Conservative judge rewrites himself on guns

>>> if you were lucky enough to pick up an la times tonight. you found this. a conservative case for a ban. i was fascinated of course and i grabbed it to read it by larry al llen burns. i had no idea who he was until i read the first sentence which as was kwis quite a grabber. last month i sentenced jar odloughner for his shooting rampage in tucson. judges do not have his kind of communication with the public. so i knew i was holding something extra informatiordinary in my hands when i read this. i knew i was going to hand it over to his judge to make this conservative case as he puts it for a ban. he says that tragedy left six people. the judge said that tragedy left six people dead more than twice the number injured and a community shaken to its core. loughner deserved his punishment but during the sentences i questioned the high capacity magazines like the one that fed his glock and i lamented the ban in 2004 which mow hibted the manufacture and deportation of guns that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. the ban wasn't that strin gent. if you already owned it you could keep it. but at least it was something and it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shooting shootings it also says something that it has not been two years later and already six mass shootings have been deadlier. the judge said i'm not a social scientist and i know that very smart ones are divided about what to do. but reasonable good faith debates have boundaries and in the debate about guns a high capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them. bystanders got to him and subdued him only after he emptied a magazine and tried to load another one. adam lanza used a semiautomatic. how is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire? i get it. someone bent on mass murder who has only a ten round magazine or resolvers probably is not going to abandon his plan and talk his problems out. but we might be able to take the mass out of mass shooting or make the perpetrator's job a bit harder. to guarantee that there would never be another tucson or sandy hook we would have to make it a capitol offense andhat would create problems. so what is the alternative? bring back the assault weapon 's ban and bring it back with some teeth. ban the sale and transportation and possession. don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. i don't care whether it is called gun control or a gun ban i'm for it. i say all of this as a gun owner. i say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench i say it was someone who prefers fox news to msnbc and i say it as someone who thinks the supreme court got it right when it held that the spekecond amendment gives us the right to hold arms. i even say it as someone whose feelings about the nra mirror the left's feelings about planned parenthood and much of what it does should not be controversial at all. and i say it as a understand them that a high gasity magazine is not that different from smaller magazines, one day, there is a danger that we would ban guns all together the next and your life might depend on you having one. but, if we cand find a way to draw sensible ways to the public interest we may as well call the democracy a failure. there is no reason civilians need to own these. they can make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are part of the seal team that took out bin laden . it speaks horribly to the public discourse of this country that talking about this is regarded as in appropriate. but such a conversation is in appropriate only to those dilutional enough to believe that it would disrespect the victims to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. mourning is important but so is decisive action. congress must toughen the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. that was the piece. by judge burns. who was appointed to the federal court by president george w. bush . [