Wait. What?

Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine helpfully explains:

An “assault magazine,” by the way, is not a periodical you use to squash spiders; it is an ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds. Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.

  • CatHerder

    Guns & Ammo?

    American Rifleman?

    • Cold War Grunt

      Soldier of Fortune?

  • http://twitter.com/smferggie SFerggie

    We have one as well. “Anti-IQ Gun Control”

  • RblDiver

    Assault magazines….they sneak up behind you, whack you on the head and run off.

    (On the other hand, maybe they’re learning terminology; they didn’t call them “assault clips.”)

    • tredglx

      That actually made me laugh: whack you on the head and run off…

    • Stephen L. Hall

      Those would be “battery magazines” because you were not in immediate apprehension of being whacked . . . the assault magazines may just threaten to hit you even if they miss.

      • RblDiver

        Well, one of the claims is that “assault rifles look scary,” so the magazines just rush up and look intimidating!

  • tjcuzns

    Reason must be one of those assault magazines. After reading Jacob Sullum’s comments I want to grab a copy and slap the pro crap out of him.

    • thetreyman

      actually Reason is a libertarian magazine. which makes me wonder the context of the excerpt.

      • tjcuzns

        I am familiar with Reason;but the statement stands on it’s own. Maybe we are missing a sarc tag.

        • R0nin

          After reading the article in question, I’m pretty sure that quote was intended as sarcasm.

  • NachoCheese (D)

    We need a ban on “Assault Journalists” and “Assault Representatives”, after all there is NO NEED for them to be so desirous about assaulting my natural rights.

  • Lord Foggybottom

    Let’s ban Assault Politicians while we’re at it.

    • tredglx

      They’re all an assault on the sensibilities, my Lord.

  • tomyj1

    assault magazine GUNS and AMMO

  • NachoCheese (D)

    ThinkProgress
    @thinkprogress
    Gun Safety Laws That Gun Owners Support: Universal background checks, ban on assault magazines, assault weapons ban

    —–

    Who are these supposed “gun owners” that support banning things that the politicians can’t even define?

    What is an “assault weapon”?

    What are the characteristics of an “assault magazine”? At what point does a normal magazine become an “assault magazine”?

    I have tried repeatedly, but no person supporting banning things has yet to be able to actually define what it is they want outlawed, short of the vague wording of “military style” and “you know what I mean”. When I explain that words have meaning, especially in law and that their “military style” definition is idiotic, as the military fields various weapons, from bolt action rifles to crew served heavy machine guns.

    • tredglx

      Direct the ‘ass-ault’ holes here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

      Specifically this part:

      History of terminology

      Prior to the 1980’s, the term “assault weapon” was used in the context of military weapons systems, such as for the Rifleman’s Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle.[24]

      In 1985, Art Agnos introduced a bill in the California State Assembly seeking to place restrictions on semi-automatic firearms capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[25] In his bill, AB 1509, these guns were categorized as “assault firearms”.[25] Speaking to the media, Agnos referred to them as both “assault firearms” and “assault weapons”.[26] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[25]

      Popularization of the term “assault weapon” is attributed by many to the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”, written by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, and to subsequent public reaction to the January 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, CA.[27] Sugarmann wrote:

      Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.[28][29]

      The term is highly controversial especially amongst advocates of gun control and gun rights.[30] Gun rights activists consider it a misnomer intended to conflate civilian semi-automatic firearms with military assault rifles. Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation wrote in 1994, “One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called ‘assault weapons’ is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm.”[9] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said “the term ‘assault weapon,’ as used by the media, is a media invention.”[8]

      Civilian semi-automatic rifles identified as “assault weapons” are no more powerful than many other semiautomatic rifles legally used for hunting throughout the United States; they do not shoot faster or have greater range.[31] Assault weapons are also sometimes called “black guns” or “black rifles”, due to the presence of black plastic parts in the place of wood for stocks and grips.[32]

      • Jason ‘Zeus’ Brown

        So Josh Sugarmann’s point seriously is that we should ban guns for looking scary. Wow.

        • tredglx

          Yep. Amazing, isn’t it?
          Now if we could only ban automibiles because people drive under the influence…

        • MrApple

          You want something scary to look at, look at Dianne Feinstein. I’m usually above such comments but today I’m feeling playful.

    • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ Penny Robinson Fan Club

      Of course not, if they have to define things, that limits them. Also makes them think.

    • Hiraghm

      Question: will the U.S. Navy, in order to comply with the ban on assault magazines, be forced to do away with the ammunition magazines on their warships?

      • NachoCheese (D)

        Only when a Republican is the President are those magazines are designed to assault innocent people, so they will definitely have to be banned.

        If a Democrat is President, those magazines will only be used to fire kitten giggles, unicorn farts, and 20lb hugs.

        • Rabid

          Aww,man! Unicorn fart residue is a bitch to clean out of the mechanism!!!

      • tredglx

        No, those aren’t removable.

  • Cold War Grunt

    “Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes”
    I bet if these magazines had parents that married before having little magazines, they would have grown up to be more useful to society.

    • thetreyman

      question. if they outlaw 30 round mags, will i still be able to get a 10 round .458 socom mag as they are the exact same mag as a 30 round .223/5.56 mag? also, this is not the stupidest phrase i ever heard. on fox news radio’s news at the top of the hour, the woman kept saying “high capacity magazine clips.” i guess they thought they would get all the buzz words in.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        I have also been reading a lot of “clip magazines.” I was thinking maybe these had attachment points on the sides for ease in carrying.

        • thetreyman

          i’m going to go to a gun show tomorrow and try to find me one of those “magazine clips.” i should record the reaction of people and make a youtube video.

          • tredglx

            I use magazine clips all the time at the range. Holds two mags together side by side. Makes downtime to reload longer, but then others get to burn a few rounds while I’m down.

            Example: http://www.windhamweaponry.com/shopexd.asp?id=233

        • Rabid

          Put that damn thing away, we know how distracting that racy “spread” of the Binder clip in the centerfold is for ya..

      • Tango Niner

        Wait until they start calling them “Super Assault Magazine Clips”.

    • tredglx

      So then, expanding on his (il)logic, automobiles can only be used for reckless driving, driving under the influence and road rage.
      Ban automobiles.

      • MondaysChild76

        Maybe we shouldn’t ban all automobiles but since most states have a top speed limit of 70 or 75 mph, we should ban cars capable of exceeding those speeds and of course all motorcycles would be illegal.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Dave, The little magazines would have been aborted before ever holding their first round.

    • $35072932

      Part of the problem is that they didn’t practice safe ‘magazining’ because of GOP budget cuts to the those programs. Now those mags are proliferating everywhere.

      And don’t get me started on clip venereal diseases.

  • tredglx

    Do they mean like TIME, Newsweek, The Atlantic, Harper’s, Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and similar assaults on intelligent and rational thought?

    • Elilla Shadowheart

      Yep sounds like they might want to ban those nasty assault magazines they make people do crazy things. Up next, we ban assault cars, assault hammers, and assault baseball bats.

      • R0nin

        You forgot the Assault Knives! Oh god, the assault knives…

        • Elilla Shadowheart

          Well I’m worried about the assault keys. Vicious things, they even have jagged edges.

          • Ronin

            Assault bananas can really ruin your day. John Cleese made an instructional video on how to protect yourself from it.

  • traffic_robot

    We still can’t agree on the definition of assault weapon, so why not muddy the lexicon even more with double speak?

  • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ Penny Robinson Fan Club

    AK-47: semiauto only. Muzzle brake. 30 round mag. ROF — as fast as you can pull the trigger.

    M-1 Garand. Bolt action. 8-round magazine. No flash hider, suppressor, etc. ROF — 1 round per what, 2 seconds, maybe 1 1/2?

    Now, lefty gun experts: which one of these is an actual battlefield combat weapon?

    • Hiraghm

      The M1 Garand is NOT bolt action; it’s semi-auto, and takes an 8 round clip. It fires as fast as the AK-47 does in semi-auto mode. The sniper version can be fitted with flash suppressor, etc.

    • ForTheRepublic

      The answer is both. The question is: which one ISN’T used exclusively by terrorist cells?

      • thetreyman

        terrorists generally get the select fire weapons. so both.

        • ForTheRepublic

          I suppos that is true.

      • ceemack

        Boy, the point just flew right by you, didn’t it? The semi-auto AKs for sale to civilians here the states have NEVER been used on the battlefield. Only the select-fire versions have been used in actual warfare.

        The Garand, on the other hand, with its miniscule eight-round magazine, has been used extensively on the battlefield.

        • ForTheRepublic

          Yeah, I suppose it did. Never knew much about guns. I’ve bought a few books to research them, though.

    • Cold War Grunt

      M-1 Garand is a semi-auto, 8 round, stripper clip feed wi/internal magazine. The M1903 Springfield (predecessor to the M-1 Garand) was bolt-action.
      Regardless, your point is valid.

    • Roto

      Wonder if a bolt-action Carcano 91/38 would’ve been an “assault rifle” in 1963?

  • Leroy Whitby

    I don’t think it’s fair to call “Time” an assault magazine. Piers Morgan definitely is an assault program, given the manifesto of his viewer, but no crazed killers have directly cited Time yet, have they?

  • Leroy Whitby

    We have an assault assistant here at work. Man, she’s scary.

  • Roto

    Geezuz… Rep. Mike Thompson is an idiot. In 1935 President Roosevelt signed the 3-shell shotgun limit into law from the …. wait for it …. REQUESTS OF HUNTERS!!! Removable plugs restrict the magazine, since more shells are legal for hunting deer, bear, those ever-illusive skeets, etc.

  • Jason ‘Zeus’ Brown

    Don’t remember who originally said it, but just about anyone, with a little bit of practice, can change a magazine in about a second. So if “mass damage in a short period of time” occurs, what difference does it make whether or not reloading was involved?

    • NachoCheese (D)

      Not mention that those larger magazines have a tendency to jam, so the low capacity magazines are actually more effective for mass killing.

      • Roto

        ^^^ exactly…. The magazines in Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Oregon Mall all jammed. Guess that’s why all of them also had a shotgun and handguns with them, which liberals say they don’t want to ban… :rolleyes:

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    I guess “high capacity magazine” just wasn’t inducing the right amount of fear v

  • SameJerkDifferentName

    Even if they’re banned, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions in the hands of both law abiding citizens and criminals already. A ban will do NOTHING to prevent a madman from killing who he wants to kill. However, a gun in the hand of a potential target would at least give that potential target a fighting chance of surviving the ordeal. But the idiots want to restrict and hinder those that obey they law, rather than punish the law breakers.

    Proposal: Anyone caught with an illegally obtained firearm, Ten years behind bars. MANDATORY.

    Anyone caught using a firearm (legal or not) in the commission of a crime, Twenty years. MANDATORY.

    • thetreyman

      that is pretty much what we have here in FL already. it is the 10, 20, life law. the life part is if you kill someone.

    • Roto

      The brilliant liberal lawmakers in Maryland say a felony with an assault weapon or hi-cap mag is only a misdemeanor, with a mandatory extra 5 yrs (1st offense) and 10 yrs (all subsequent).

  • Stephen L. Hall

    So despite Constitutional guarantees, we may now lawfully make fun of and discriminate against “bad shots.” Can we make fun of these people with bad aim in editorial cartoons? How about all of those movies and tv shows that cast such bad shots in bad light where they fire a hundred rounds and don’t hit anything?

  • MrApple

    Fight them back with “criminal deterrence holders.”

  • $35072932

    Hey! Why don’t we just Ban Assault and be done with it!

  • Steve_J

    Is an assault magazine different than apepper magazine?

    • DaProf

      Naw…that would be a “pepperbox.” 24 barrel one, in particular. NO magazine. NO clip!

  • kbielefe

    If they are “illegitimate” and have “no self-defense purpose” why do the police want them?

    Also, the “no sporting purpose” crowd has obviously never been to a range. It’s very disruptive to practicing every time you have to stop to reload.

    And they always forget the most important purpose: deterrence and defense against a tyrannical government.

    • R0nin

      “And they always _intentionally_ignore_ the most important purpose: deterrence and defense against a tyrannical government.”

      FIFY

  • Steven Swenson

    I use 20, 30 rd magazines ALL THE TIME for sporting purposes. Jacob Sullum is a base idiot. They are not ‘illegitimate’ nor does their nature somehow force me to attack people with them… Which by the way not an efficient use of a magazine, in order to use them as a weapon they must be connected to a gun not used as a club…. Anyway I digress . The capacity of a magazine in no way directs the use to which it is put. A person can be attacked with a bolt action rifle which has no magazine, wars were fought with such weapons and US army text suggests they could be fired 26 times a minute aimed fire. Similarly I can use a bolt action rifle to shoot a target. Now I can add capacity to said weapon and the military says on average I could make 30 aimed shots in a minute, This means that a magazine is incidental to modern design and not the magical thing that makes massacres possible. Massacres are possible because there is no ability to mount a defense where the massacre occurs.

    Let’s stop blaming people who are not commiting the crimes, lets stop subscribing to superstion blaming an inanimate object or component of said object for the criminal misdeeds of others. Lets recognize that another law won’t stop such things unless it empowers defense. At best it may redirect the method selected but most likely won’t mean anything more than the laws against murder, tresspassing, assault,and ‘gun free’ zones already mean to such people.

    This ‘debate’ is stupidity on display and the people should not stand for any further infringement than already exists. In fact they should start pushing to free some of the gun laws up like the legal ownership of new machine guns. Quit buying into the fear mongering.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/2N4G5NYG7WIRYWRSUUL6LKJHTI roger

      steve swenson (RC), how very well stated, I suspect later today
      you will be able to accuse me of plagiarism, thankyou.

  • Tango Niner

    Listen to these brainiacs. Hunting rules shouldn’t apply for self defense or defense from tyranny, no rules should. When your life is on the line, the last thing you worry about is laws.

    Mike Thompson, you’re a moron!

  • R0nin

    “Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to
    attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.”

    Say what? Come on, Jacob Sullum, do you believe any part of that? If so, time to quit your job at “Reason” Magazine, unless they rename it.

    Tell me, why can they only be used to attack, and never to defend from an attack? And then explain to me why the Police and Military need them, if they’re never used for defense.

    Edit: OK, after careful reading of the article that Jacob wrote, I’ve concluded that his definition of “assault magazines” (above) was facetious. Twitchy, you might want to rethink how you present that quote.

    So now, let’s direct the above questions towards those who seriously mouth the words “assault magazine”.

    • ceemack

      I read Sullum’s entire post. If that paragraph was intended to be facetious, he needs remedial training in sarcasm.

  • SOD

    Do NOT use their terminology. Words have POWER. To give THEM control over our language is to give them control over our thoughts.

    • DaProf

      Ever since “Politically Correct” speech came into being I’ve warned against it as being the incarnation of “thought control.” If you control the language, you control thought.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JoeZepeda606 Joe Zepeda

    These idiots really make my brain hurt. A magazine is a metal box with a spring…. a PENCIL is 1000x more dangerous than a magazine. I can stab you with a Pencil, but even throwing a magazine at you would result in a response like “Hey, WTF man, why did you just throw that at me”. Im so done with politicians. They either don’t know or don’t care that probably 10-15% of gun owners are breaking some ridiculous law of the 20,000 on the books and don’t even know it. If they think people are going to just register, turn in, stop using or whatever they want, they are sorely mistaken. Not to mention the tens of millions of gun owners that will tell them to pound and and to come and take them.

  • Dante

    A man in Canada had 5 men break into his home a few years ago. He retreated to his bedroom, grabbed his SKS-D fitted with a 25 rd. banana clip and shot the 5 men as they broke down his bedroom door. Charged with murder, finally acquitted by court of appeal.
    The first man through the bedroom door carried a samurai sword. Another had a broken golf club. BTW, he had called police when they started banging on his front door. The police arrived after all the shooting was over. He had emptied the clip.

    • Rabid

      Good Man!

      • Dante

        Good man alright, but thanks to Canada not having a “castle law”, he ended up in prison until he won on appeal.
        Recently, our Conservative government has passed legislation making it less of a problem for people to defend themselves.

    • R0nin

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

  • Sven79

    California’s new proposed legislation, in an attempt to one-up New York in stupidity, came up with a term that’s far more ridiculous: “assault bullets.”

    • Jim Denney

      I see your CA, and raise you Maryland.

  • Kingofthehill

    There are hundreds of millions of these boxes with a spring in them. There will always be access to them. Also, if there is ever a need for something that people here will pay for, it will just travel from the south through our porous border and get in. idiots.

  • DavidDS

    Really ” can be used only to attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.” My .45 bed stand Glock holds fifteen rounds plus one in the chamber and it most certainly will only be used for self defense or sporting purposes.

  • Leroy Whitby

    Drinking some “assault coffee.” It’s black and hot and awesome!

    • Jim Denney

      I’m glad to hear it’s black, that gives your comment like, totally awesome credibility Dude!
      But does it have to be hot? #stopglobalwarming, #it’sforthechildren, #savethepolarbear, #jailconservatives, ….

      • Leroy Whitby

        Cooking some “assault spaghetti” for lunch. Lots of garlic and the sauce is red like blood . . . woo doggie!

  • http://twitter.com/iamjbeck Jason Beck

    “Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to
    attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.”

    Then why do the police across the nation have them?

  • $29520529

    We need common sense MSM protections, only one of them can talk a day, and they can’t be in the same room together, because their collective stupidity is killing human evolution!

  • 2War Abn Vet

    But, Joe Biden tells us that gun owners support these gun confiscators. Could there be some failure in communication?

  • Peyton

    We should escalate the wordsmithing ridiculousness on twitter, and see which lefties run with our made up words. Child killing clips anyone?

  • 1SkepticalChick

    “Such illegitimate magazines, by their very nature, can be used only to attack people and never for self-defense, hunting, or sporting purposes.”

    Those bastard magazines! It’s their NATURE to attack people. They are wild, not domesticated beings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004785969670 Hal Burton

    I prefer to call them regime change magazines. Just slightly different than the libtard nomenclature.

  • TTTCOTTH

    Morons

  • Frustrated Teacher

    A very unreasonable statement from ‘Reason’ magazine. Who the hell are they to determine what size magazine is applicable in any situation. Mainly because more than likely they have never HELD a gun with a magazine of ANY kind. If the idiots did ANY real research before shooting off their assault mouths, they would find that large capacity magazines on so-called ‘assault’ rifles are very RARELY used in crimes….so what are they used for?? Morons with agendas!

  • anjullyn

    An Assault Magazine is The New Republic.

  • BeeKaaay

    I thought the assault magazine was any magazine printed by leftwingwackos. They assault the good senses of ordinary people.

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Well, you’d have to throw it pretty hard….God, these people do love grasping at their straws. It’d be funny if matters hadn’t become so serious.

  • J.N. Ashby

    First: A what?
    Second: Yeah! That 2 seconds to reload is all we need to do to save COUNTLESS lives. Derp.

  • Ronin

    Cosmo? It’s pretty offensive to the nose and the brain.

  • billy86

    No magazine necessary, when you can reload in 1/2 second.
    http://youtu.be/lLk1v5bSFPw

  • [email protected]

    LOL they love to talk about what they know not