I thought you were an attorney, and thus a student of precision in language. Kindly tell me where in my post that I said I was a gun banner. I am not. I merely stated that everyone is in favor of some form of gun control, we just argue about where to draw the line. Jumping to conclusions is not very attorney like. You must have spent time as a prosecutor, they tend to do that.
The idea of banning the clips is not new. I was part of the Federal Assault Weapon ban of 1994, which was allowed to expire. Now, even Dick Cheney, one of the most staunch gun advocates in America, suggests that a ban on the size of a magazine is reasonable. Given that sanction, it is unreasonable for you to think I am a gun banner, unless you think Dick is one as well.
Dick Cheney | Gun Control | Video | Mediaite
Now, I will accept one of your corrections. I said that had the magazine ban existed he would not have been able to get one. You are correct that banning something does not prevent possession. I misspoke and should have been more precise in my assertion. The correct assertion should have been that with the ban, it would have been far more difficult to get the extended magazine. After all if, to use your illustration, its more difficult (and dangerous) to get cocaine (which is illegal) than beer (which is no longer illegal). Given that he made a retail purchase of his gun and ammo, it is unlikely he would have had the extended clip, or more precisely, it is certainly less likely.
As to your argument of incrementalism, this is a tired and rather juvenile NRA position.... if we give one inch, they will take everything. That approach is unreasonable at every level. Some things require fixing, and to fix those things more often results in fortifying one's position, not weakening it.
