When politicians are on the wrong side of the facts on a particular issue, they often tend to exaggerate; they think this makes their point seem somehow relevant. Doing so sometimes impresses those observers who have little knowledge about the issue at hand, turning them toward one side or another in debate. Such is the case with President Joe Biden and his penchant for constantly talking about 100-round magazines. Meanwhile, the real goal for Anti-gunners remains banning any mag holding more than one-tenth of that oft-mentioned number.

Joe Biden Loves Him Some 100-Round Magazines

“In the 1990s, we passed universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that hold 100 rounds that can be fired in seconds,” Biden said last week in his first address to a joint session of Congress.

Before analyzing that interesting statement, note that Biden kept going with his little 100-round rant.

“Talk to most responsible gun owners, most hunters, they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds — 100 bullets — in a weapon,” he said. He then flippantly added, “What do you think, are deer wearing Kevlar vests?”

The Nauseating Clinton Gun Ban

Firstly, the Clinton gun ban of the 1990s banned many semi-autos based on a largely arbitrary set of cosmetic features. Of course, even if they had 100-round magazines inserted, they could not fire 100 rounds in seconds, as Biden suggests. He makes that statement solely to mislead viewers into thinking the current “assault weapons ban” legislation actually targets full-auto guns. Of course it only targets traditional semi-auto rifles, firing once for each pull of the trigger.

Secondly, that gun ban also included a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds — like the current proposal. And even though Biden has repeatedly claimed that the ban “worked,” a real look into what that law accomplished tells a different story.

A congressionally mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994 to 2004, which included a mag capacity limit, found that the ban had no impact on crime. Additionally, research conducted later by the Rand Corporation found no conclusive evidence that banning so-called “assault weapons” or “large-capacity” magazines has an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

For the Show

If Biden wants so badly to outlaw magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo, why does he always bring up 100-round drum magazines when trying to make his argument? That’s simple: It’s a classic bait-and-switch technique. The 12-, 15-, 17-, 20- and 30-round magazines he really wants to ban don’t sound as scary. They don’t grab the attention of people who know little about firearms and who don’t care about the Second Amendment.

Fact is, the new crop of subcompact pistols so popular for concealed carry nearly all hold more than 10 rounds; their factory-supplied magazine would fall under such a ban. What Biden is trying to draw attention from is that a ban on magazines over 10 rounds covers far more than just AR-15-type rifles. It affects everything from carry pistols to competition pistols to those used for home-defense. None of those firearms use the “100-round magazines” Biden loves trotting out to try and make his point.

Next time Biden speaks in public concerning guns, listen closely to what he is actually saying. Nearly every phrase is carefully handpicked by his speechwriters. They aim to mislead listeners about what his gun control proposals are really targeting: The Second Amendment-protected rights of law-abiding gun owners. His constant harping on 100-round magazines is ample proof of that fact.