Andy Richter, and the extinction of high-cap mags.

[rhodesbe]

I follow Andy Richter (Conan O'Brien Show) on twitter. Like many Hollywood types, he has spent of bunch of effort in the last days bringing correlation of the Aurora shootings and 2nd Amendement Rights. Usually he just tells dirty jokes and retweets vulgar punchlines, so for him to be so serious means he is very convicted on the issue. I have a hunch that many people, millions even, feel just like him and that compromise is coming on the issue of hi-cap magazines.

Keep in mind, even if he thinks we're all blathering rednecks, he doesn't namecall below. Your (our) response should avoid that as well. What would you say to 'everyman American' to justify keeping high-capacity magazines?

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ifpfo3
Andy Richter (@Andy_Richter)
Posted Monday 23rd July 2012 from TweetCaster

Earlier today I asked why assault weapons were needed, which generated a lot of talk, and I thank you all for partaking in the discussion.

So the consensus answer seems to be "because it's my right". Okay, but it seems to me that that right isn't absolute; it comes with qualifications, and always has. Like, felons and the mentally ill can't own guns. And there is the allowance for qualifications and conditions to be imposed on the commercial sale of guns. And we, as a society, have accepted the notion that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own every bit of weaponry that our military has at their disposal (surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, etc.). So why is it so crazy to float the notion that the kind of assault weapon used in Aurora (not necessarily the gun itself, but the magazine) might not be the kind of thing that just anybody should be able to stroll into a gun shop and buy? Or pick up on the Internet? A 100 round drum magazine? That doesn't seem like a healthy thing to have available on the open market. And yes, I know it jammed; how many more would have died if it hadn't?

I don't want to take away everyone's guns. I grew up around guns, hunted, and enjoyed every minute of it. But I don't understand why people are digging in their heels over these assault weapons. They are allowing madmen to efficiently murder much larger numbers of innocent people than they would be able to with more conventional guns. Doesn't that matter? Doesn't that trump our desire to destroy a paper target with hundreds of rounds per minute?

I have shot these kinds of guns at a range, and it is exhilarating. But what is that exhilaration worth when compared to the possibility that restricted access to assault weapons (higher capacity magazines) might have saved just one life in Aurora? Or two lives? Or three?

Some people dodged my question by saying that the concept of "needing" these weapons is irrelevant because of their constitutional "right". As if the two aren't connected. I would offer that a "right" is just a "need" made manifest. Like, you need to be protected from being tried for the same crime twice, so you have the right to be protected from Double Jeopardy. Or, you need to have your privacy held sacred, so you have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The Bill of Rights is basically a list of things that we, as citizens of this new experimental nation, as Americans, NEEDED. Nothing covered by the BOR is unneeded. There's not a lot of room for frivolity in the document.

And in response to all the people who say they need assault weapons to protect themselves from the tyranny of the American government, I really don't know what to say, other than that it is really unhealthy to cling to such a paranoid fantasy. Because let's step it out and really look at what you're afraid of. We all acknowledge that our servicemen and women are heroes, and that they are putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. So at what point will these brave soldiers become the jackbooted thugs that you'll need to pump a few hundred rounds a minute into? When will the government turn its armed forces from being the neighbors and friends and family members that it is now into the mindless killing drones that you're so sure are just around history's corner?

I know I am a talk show sidekick. I can also be written off as just another Hollywood liberal. But I am also just a guy, horrified by what he hears on the news, who is trying to understand why such nightmarishly awful things happen to innocent people, and wonders how we can try to stop these things from happening again.

Now back to the poo poo jokes.

 

[Wheel Gun]

I soooooo very much care what actors think about political/societal/constitutional issues. I just can't get enough from Hollywood.

 

[rhodesbe]

I soooooo very much care what actors think about political/societal/constitutional issues. I just can't get enough from Hollywood.

The point is that you're an exception.

Most people DO care what these people think, and that's how 'popular opinion' gets shaped. How do we defend our right for high capacity magazines? This type of restriction would be seen as a 'common sense' move by many, and you and I both know that it is giving up a big part of our rights.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think his question is reasonably phrased and valid. I think he's wrong on several levels, but saying we shouldn't care what actors and artists think is hypocritical, unless you agree that no one should care what we think either.

 

[redmax51]

I soooooo very much care what actors think about political/societal/constitutional issues. I just can't get enough from Hollywood.

^^This, but, unfortunately, many people do.

 

[loudshirt]

I soooooo very much care what actors think about political/societal/constitutional issues. I just can't get enough from Hollywood.

That is a nice well articulated answer to someone who has a genuine concern and asked a question without malice towards anyone.

I am quite impressed that he, unlike most of the media/public, used the word magazine and not clip.

 

[reddog1]

What a dweeb, everyone knows it would be the UN coming to get us, not the US military, duh!!!!

I just ordered 10 / 100 rnd drums

 

[redmax51]

I think his question is reasonably phrased and valid. I think he's wrong on several levels, but saying we shouldn't care what actors and artists think is hypocritical, unless you agree that no one should care what we think either.

"We" don't have an avenue to voice our view to millions of uninformed drooling viewers. United we have a voice but stand alone we have nothing.

 

[rhodesbe]

What a dweeb, everyone knows it would be the UN coming to get us, not the US military, duh!!!!

I just ordered 10 / 100 rnd drums

So, your 'official' rebuttal that summarizes the vastness of your knowledge, constitutional ethics, and your business interests: "What a dweeb."

He's got you beat, sir. This guy and this line of thinking, represents more of a direct threat to you than the drones, UN, NWO, and all the other crap you're wrapped up in... but you're letting it skate by namecalling. Nice work.

 

[cjjtulsa]

It's the equation of "need" vs. "want". We Americans don't "need" high cap mags. We also don't need 160mph Corvettes, or 6000lb SUVs. We don't need to skydive, we don't need ultralight aircraft, we don't need liquor and cigarettes, and we don't need cellphones. There are many other examples I could dig up, and all are capable of hurting or killing others directly or indirectly. The American way is not about "need" - it's always been about "want".

Some "wants" may in fact be "needs", in the right situation. Some are also guaranteed by our Constitution, like it or not.