Democrat Lawmakers Fail To Provide Factual Support For "High Capacity Magazine Clip" Bill

A small group of Democrat lawmakers and anti-liberty activists are still attempting to exploit the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary to push for more restrictions on your liberty:


Newtown activists on Thursday helped introduce the first gun safety bill in this Congress, officially kicking off the gun control debate on Capitol Hill.

The bill would ban large capacity ammunition clips for everyone but military members and law enforcement officers. It was introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-5th District, in the House and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in the Senate.

The bill’s proponents characterized the legislation as a needed safety measure, like seat belts or airbags, that would save lives, not only those threatened by a mass murderer, but also police who are often outgunned by criminals.

Eight states, including Connecticut and the District of Columbia, ban high-capacity magazine clips. But congressional Republicans have resisted efforts for a federal ban, and for any new federal gun restrictions.

Dave Stowe, vice chairman of the Newtown Action Alliance and the Newtown Foundation, insisted there should be bipartisan support for the bill, saying, “What I see is an issue that does not take sides.”

Yes, the group actually called them “magazine clips” in their press release, and the clueless Northeastern media regurgitated the term and the group’s falsified claims without a bit of fact-checking or introspection.

Magazines and clips are, of course, two completely different things.

The group would arbitrarily declare than any standard capacity magazine over ten rounds was “high capacity.” The lawmakers and activists claimed that magazines that held more than tend rounds were “more lethal,”  but Newtown Action Alliance could not explain how they were more lethal when challenged on the assertion by Bearing Arms.


Magazine capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with lethality, which is a function of energy transfer from a projectile on a target.

Perhaps the most disgusting claim in support of their legislation is an attempt to claim that eleven lives were saved at Sandy Hook Elementary when the murder ran out of ammunition:

They say seconds count when a gunman threatens. As examples of this, they point to the 11 Sandy Hook schoolchildren who were able to run from danger while L____* reloaded his gun…

This is a claim that has never been substantiated with a shred of evidence.

While it is true that a number of students were able to escape one of the classrooms under attack when the attacker had an apparent problem with his rifle, there is no evidence at all to support Newtown Action Alliance’s claim that he was having problems changing magazines. In fact, all available evidence suggests against the murderer having magazine related issues during his murder spree.

During his spree, the murderer was actually changing magazines before he ran out of ammunition, a fact verified in the official Sandy Hook School Shooting Reports. Magazine capacity was not a a factor in the murder spree, and there is no evidence that the killer had difficulty changing magazines at any point.

Instead, it is far more likely that the killer’s weapon malfunctioned after overheating from firing 100+ rounds in less than five minutes in a school that was a completely undefended soft target.


Anti-gun Democrats and gun control activists still continue to fight putting armed guards (school resource officers, or SROs) in schools and allowing faculty and staff to carry firearms, even though Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute has determined that a combination of armed SROs and armed faculty/staff give students the highest chance of surviving a similar mass murder attempt, or the sort of orchestrated mass terror attack on schools that counter-terrorism experts have long predicted is inevitable.

When challenged to provide evidentiary support and expertise to support the propose 10-round limit, neither the lawmakers nor Newtown Action Alliance responded to Bearing Arms.

There is no credible evidence from actual firearms experts that supports the restriction, which is just the latest attempt by statist Democrats to trade your essential liberty for the illusion of temporary safety.


* Bearing Arms does not print the names of mass or spree killers.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member