Quote of the day—Bryan Miller

No law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines.

In mass shootings, the shooter is overwhelmed at the point he has to re-load. That provides the rest of us opportunities to stop the carnage.

Bryan Miller
Executive director of the anti-violence group Heeding God’s Call.
May 23, 2014
New Jersey gun control bill passes Assembly, heads to governor’s desk
[First off, it’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

Second, magazines of 15, 20, and 30 rounds are “in common use” and hence protected under the Heller decisions.

Third,  in mass shootings the shooter should be overwhelmed by incoming lead by about the second or third shot, not the 10th.

Fourth, think about trying to overwhelm this old fart during magazine changes or even during the malfunction clearance:

It’s not going to go well for anyone that tries. The only thing that is stopping someone with even a moderate amount of training is a good guy with a gun or the exhaustion of his ammo supply.

This law is only useful for handicapping those who obey it. Those will overwhelmingly be people protecting innocent lives.

I look forward to the eventual prosecution of Miller and all those who voted for this law which will do nothing but protect criminals.—Joe]

22 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bryan Miller

  1. So a 15 round ban wasn’t enough and now they’re jumping up and down for a 10 round.

    But there’s no slippery slope.

  2. Never mind that you never know when the reload is coming. 10 rd mag? 15, 30, 75 rd? Why, just count rounds, the twit says, and poke your head up to see the mag size. Yeah…combat reloads.

    Never mind that we’ve been raising generations of theta males who would never rush a meany mean guy, violence never solves anything doncha know?

  3. Is there even a single instance where an active shooter was physically overwhelmed during a reload? Everyone I can think of the perp either shot themselves or were shot by someone else….

      • Loughner was overwhelmed during a reload _specifically because_ he was using an oversized magazine to reload with.

        He fumbled the reload, because, frankly, a 33 round stick is a really clumsy way to reload a “magazine in grip” pistol — hold it too low, and you’re likely to miss the mag well; hold it too high, and your hand will interfere with getting the magazine in far enough to latch.

        Had he been using a standard size magazine – or even a 10 round reduced capacity magazine, it is unlikely he would have fumbled the reload.

        So, if the Loughner situation’s takeaway is that you should “jump him during the reload”, Ubu, you should be DEMANDING that extended magazines be sold with pistols, and working to outlaw the reduced capacity and standard magazines.

        Likewise, in cases where the shooter sufferes a malfunction they cannot clear, and it ISN’T caused by an incoming round damaging the gun, it’s almost invariably because they are using a drum magazine with 50 – 100 rounds. Those things are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable in almost all cases.

  4. Adam Lanza was using a 33 round mag in a Glock handgun that jammed. Rachel Maddow referred to this as ‘an opportunity to take him out during a reload’ in her rant. She used this to justify limiting magazine capacities … (but she thought he was using an AR-15, a Bushmaster rifle). Those who advocate gun-control should get their facts straight.

    • Lanza DID use a Bushmaster at Newtown.

      Perhaps you’re thinking of Loughner, the guy in Phoenix who shot Gabby Giffords (plus 7 other people who actually, y’know, died). He used a Glock with an extended magazine, both purchased 100% legally, with a background check on the gun.

    • Also, at Newtown, Lanza had several standard 30 round magazines, which he swapped out partially expended, leaving a veritable trail of half-empty mags.

      But if you ask the antis, a magazine capacity limit would have prevented the shooting.

      • I remember that part. It was suggested he’d learned that part from first-person shooter games, refreshing your mag before entering a new area. Common practice (particularly as the mechanics of many FPS games don’t break down ammo by magazines but rather by rounds; so it’s worth it to reload even if you’re only down a few).

        They never tried to get into the ‘video games made him a better killer’ meme due to the anti-gun memes they were already pushing.

  5. The quote is thoroughly insane on several levels. Let us fisk;

    “No law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines.”

    Just scratching the surface here; what about criminals? If you tell criminals that they can’t have bigger mags, you expect criminals to obey that limit? Why? Based on what evidence?

    If you assume that a criminal will obey your magazine limit, then why doesn’t he obey the law against murder? If someone is willing to violate a law against murder, what makes anyone believe that he will obey a magazine limit?

    If you’re a law-abiding citizen, what difference would it make how many rounds your magazines hold? Since you’re not a criminal, all the shooting you ever do is either benign or it is for the purpose of advancing good.

    As I recall, during a riot in California, people did in fact use magazines of more than ten round capacity in defense of life and property. If self defense is desirable at all, why limit that capability? Is someone worried that life can be defended “too much” (see below)?

    “In mass shootings, the shooter is overwhelmed at the point he has to re-load. That provides the rest of us opportunities to stop the carnage.”

    This is, first and foremost, ASSUMING that said carnage is taking place in a “gun-free zone”. Otherwise the criminal is taking return fire almost immediately. In fact, practically by definition, any “mass” shooting is going to require a disarmed population, and the proposed solution is more of the very disarmament that makes a mass shooting possible.

    The scenario that’s being addressed in the quote then, has to be;
    A mass murderer is killing people as fast as he can, among a disarmed population, and we are being told that we MUST, by law, sit helpless and be shot at until such time as the murderer is forced to pause for one or two seconds to reload, whereupon we are to physically over-power the murderer. Naturally, all mass murderers, violating a “gun-free zone” sign, will respectfully obey any legal limit on their magazine capacity, and because we have totally invested in and accepted this scenario (a mass murderer in a gun free zone) as the most common and most likely (i.e. the standard) violent crime, we will therefore base our laws upon it.

    Really?

    What if there were two murderers, as was the case in Columbine? With only a limited amount of coordination, one could keep shooting while the other reloaded.

    What if there were two or more young, strong, male killers and one small, female defender, alone on her property? You want to legally limit her ability to defend herself, while the killer will scoff at any weapon or magazine restriction? Why?

    Any way you look at it, in the final analysis the very concept of legal restrictions on self defense is immoral and can ONLY work to the advantage of criminals and tyrants. And of course, criminals and tyrants are practically universal in their desire for gun restrictions on honest citizens. That’s all that need be said on the practical side.

    On the legal side, the second amendment says that there is no legal jurisdiction over the matter of keeping and bearing personal armaments (and keeping and bearing would of course require unfettered manufacturing, distribution, sales, transportation, technical support, et al), hence any gun, ammunition, or gun accessory restriction is illegal, we have no obligation to obey it, and those responsible for getting it passed or enforced are in fact criminals. It says so in the constitution and in 18 USC 241 and 242.

    And as I am fond of saying;
    If life is worth defending (and it is) then surely it is worth defending in the most efficient manner possible.

    Truly I believe that some people can’t get past the “is life is worth defending” part. I think that this is why they so easily adopt such obviously insane arguments so easily. There are those who simply do not believe that human life is worth defending. It is after all a mainstay of Progressive doctrine that there are too many people on planet, and that the human race in general is a stain upon the Earth.

    • I’ve found it comes down to this: The philosophy of “gun control” revolves around two primary assumptions:
      a) That “average,” good, law-abiding people cannot be trusted to obey laws, and therefore must be disarmed for their own safety (and constantly watched – see: NSA); and,
      b) That criminals and the violently mentally ill can be so trusted, and therefore “Just One More Law” will fix whatever the problem-of-the-week happens to be.
      “Gun control” fails in practice because its foundational assumptions are completely and utterly ridiculous.

      GIGO, polishing turds, lipstick-on-a-pig…. Pick your metaphor. If you start off with crap, you end up with crap. Every. Single. Time. However, if you start off with facts and logic, you just might end up doing something decent. Better yet, you might end up doing nothing, which may be the most decent thing to do.

      Facts and logic, however, are not the strong suite of “gun control” advocates.

      • Facts, logic and reverence for human life. Leave off the last bit and you end up with human experiments, like happens continuously with Progressivism.

        The thinking process goes;
        Communism resulted in over 100 million dead in the twentieth century? No problem. Quit your bitching and give it a chance. Stop trying to gum up the works; we’ll just tweak it a little and try it again. If some people die, then it’s better for the planet anyway– meanwhile we’re gathering important data. Stay out of the way. Vets are receiving medical horrible care, delayed care and even committing suicide because they’re suffering so much in VA hospitals? What’s the problem? We’re done with those people anyway, so they’re a bad investment. Facts and logic, right? But maybe you’re not smart enough to understand what’s good for you and for society. “WE” know these things, we’ve said so, and that should be enough for you. If you had a working brain you’d recognize that and you’d thank us for all our hard work and dedication…

        That’s Progressive fact and Progressive logic.

  6. Of course we don’t need 15-round magazines. We need 20 and 30-round magazines, as well as 50-round (P90-style) and 100-round helical (Calico-style) and double-drum (Beta-mag) style. No reason to crimp our activities.

    So, should I make him have a melt-down and start talking about belt-fed and 1000-round containers?

    Just remember – a “high-capacity magazine clip” is paper-retention device that can hold three or more periodicals onto the console of a treadmill at the gym while you read and work out simultaneously.

  7. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know!”

  8. Since WHEN did any mass shooter get immediate return fire,pro-gun zone or not…..
    If your an armed good guy its going to take you at least 30 second to asess the situation your in,before you even THINK about WHERE the shooter is,his direction of travel,and how MANY shooters?

Comments are closed.