An (obviously canned) email this correspondent received from United States Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) makes a startling admission, if startling only for its honesty (emphasis added):
I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as bans on multi-round magazines and assault weapons are supported by law enforcement officials who patrol our streets [by the "law enforcement officials who patrol our streets," Senator, or by the political hacks, appointed by gun-hating politicians, who presume to both command them and speak for them?]. I also support universal background checks to prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers.
Most of that comes as no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of Durbin's abysmal record on gun rights (and even "body armor rights"). But what's this about the "common sense restriction" of a ban on "multi-round magazines"? When you think about it, after all, magazines can be broken down into two categories: "multi-round," and . . . single-round, and if Durbin wants the first one banned, that would leave only the second.
The immediate temptation for most, probably, is to assume that Durbin is simply utterly clueless about that which he presumes to regulate, in the proud tradition of Representative Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy (D-NY), and her pal former New York Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington, who tried to ban .50 BMG rifles because they fire "an incendiary . . . heat seeking device;" Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) who thinks magazines are ammunition, and are used up when they are fired, and then still couldn't get it even remotely right when her staff attempted damage control; or California state Senator Kevin de León, who is trying to ban "ghost guns," that with ".30 caliber magazine clips," can fire "30 rounds in half a second," etc., etc.
That is entirely possible, but we also know that although Durbin has supported magazine bans that impose a limit of ten rounds, he would prefer to set that limit lower still, as illustrated by his statement that, "We should limit it to 10 and even that is a generous limitation."
Finally, we know that attempts to outlaw any gun that is not limited to a capacity of one round are not some "paranoid fantasy" on the part of gun rights advocates, as illustrated by a bill introduced in Connecticut last year to do precisely that.
It seems most likely that Durbin said "mutli-round" in order to avoid being pinned down to any specific number. The intended implication was some nebulous "high" number (at most 11, but "preferably" lower). That way, if federal legislation imposing a (for example) seven-round limit is introduced, he can claim that's what he was for all along.
Then again, perhaps he is simply clueless about that which he presumes to regulate. As excuses go, though, that one would be pretty lame.
- It's 'The Carolyn McCarthy Show
- Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 Democrats
- Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawed
- Masks off on anti-gun end game in Connecticut
- DeGette spokeswoman doubles down on congresswoman’s ignorance
- Is Rep. DeGette just stupid, or an example of anti-gun mindset?
- Carolyn McCarthy, barrel shrouds and 'assault slings'
- Spread of 'knockout' game highlights people's need for 'high capacity' magazines
- Sunnyvale, CA 'high capacity' mag ban also affects cops, but not enough of them
- Sen. Dick Durbin (IL): 10 Rounds 'Generous'
- California state senator believes in ghosts--and 'gun control'