If anyone knows about these pistols, I have two buyers who will pay cash for one each.
In the above referenced video, the U. S. President reports the existence of a Glock pistol with “… a lot of clips in it …” Aside from the rather uneducated errors in the comments, I am aware of no Glock pistol which will accept more than one ‘clip’ at one time. Nor am I aware of any Glock pistol which uses a ‘clip’; they use magazines. I am companioned in this mystification by a good friend who is a Glock collector and – at least for me and the girls I accompany – rather an expert in the world of Glock.
However, since it is proper to keep an open mind about such matters, I am prepared to be educated. So, if anyone knows of such a device, please bring it to my attention. And I want to buy one. I like firearms oddities. (Please include photos and asking price.)
In the same CNN interview, the President also made reference to an ‘assault weapon’ carried by the radicalized Islamic who conducted the murders in Orlando, Florida over the weekend. This also confuses me. The rifle carried by the Islamic shooter is not an AR 15; nor is an AR 15 an assault rifle. Notice I used the term ‘assault rifle’ vice ‘assault weapon’.
The U. S. Armed Forces – and other armed forces about the world – have used the term ‘assault rifle’ for a number of years. It is NOT a particular rifle, but a category of rifle employed by soldiers under certain conditions. Among other considerations, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire at the desire of the user. The weapon carried by the Islamic shooter does not have that capability. One also notes the absence of the use of term ‘assault weapon’ in the Armed Forces. There are no ‘assault pistols’, no ‘assault shotguns’, no ‘assault potato peelers’ or other such items. There is a class of fully automatic weapons which can be used in an assault (a noun as opposed to a adjective), but these are properly referred to as ‘light machine guns’; not ‘assault machine guns’.
I applaud the President’s decision to not identify the rifle used by the Muslim shooter; it was not as reported in the initial reports as an AR 15, but is a SIG-Sauer MCX Carbine. This rifle is not fully automatic either. Nor has anyone in a position to report the incident – witnesses – reported any fully automatic fire delivered. The two hours, more or less, the Muslim shooter had unrestricted control over his victims surely explains the number of victims killed and wounded rather than the rate of fire of the weapon or weapons involved.
Of course, the term ‘assault weapon‘ has long been used by the ‘media’, but only in the attempt to vilify weapons and the people who own them. I cannot believe our President would use incorrect and biased language in such a manner.
What also strikes me as odd is the President’s reluctance to associate an Islamic shooter targeting what appears to be homosexual men, with the Islamic, Koran based teaching that homosexuals are evil and should be killed. The President says this was an act of terror, but not Islamic or Muslim terror.
I suppose the comments of the shooter’s father shed no light on the matter, either.
The President did admit the profusion of laws prohibiting all manner of people – U. S. veterans who have someone else balance their check book for instance – do nothing to prevent this sort of terror attack. But then he went on to suggest ‘more’ is needed to curb the availability of firearms to normal U. S. citizens. Since the Muslim shooter passed a background check – never having been convicted of a crime or misdemeanor associated with domestic violence – the President hinted this standard was too permissive and needs to be more restrictive.
Perhaps as a nation we should not allow those who refuse our cultural norms – like murdering homosexuals, Jews, or anyone not a Muslim – to live in this nation? Perhaps the President is not looking at the real problem. What a shocking thought!