February 21, 2013 03:59 PM UTC

Prohibiting large-capacity magazines is like sending Japanese Americans to internment camps?

• 2 Comments
• by: Jason Salzman

In an article Tuesday, The Denver Post described the gun safety debate in the State House this way:

Monday's discussion in the House, while far shorter than the 12-hour debate Friday, was distinguished by speeches that quoted "Hamlet," invoked images of Japanese internment camps and cited the example of Mahatma Gandhi — in this case in favor of gun rights.

If you read this, you were probably wondering what distingished speeches referenced "Japanese internment camps." I mean, you can guess what was said about Hamlet, but what could possibly be the connection between guns and internment camps? The article didn't say, but it turns out that Rep. Kevin Priola compared the rounding up and jailing of Japanese Americans during WWII to proposed legislation prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines:

View video here.

Priola stated:

Priola: When American men and women were killed, and the public’s anger was so strong that they asked politicians to do something, ‘We must do something for public safety. It’s about public safety. And we must do something.’ But after the threat has passed, and time had healed wounds, we reflected on what we had done. Had actually taken away freedom from those American citizens, and with hindsight we can now be remorseful. What am I speaking of? Think about it. The Japanese interns. In 1941 and 42, Americans were asking politicians: ‘This group over here. They are a threat to public safety. We must remove them from the coasts because they’ll sabotage ships and they’ll blow up our navy ships.” Speaker: Rep. Priola, can we keep it on House Bill 1224.

As I read this, Priola is equating the "freedom" you lose when a wave of bigotry lands you in jail to the "freedom" lost when concerns about gun safety spawn legislation banning large-capacity magazines, when you still have your small-capacity ones plus you still have your guns (not to mention your actual freedom). Priola's position is, objectively, so extreme that The Post should reported his full remarks.