material of ethical objections.

    I uphold and support the Constitution of the United States of America.
    I know that we are in very strange and creepy times. Learn more…, study more…., share more…
    Thomas Patrick Burns Jr., -wilmington NY.

  6. Buford Doyle says:

    I have resisted for years the idea America was becoming the most uneducated country in the world. But after reading the gun control postings here I am ready to admit it. America is now the most uneducated, ignorant, and stupid country. You people have no concept of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and the philosophies behind it, The Bill of Rights and why it’s inclusion in the constitution was necessary, and History. Idiots. You have no idea why your ideas are so ignorant.

    • Mofford Whalen says:

      Actually, Buford, “ideas” cannot be “ignorant.” Only people can be. But good to know the rest of us are uneducated!

  7. Buford Doyle says:

    The author obviously has never handled a weapon in a competent manner or he would know more regs are useless. Proof; if laws prohibiting something are so effective then why can I go 1/2 mile and buy any prohibited drug I want. Care to answer that Russ?

  8. King solomen says:

    I will have my guns regardless of laws

    • Cynic17 says:

      Now there’s a true Amurkan for ya! Congrats on that.

    • Matt Prather says:

      Bill Clinton has an important message for you Cynic17:

      And Joshua Boston had an important message for everyone:

      And my message to you, Cynic17, is that you are on the wrong side of a shifting tide of awareness regarding the reality of conspiracy.

      The number of holes in the media narrative around Newtown, and in the accounting of a certain faction of the legal investigators of Newtown, is blatant. Serious “spoliation of evidence” charges will apply to the treasonous in the long run.

      I listened to a good friend of my early on this issue; he said that the NRA doesn’t represent gun owners very well at all. That they are just playing the fool for the media to spin and keep people’s eyes off the seriousness of what’s really going on.

      Pieces like this “fact-checking wayne lapierre” go after a dummy, because the facts of the case regarding Newtown point in a direction so sinister, that most conspiracy denialists can’t actually bring themselves to even start to think about what it all implies.

      But, as I said, the tide is turning. I invite you to turn around too, Cynic17.

    • Cynic17 says:

      Good luck with that invitation, Matt. I pity you and those who are infected by your kind of insanity. I hope that you wake up soon.

  9. KGB says:

    Cops in Schools

    (National Review article)
    “Pelosi, Schumer, and other Dems were for it before they were against it”. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336637/cops-schools-eliana-johnson). It’s funny how one can be duplicitous when pushing an ‘agenda’ (personal or not).

    • Russ says:

      Not so fast, pardner. I do not see any mention there of the cops under
      Clinton’s proposal being ARMED guards. no mention of them having
      weapons. Schools having someone responsible for security is common, and
      has been so for a long time, in many cases predating that program. Do
      you have evidence that the Clinton program mandated that they would have
      weapons? And are you “KGB” or “WayneLaP”? LOL

    • KGB says:

      I’m most certainly *not* Messrs LaP ;o)


      The COPS program was about community outreach, funding and the hiring and placement of additional *Law Enforcement Officer* to special assignments within communities… like schools. Note that’s additional LEO’s *not* civilians. To find out if they were armed or not you would have to research their specific deployment and/or department policies. Having said that, as an active *on-duty LEO* it’s highly likely they *would* be armed regardless of location.

    • Matt Prather says:

      I contributed to this (nearly the) same question-reply thread over here:

      backed up here:
      1: http://ampedstatus.org/network/members/mattprather/activity/70303
      2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hw-5x14KMIxMQxzCCu8GXPIB3eKoSuqjQWTbUgPO8ik/edit

      Let me remind everyone that media manipulation is now (as far as I can tell) extended to point of machines spoofing as real individuals on-the-fly and spoofing as websites on-the-fly. We’re now all in the hall-of-mirrors that “Counter-Intelligence” Agents have been practicing in since Wall Street Lawyer (Liar) Allen Welsh Dulles took it upon himself to see to the administration of, and execution on, military (and private) intelligence. From Switzerland.

      So let’s all take one happy, friendly, self-confident step back before we rush-to-judgement on the information that computers are giving us at this time.

      There are also plenty of other things you could be doing right now Russ, like delegating the reading and reviewing of “Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing” by Tim Shorrock to a good reporter in your fold. Could even read it yourself.

  10. Kevin says:

    Hi Russ,

    While I’m pro-2nd amendment for the “last defense against the tyranny of the government” reason, I encourage you to check out the article below. What is your response to the angle that having armed citizens can help prevent these killings (or make them on a much smaller scale) by providing a deterrent to the killer(s)?

    Also, what about the argument that only the law abiding citizens will be the ones who turn in their guns? Plus, drugs are illegal but plenty of people can still get them. Why wouldn’t the same be true of guns? Lastly, what about the theory that there is less gun violence in places that don’t ban guns? Chicago, for example, has strict gun control but they just had their 500th homicide this year (this past Thursday)?


    …the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

  11. Popsmoke says:

    Like I said.. Just laughable…and very sad. So Hi-Cap Mags eh? Watch this video. There are not manny 93Rs in the US… at least legally here. But they are here. Just like the Glock 18s….


  12. Popsmoke says:

    One last note… Fact checking..
    To fact check. You first need the facts… So try this one.. The estimate is 1.4 MILLION … I said 1.4 M I L L I O N .. Assault type weapons are already legally owned in the US… Who the hell knows how many are illegally owned…

  13. Popsmoke says:

    Since many here enjoy pissing in the wind with this new legislation hogwash. I thought I would introduce you to the Iceberg…


    Then after your done with the mental midget two step. Ask this question. How many legal privately owned machines guns, you know the ones where you pull the trigger just once and empty the clip are owned in the US?
    New legislation? Please!

    • Russ says:

      Ok, let’s hear your solution. And if you have specific ideas on investigative work we should be doing, you can write to us via the site.

  14. FredButters says:

    “Thus, while it was true that Feinstein’s bill did not prevent the carnage at Columbine,the proposal Gregory was referring to…very likely would have….”

    This is also a red herring. You honestly think limiting magazine capacity would have PREVENTED the carnage at Columbine? What basis do you have for that claim? Are you suggesting that if he could only fire 10 rounds at a time he would have missed his target each time, and wouldn’t have killed anyone?!

    • Russ says:

      Obviously there is a reason for legislation limiting how many rounds in a magazine. Or do you believe it is for no reason?

    • Popsmoke says:

      Is this the Russ Baker of CJR? The award winning investigative journo talking this duckspeak? Or is this somone else?
      That legislation is so full of loop holes you would think that they wrote it with a M4… And wait until it hits, if it hits, mark up. It will look like a AT4 finalized the deal.
      Dam Russ, you want to take a shot at both Gregory (who deserves it anyway since he sold his soul for an anchor spot) and of course LaPierre, but your doing the same spin doctor stuff.
      Come on Russ, do a real investigative piece on this!

  15. DesertSun59 says:

    Look, LaPierre’s SOLE purpose for drawing a paycheck is to advocate for gun manufacturers. That is a fact.

  16. Popsmoke says:

    I agree with limiting the Hi-Cap Mags for other than mil or leo use. But bans have only increased black market sales. Additionally , banning Hi-caps at this point is like calling the fire department after the house has burned down. There are just too many already owned. Also the reload factor is also a red herring. To someone inexperienced your talking seconds. To someone experienced we are talking nanoseconds. Hell for that matter a lever action winchester can inflict a ton of damage.
    In my opinion, there is no easy fix…..But we need to find one….

    • Russ says:

      It is principally up to those who support “gun rights” to come up with solutions to gun violence. Anything one defends, one must take responsibility for what goes wrong again and again. Not pass the buck or try cheap attempts to blame broad and irremediable societal factors, like a large population of mentally ill.

    • Popsmoke says:

      I am surprised at you! Your response is something out of the network program script. What having a problem making a clean rogue break?
      You cannot blame nor lay the fix on just gun owners. Most of us do not own a armory of weapons. I own just three. 1-45 acp with 2-8 rounds clips. 1-XB40 Remington and 1-16 gauge choke side-by-side built by AH Fox in 1926. Now you want us to do what? By the way, those social ills you blew off. They are as real as a Green Room scheduling mistake. You have been a newsie for sometime now and you know better than this. You know the stats on gun violence. You know that 90% of these crimes are with stolen or illegal weapons.
      Now do I think semi-auto assault weapons should have ever been sold on the commerical market? Hell no! But that has been going on since 1960. So banning this stuff now is laughable.
      You see the news out of LA today? Gun buyout? Like the two rocket launchers that were turned in? Right now lets solve that by telling legal gun owners to fix the problem..
      Here is my fix… Start with fixing ATF… That would be my first fix..
      Now if I was your assignment editor. I would tell you to do better and get the real picture and truth your noted for.

    • Cynic17 says:

      Right. Banning them now is “laughable”. At least it is if you’re too ignorant or biased to realize that banning now will at least influence some future, even if not the immediate future. I love how the idiot gun nuts have couched this issue in terms of “it won’t do a damn thing RIGHT NOW, so let’s not do anything”. Unfortunately, it’s worked so far, so maybe they aren’t idiots after all. But they are certainly selfish, deluded, paranoid, and several other adjectives that will never get through the censors.

    • Popsmoke says:

      1st… I never said do nothing. 2nd.. Ignorance is not understanding the entire issue and allowing ones emotions to override logic and reality. Yes there are things we can do to enhance the system. But banning these types of weapons will not work. Got any idea how many legal semi-autos are in the public domain right now? Know how many illegal semi and auto weps are on the street right now? Sure I would support the ban. But would that fix the problem? Absolutely not. It would not even fix the tip of the iceberg.
      But since you run on both a lack of knowledge and emotion you should run for Congress. You would fit right in.

    • Cynic17 says:

      If that is your take on what I said, then you are too ignorant to be taking part in the conversation. And that you don’t even realize it is a shame.

    • Matt Prather says:

      To Cynic17:

      Let me hop in and point out that communities and regions which want to become gun-free may do so.

      (Technically speaking, the Second Amendment prohibits this, but we have not truly lived Constitutionally for over 150 years; and furthermore the Bush continuity-of-government state-of-emergency which is renewed yearly thoroughly rejects the Constitution and the Second Amendment.)

      So why don’t gun-right-advocates and guns-free-is-better-advocates each try advocating for their preferred governance and environment in a local region first? Big City guns-free advocates need not convince the whole nation to disarm.


      As Gandhi undeniably said, while sticking it to the fascist, imperialist, mercantilist British in their own terms:

      Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

      1: http://i.imgur.com/x9S3f.png
      2: http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/M.-K.-Gandhi-An-Autobiography-or-The-Story-of-my-Experiments-with-Truth.pdf

      For, you see, when deceiving mercantilist cowards are about to do something they know is wrong, like initiate a massive capital flight from a nation in order to bring that nation to its knees during an IMF riot, they have three sine-qua-non priorities: media control, national police control, and divide-and-conquer tactics on all opposing forces within the nation, including the disarming of weapons that put the people on equal footing with their Police-State-IMF-oppressors.

      And I am referring to the United States right now, not anything from Gandhi’s time.

      (Try looking at the history of what capital has done to nation after nation when the internationalists want to change the rules of capital on the people and legal system. If one does not think that it’s coming to the Western countries which were oblivious to it, then one needs to think again.)


      Post Script / Addendum:
      Disarmament and gun-control advocates at the highest levels of power in our systems of governance are thorough, rotten, out-and-out hypocrites. They do not truly want to protect the people and the children against random murders. They, in fact, have sanctioned all kinds of murders in our nation and other nations when it was good or necessary for business interests. It’s all really comes down to money and business interests for the elite. When they portray the sadness of child deaths in the media or try to advocate new disarmament legislation in the name of the senseless mass murder of children, they are lying out of one, public side of their mouths because they have a different agenda coming out of the other, non-public side.

    • Popsmoke says:

      I am ignorant? 400 million total guns owned in the US. So banning military style semies are going to do what? So Mr. Hotstuff.. Tell this dumb, ignorant sumbitch just what would be actually accomplished with any of the current proposals? How would any of it stop an active shooter situation like Newtown?

    • Matt Prather says:

      To Popsmoke:

      I invite you to also consider the post I made to Cynic17.

      Peasants getting angry at each other, and fighting each other, while the landlord makes effective plans to rob them both is one of the great repeated tragedies of history.

      By now we have enough information availability to connect the dots to wise up to the game.

      You don’t need to condemn those who seem to argue with you. Elevate your sights and don’t get angry.

    • Popsmoke says:

      First I am not mad. But I do love a game of flag football. I have seen your postings. I am not one of those who thinks any sort of assault on the Constitution is a good thing, no matter how much we have watered down that great document. Its not ok for any community to force any gun free laws. That is a brand of disarmament no matter where and it starts a dangerous presidence. Besides I bet there are no true gun free communities in the US.
      However I do support making it tougher to buy certain types of weapons. For example, you want a Bushmaster type of weapon? No problem! Go qualify for a FFL. I would also add that if anyone wanted to buy any type of weapon they first attend a gun safety course and get signed off on, then comes the background check. Handgun? Throw in range qualifications before purchase.
      Stuff like this would be effective…

    • BillMiller66 says:

      Vigorously enforce the laws already on the books. Get criminals off the streets. Until then, we’re not interested in debating the capacity of magazines owned by law-abiding people.

  17. Uncle Albert says:

    It is absurd to think that disarming a group makes that group safe. If it were a valid proposition, then the army would disarm, and all the police. Instead, disarming a group makes the armed groups safer. Make no mistake – I don’t like weapons and won’t have a gun in the house – but I can see the obvious. And the somewhat odious Wayne? Well, when I was a kid in school the principal and a couple of coaches did have pistols at school, and the (j)ROTC had hundreds of .30 cal “assault rifles” (M1 Garand rifles) in a school armory. and we had a rifle team that used .22 rifles, at school. I saw nothing wrong with that then, and I don’t now. That was at public school, by the way.

    • Russ says:

      there are many ways of achieving safety. also, those who dont have guns are terrified of those who have them and the potential of THOSE people to direct their weapons on us. i have had plenty of instances where problematical gun owners have threatened to use their weapon on me, for example when they claimed i was walking on their property. other times where people threatened to shoot me if i did not move my car, or felt i had looked at them in the wrong way. please address these larger issues.

    • dougmann says:

      Russ, “plenty of instances” all the gun owners I know are civil law abiding citizens, maybe you should change residences and move to the South, You would be graciously welcomed.

    • Uncle Albert says:

      OK, larger issues rather than the topic, which was or is the isolated claim old Wayne made about magazine capacities and the paraliptical rhetoric Russ chose to use to make a form of ad hominem attack on him. Readers conversant with rhetoric will of course have recognized it for what it is. (Some say Wayne’s a tempting target – that he’s a fool and an ideologue. I might think it’s not sporting to use such a cheap method.) Larger issues? Such as Russ’ fear of what might happen? Central to Russ’ fear is the obvious dual belief that making groups or spaces vulnerable somehow makes them safe while simultaneously making them unsafe. Such beliefs are obviously insane and unnatural – a dog could see through such beliefs. I notice that Russ has not criticized the proffered fact that US schools were loci of firearms until the gun control acts made them into vulnerable spaces. Evidently he agrees with me that that’s the way it was – guns were in the hands of anybody who wanted them, where-ever they went, including schools – and rather than accept the truth of the history and the logic that vulnerability invites disaster he allows his fear to dictate an irrational conclusion, even as he suggests that “there are many ways – implying that being armed does create a safe space…but it’s a way he does not like. Further, he indulges in another paraliptic change-of-topic and even attempts to repeat the ad hominem method (“larger issues” indeed!). The large gun-issue in our time is which people are going to be vulnerable and which people are going to be less vulnerable or “safe”. There is an obvious agreement that being armed conveys safety – nobody seriously proposes that the army ought to disarm, for example. A universal disarming would be nice, but it’s simply not on – imagine the US without the army! Imagine cops without the guns. Nice, but not on. So the large issue is, speaking metaphorically, not whether or not there’ll be beer at the party, and not whether or not your host and the other guests are free to drink it, but only whether or not you, individually, are going to drink. You do not have any other choice – whatever insane imaginings your fear may arouse, whatever weird ravings may come from eating on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner.

      When a rhetorician uses paralipsis, as Russ has done, it’s to change the subject. So let’s return to old Wayne. What was the dog that didn’t bark? What was it that Russ was distracting our attention from? It’s this: Wayne opined that armed guards at schools might be a good idea. Evidently Russ agrees – as he put zero effort into addressing or repudiating that very reasonable and historically well-tried method – and instead all his effort into attacking the man himself and some pretty silly errors he made ad hoc.

      So, logical analysis shows Russ agrees with LaPierre about putting armed guard in schools – but he is afraid of it.

      Won’t have a gun in the house – a personal ethical matter, my choice. Evidently Russ feels the same way. Evidently the difference is that I am not afraid of being vulnerable, while Russ is.

      At this point I’s simply say “QED” – except I’ll give way to modern educational standards and, speaking particularly to Russ, substitute – think about your fear, it’s making you crazy. Think about it.

  18. Joe says:

    Banning hi cap magazines won’t stop a drug crazed lunatic from killing people. It’s just another ‘feel good” idea promoted by the news media, and politicians can be seen to be “doing something”. I’d be willing to bet that this kid who did this latest murder spree was on some mind bending drug prescribed by a licensed Doctor of some sort. Gun confiscation, which is the ultimate aim of those in power, leads to Genocide. Just look at the history of the 20th century, and see how many people have been murdered by their own governments. The purpose of having guns is to protect yourself from criminals, and the worst criminals of all are in government. Those who put their trust our own, or any government, are very foolish!

    • Russ says:

      A. the “lunatic” would have to reload much more often–it would certainly make it more difficult for him to kill so many people.

      B. If you think you can resist an army with personal weapons, I’d like to introduce you to a lot of people who tried–but they’re dead. The only way to stop real oppression is to be involved in the process of not letting it get out of hand, like convincing elected officials not to pass repressive legislation. Sounds boring, probably, to gun owners, but it is effective.

    • Uncle Albert says:

      The Cubans and the VC/NVA did a fair job of resisting, as did the Yugoslav Partisans, and the Polish Home Army in Warsaw. The nazis never managed to subdue their conquered territories. And then there was Sobibor as well. Of course resistance almost always results in defeat, but it is nevertheless, resistance. That’s what this affair is really about – the ability, not the action.

    • KGB says:

      A) Wrong. In the panic of a crisis the 2 seconds it takes to reload means little when people frozen in abject fear. Research the psychological responses to crisis for better understanding.

      B) Who on earth do you think is doing all the fighting in the countries you’re reporting on in the middle-east? Whilst it can be argued that ‘insurgents’ and ‘rebels’ have dubious origins, it goes without saying that many are ‘armed citizens’. And that’s a seriously naive outlook on the way to make changes when politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists – the vaccines exemption law, written by big farma; the GM crop laws, written by big agra; TSA, pushed by the very corporations that provide the hardware… Not to mention, when a Government has a monopoly of force they can do what ever they want under the guise of it being ‘reasonable’. And really… just look into the reports of massive vote fraud during your recent elections, it’s simply ridiculous (actually look into the last four or five for a better picture).

    • DesertSun59 says:

      “Gun confiscation, which is the ultimate aim of those in power, leads to Genocide.”

      FALSE. Your straw man is so transparent, it makes you look like a total f00l.

      YOUR government has more weapons at its disposal than any other nation that has ever existed on this planet. The ONLY way YOU and your CRAZED friends would ever be able to defend yourself against that sort of firepower is to have nuclear weapons yourself.

      YOUR military is the most well-armed military on this planet. There is no possible way YOU can defend yourself against that sort of fire power. Yet, you believe your gov’t is ready to take YOU and your FRIENDS out for some arbitrary reason and that the only way you can defend yourself against this fantasy is to arm yourself to the teeth and allow the massacre of children in the interim.

      YOU and your lunatic friends, who believe that early 20th century Europe is a model of what is ‘going to happen here’ is a product not of your ‘understanding of history’ but rather a delusion you carry because of being steeped deeply in a religion that worships DEATH.

      You people make me ill. It’s the incomplete understanding of reality that causes you and your kind to believe that it’s best to allow the massacre of children on a REGULAR basis, rather than addressing the issue directly.

      THAT is how this nation falls – from being decayed from within – NOT because of some fantasy you have about this gov’t coming after you.

    • FredButers says:

      Joe – I agree that limiting magazine capacity won’t do much (maybe, if we also had police at all schools it would, maybe) but the idea that we need firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government no longer holds up. The U.S. military took out Iraq’s entire army in a couple weeks, keeping a bunch of “guns” at home isn’t going to do much against that. I don’t think an AR-15 will do much against an F-15.

  19. tpmco says:

    And to address the gun show loophole, a simple statute saying it shall be unlawful to display, offer for sale, sell, purchase, or possess weapons as given in your article through any medium whatsoever.

    That would help dry up the supply at gun shows in short order with minimal policing effort.