President Obama expresses optimism: now in super-sized gibberish

‎”…when it’s that easy to get these high clip magazines that can fire off hundreds of shots in a few minutes…”


In a nutshell, this is why I remain opposed to gun control at this time. When the political leaders that advocate for it cannot even address the subject intelligibly, this is not the time to have that debate. I don’t care that one can read between the lines to see what he’s trying to get at. The fact is, that string of words is gibberish.

“High clip magazine” WTF?

“[T]hat can fire off”… What? No, sorry. The magazine doesn’t fire.

And no, I don’t think I’m splitting hairs. If there is a legitimate argument to be made for a restriction on high-capacity magazines, then it needs to be made intelligently. Full stop. Less than that, and what we are witnessing is more loaded speech and rank emotional appeal. FEAR THE HIGH CLIP MAGAZINE THAT FIRES HUNDREDS OF ROUNDS IN A FEW MINUTES.

FWIW, if I’m not trying to hit a particular target (read: just spraying ammo downrange willy-nilly), about the fastest I could go would be 100 rounds in 1 minute if I were using 30-round magazines, allowing for very fast changes of magazines and chambering the first rounds of the new ones.

How many rounds could I fire using 10-round magazines (again, assuming *very* fast magazine changes)? 80. This I have tested by simply going through the motions, which assumes zero fumbling with ejecting a spent mag, zero fumbling getting a fresh mag out of a pouch, zero fumbling with inserting the fresh mag, and zero issues with jams, i.e., an absolutely ideal use of a semi-auto rifle.

Not only would the actual numbers be lower once ideal/imaginary circumstances are replaced with reality, note the degree of rank emotional appeal.  In a “few minutes,” one could still fire off hundreds of rounds with 10-round magazines, ergo, the argument is *not* about magazine capacity. It’s rank politics, pure and simple.

If anyone cares to fund the expense of hundreds of rounds of ammo, a dozen 30-round mags, 36 10-round mags, and suitable web gear/pouches, I’d be more than happy to test this count in real life, using a real weapon, and post the results as a video.

Note: It should be abundantly clear to the astute (and regular) reader that my opinion on the subject of gun control diverges rather significantly from that of many, if not all, of my fellow Scrogues.

16 replies »

  1. Come on, Frank. Sometimes we simply misspeak. You’re going to let that, in a case where you know the man knows what he’s talking about (you think he came from Chicago’s south side without knowing a little about guns?) trump the reality of what we know about our society’s gun situation? I like my leaders to be articulate, too. I think I proved that from 2000-2008. And I don’t want government acting out of ignorance. But, not to put too fine a point on it, there’s a difference between making a typo and not knowing how to spell potato.

  2. theres a good point to be made here. we are looking for a simple solution–registration, assault weapons, high cap magazines. the problem may in fact not be guns but angry assholes, like the one in alabama yesterday. the answer may be to give up on gun control and sink our money into concentration camps for far right wing gun nuts. although i think black helicopters would be a waste of money. black busses would probably do.

    do the test in a video.

  3. Also, I’m not sure how far your take on guns actually diverges from the rest of the staff. I know for a fact that several of us either are or have been gun owners and I haven’t heard much noise about disarming the country. So mainly I suspect what we’re talking about is a question of degree.

    • I believe you’re correct about matter of degree. I’m still tentatively in favor of some common sense reforms, e.g., universal background checks, but only in theory. Application is a whole other matter. Issues like the looming spectre of thought-policing keep me on the fence where that’s concerned. Agreed that there’s not much noise (that matters…comment threads at DailyKos be damned) about disarming the country. That’s one of the things that make me really wish that the people who generally agree with me on the issue (read: gun nuts) would sit down and stop making a mess of the issue. “Obama’s comin’ fer our gunz,” does not advance the debate.

  4. I’m with you. I’ve seen a lot of chatter from the President and his faithful about the size of the magazine. It’s tied to the “assault rifle” talk. Both cases suggest ignorance. Now maybe some shooters feel a big testosterone bump when a gun looks military-grade and has a large magazine, but the reality is that a moderately skilled person can do the same amount of damage with a “regular” looking gun and normal capacity magazine.

    I don’t like it when the right talks straight out of its ass trying to outlaw abortion, and i don’t like it anymore when the left speaks from the same orifice in an attempt to outlaw guns.

    • As I say, I appreciate rhetorical precision, too. But Lex, what happens if I take you word for word and then weigh reality against “outlaw guns.” If somebody is moving to outlaw guns I missed the hell out of it.

      • Not that Lex needs me to pipe up, but I’m here first 😉 How about we amend that to “some guns?” Then we can consider which guns. Then we can consider the basis. Somewhere in those nuances I think you’ll find that the distinction between some and all is arbitrary, capricious, and vanishingly small. As soon as we contemplate the elimination of one kind of weapon on whatever basis, we need to be honest that the basis is arbitrary. “This can kill 50 people. BAD!” Okay, so what about the one that kills 45? “BAD, too!” 25? “Okay. Killing 25 is all right.” At what point do we devolve to discussing “gateway weapons?”

      • There’s quite a bit of left chatter about outlawing guns, though i doubt anyone thinks that wholesale banning will work. But, sure, reduce it to “some guns” for more rhetorical precision and it doesn’t change the “talking out of its ass” bit.

        Just as there’s no direct mention of either Jesus or God’s feelings on abortion in the New Testament, yet Christians tell us that abortion should be banned because God doesn’t like it. Same kind of basing legislation on talking straight out of one’s ass.

  5. So, you’re opposed to gun control because Obama doesn’t talk about it the right way? That’s a pretty thin premise.

    • My apologies. Usually I strain the bounds of verbosity with epic tl;dr posts, so when I attempt brevity I still fail at pithy clarity. When I specified “the political leaders that advocate for it [gun control]” I meant to signify something akin to “exemplars of those making the case.” The President, whoever he or she may be, ought to be able to provide the exemplary argument to be made from such a powerful bully pulpit. And I do think “talking about it the right way” is essential. We’re not talking about the choice between burgers and pizza here. We’re talking about a highly charged debate with camps (as the media would frame them) polarized into “what about the children” and “Obama’s comin’ fer our gunz.” The degree of divisiveness perpetuated by the media, the various interests, the politicians pandering to their bases, and everyone in between (just take a look at the comments sections at your choice of left/right websites) is appalling. If the underlying issue is how to find the right balance between public safety and the application of rights as (poorly) codified in the Constitution and its amendments, then cutting through the fear mongering, emotional appeal, and other logical fallacies is going to be critical to achieving a just resolution to the debate.