Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Survivors of Jan. 8 aid gun controls [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)"Collins responded with an e-mail saying: The reference was to a Glock equipped with a high-capacity clip.
Thats just more obfuscation.
The context of the quote in question is CRYSTAL CLEAR:
Loughners gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. What its good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.
Could helmke be referring to " a Glock equipped with a high-capacity clip"? Possibly.
Are you willing to give this proven liar of a republican the benefit of the doubt? I'm not.
And then there was this from your cited article:
IBD wrote back:
Thanks for the reply. But I need to ask about the preceding sentence, which was Loughners gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip.
So were Helmkes remarks only in reference to the high capacity clip? Or was it also to the fact that a Glock is easy to fire over and over?
That leads to two other questions: 1. Are guns that are easy to fire over and over also not suited for personal protection? 2. What constitutes a high capacity clip?
Collins didnt respond to that e-mail. Thats unfortunate, because it would be nice to know if she has a problem with guns that are easy to fire over and over. After all, the title of her column is A Right To Bear Glocks? not A Right To Bear High-Capacity Clips?
One also wonders how she defines high-capacity clip, since many of the Glocks police use have clips that can hold up to 15 bullets and some up to 17.
Alas, dont ever expect gun-controllers to define it, since that might undermine the nice rhetorical weapon (no pun intended) that theyve got.
"The idea that gun control advocates are consistently dishonest in any way remotely comparable to the NRA is pure fiction, and most of these supposed cases of dishonesty, as this example demonstrated, are at worst exaggerations and more often simply statements like this one that pro-gunners happen to disagree with. But having a different opinion is not the same thing as lying."
If you say so:
"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.
The brady camp submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban. Fact.
"Number Two We need to prohibit the sale of military-style semi-automatic assault
weapons and assault clips." (6ish months ago)
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf
And remember, that wasn't just a lie republican helmke told, it was the mother of all lies.