David Gregory’s use of a 30 round AR-15 magazine as a prop on Meet the Press to support their national banning was clearly in pre-meditated violation of the law banning their possession in the District of Columbia where his show originated.
Gregory’s act exactly proves what opponents of such restrictions have been saying: such a ban will not stop a person hell-bent on breaking the law. If Gregory is not prosecuted it also proves other commonly held beliefs about liberal government and liberal media.
Advocates of banning magazines above a certain capacity ask who needs them. Putting aside that we tread on dangerous ground when we put any Constitutional right to a test of need (for example, who really needs to trample on the American flag), the burden of proof is that the cost of such a ban will be justified by improving public safety. In an era of trillion dollar federal deficits, this raises a question of best use of finite government resources. If history is any guide, few people who already own any of the estimated 100 million such magazines in private hands can be expected to turn them in. Aren’t we better off allocating our money to improve school safety rather than fund a war on newly-outlawed firearm accessories?
I would remind people that while we are now having a “national conversation” on firearms regulations, we have yet to have a similar conversation about what changes we must make to the treatment of citizens with mental health issues, not to mention how we are going to fund any changes that we decide to make.
If we get down the road a few months on these topics and the loudest voices on the left still give the highest priority to funding the waging of a new war on firearms accessories, above funding improvements in mental health or school safety, we will know who the real ‘gun nuts’ are. And they won’t be the people with NRA bumper stickers.