Quote of the day—Italian Rose

The 10-round limit is a reasonable common sense restriction that should be adopted nationwide. I think, myself, that the 10 round limit is way too liberal. First, you could only hunt in most jurisdictions with 5 rounds in a magazine, so a more reasonable restriction would be a 5-round magazine not a 10. Additionally, since all repeating firearms and handguns are considered terrorist grade weapons, the American Civilian should be regimented to single shot drop breach long guns and break in half single shot shotguns

Italian Rose
May 30, 2014
Comment to The history of magazines holding 11 or more rounds: Amicus brief in 9th Circuit
[We’ve seen the words of this fruitcake before (and here and here). Even though a case could be made for it I can’t believe this is sarcasm. Apparently they have no respect for the Bill of Rights or basic moral principles.

And just what do they think should be done with all the existing guns in private hands that don’t conform to their tyrannical view? Don’t let anyone tell you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]

17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Italian Rose

  1. People like this make compromise impossible. They invoke the standard parrot phrases of the progressives, such as, “common sense”, “reasonable” and of course, “for the children” as they seek to corner us into agreeing to additional infringement of our Constitutional rights. Once in place, never fear, they’ll be back like rats to trash heap, for another helping.

    I don’t recall the specific instance of this twits driveling, but I’m sure it was about as maddening and inane.

  2. I have yet to hear any reasoning, any at all, why the 11th round is evil, but the 10th is OK. Claims that it’s “common sense” means they have no actual argument, it just “feels about right.” And, if the 11th round is so evil, why let cops have them? A limit for hunting an argument can be made for (didn’t say I agree with them, but there are actual arguments), but telling a person “yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you’d better be careful not to pick more assailants than you can deal with within your ten-round limit.”

  3. What’s a “terrorist grade weapon”? I would have assumed it to be a full-auto AKM, hammered out of sheet tin in a cave in Tora Bora. “ALL?” repeating firearms are terrorist grade? I’ve yet to see any images of the Taliban or Al Queda attacking with Winchester M94s in hand.

  4. What’s a “terrorist grade weapon”? I would have assumed it to be a full-auto AK74, hammered out of sheet tin in a cave in Tora Bora. “ALL?” repeating firearms are terrorist grade? I’ve yet to see any images of the Taliban or Al Queda attacking with Winchester M94s in hand.

  5. It is *really* important to keep challenging the pretense that the right to bear arms has any connection whatsoever with hunting. In fact, it does not, never did, and never will. Any time you see someone making that claim, that is a plain admission that he intends to take away your human right to be armed.

    • No doubt. We must instantly assert that there is no connection between hunting or even sport shooting g and the right to keep and bear arms.

    • While it is important to understand that hunting is not the express purpose of the second amendment, we should also keep in mind that the constitution grants no power to the federal government to restrict ownership of hunting or sporting firearms either. Do not let the antis use a divide and conquer strategy. It is very disappointing when hunting advocates fail to support those who care about different firearms than they do. Let’s not get lost on the flip side of that by failing to acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms is a broader right than just what is specified in the second amendment.

      • I see the point.
        In practice, though, hunting is mentioned as a limitation to exclude other uses, while I haven’t seen people list some other gun use for the purpose of excluding hunting.
        More importantly, “the right to keep and bear arms is a broader right than just what is specified in the second amendment” is a pretty big misstatement. You’ve fallen for the fallacy that the 2nd amendment is narrow — presumably tied to the deliberate misconstruction of the preamble so often perpetrated by the disarmers. In fact, the 2nd amendment is NOT narrow; it covers ALL aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. (The preamble merely states one of the many reasons to protect this right; no person competent in English can claim it is a limitation.)

    • The right to bear arms doesn’t have any connection to hunting. It doesn’t have any connection to gun collecting either. Would a limit on the number of firearms you are allowed to own violate the Second Amendment?

      • Yes. Just as limiting the number of books you “are allowed” own would.

        I used quotes above to emphasize the difference in our viewpoints. Your question really should be, “Would it violate the Second Amendment if the government were to claim the power to restrict the number of firearms you own?”

        • Surely you can’t read more than one or two books at a time. Be reasonable. And have enough common sense to understand the difference between junk books and other books. Also if your are, say, a medical doctor, it would not serve the public interest if you were to spend too much time reading certain kinds of books, as we would need you to spend your time treating patients or learning more about your practice. It only makes sense. Sure, you have a first amendment right, but with that comes the responsibility to consider the common good. Too much reading and you would be literally killing people.

      • Yes — the right to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not, the right to keep and bear ONE (or two, or a dozen) arm shall not be infringed.

        If some prohibition constitutes an “infringement” when applied to the first “arm”, it is just as much an impermissable infringement when applied to the thousandth arm.

        Likewise, any hunting device that is an “arm” – as understood by the use of that term in 1791 – would be protected; not because of “hunting”, but because of “arms”. Since the literate, legal, technical, and military use of the word “arm” and “arms” in 1791 included (but was *not* limited to) just about ANY personal weapon that was militarily useful (including some really marginal ones – frankly a .45 rifle in the 18th Century wasn’t that militarily useful, and rifle units were REGULARLY overrun once enemy commanders realized their limits. . . but such firelocks WERE still considered “arms”. . . )

        Now, there ARE some hunting weapons that are reasonably arguable to NOT be “arms”. A .177 pneumatic pellet rifle, for instance — you can make an arguable claim that it isn’t an “arm” (although, as a VERY useful training device – one used by militaries worldwide for marksmanship training for infantrymen – you can just as reasonably argue the opposite).

      • Try this hypothetical amendment on for size:

        “A woman’s right to choose for her own body being necessary to liberty, the right of a woman to elect contraception or abortion shall not be infringed.”

        Would a law prohibiting any abortions after the first violate it?

        If so, how is that legally ANY different from gun rationing schemes?

  6. I find the “terrorist grade weapon” comment fascinating. I guess they suspect that every police officer and security guard they’ve ever seen is a terrorist?

    • Anyone who opposes the Progressive/authoritarian, centralized control/social engineering movement is a terrorist.

      Insofar as police support The Cause (for authoritarianism) they are not terrorists. They may have APCs, machineguns, close air support and the “right” to search and seize at will, and they are not terrorists. You are. Get it?

  7. Pingback: '10 rounds is way too liberal. Americans should be limited to single shot guns'... | The Gun Feed

  8. Rose it would be best if you were to keep your very limited thoughts to yourself, you are re-enforcing existing stereotypes of Italians. You may fit that stereotype but there are many many other Italians that possess a coherent thought process.

Comments are closed.