From The Hill:
Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
Predictably, when there’s a shooting, they rush to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it, because the gun banners want to ban everything. Magazines are just part of the slippery slope.
There’s a dog whistle response from these cretins. A criminal uses a firearm to commit a crime, and they call for banning the tool, while they call for tolerance of crime and disarm the citizen against the criminal.
Rather than your nightstand Glock having 12 rounds to deal with something that goes bump in the night, they want you to have 10. Rather than having 30 rounds in your competition 10-22, they want you to have 10. Rather than have 30 rounds in your homeland security rifle, they want you to have 10. And then you don’t need that evil AK-47 assault rifle chambered in a super high-powered military cartridge. And you don’t need that .30-30 lever gun, because it actually has the same ballistics as that evil AK47. And you don’t need that .22, because mobsters use those to shoot people in the neck. And you don’t need anything, because the state declares that you, the citizen, should be lorded over and controlled. Criminals don’t rebel against the state, they just plunder from the citizen, so that’s not the concern of the Ruling Class.
Ugh. Sometimes it’s almost troubling to have to write the same thing over and over again, being frustrated with supposed representatives that at every turn seek to undermine our personal security as citizens, from infringing on our freedom to buy soft drinks to denying us modern tools of self-defense; while simultaneously arming themselves with bodyguards with fully automatic weapons and eating Wagyu/Kobe beef at $120/pound just because they’re new aristocracy. They make themselves enemies of individual liberty at every turn, and it’s really aggravating.
Anyhow, to the uninformed or person unfamiliar with firearms, a large magazine might, on face value, seem threatening. What’s the difference between 10 rounds and 12? What’s the difference between 10 and 30? 10 and 60? 10 and 100? Well, as we saw from the Colorado theater murders, 100 round drums don’t work well. Beta-mags, especially the imported knockoffs, are mostly used by folks playing with them on the range. They jam – just like they did at the theater murders. There’s a reason we don’t see troops overseas using them. There are reliable 60 and 100-round magazines, notably made by Surefire (the flashlight people) – and who uses those? Competition shooters, varmint plinkers, military and law enforcement. And why? So you can make up for your misses if you need to. The same applies to 30s, 12s, and 10s as compared to single-shots.
The leftist-statist argument that no one needs those magazines never extends to their own personal bodyguards and law enforcement. If they’re made for killing lots of people, as the leftist argument goes, why should cops use them? Why should a bodyguard? Should cops be out to kill lots of people? Should bodyguards?
Large magazines are used so that if you’re in a pinch, you have available rounds. It’s like having a large gas tank, or a good battery. It means you can operate for longer. It means if you’re plinking, you can shoot a while longer without reloading. If you’re varmint or predator hunting, where there are few magazine restrictions and you’re basically exterminating pests, you can do what you’re trying to do without stopping. If you’re competition shooting, you can go longer between stages without having to fumble with a reload. If you’re defending your house against a flash robbery or riot, it means you stand a chance against a mob that will otherwise kill you. Or if you’re defending yourself and need to shoot at all, why would you want to be limited to 10? 10 chances to stop an attack and protect your life, and if you don’t make it by then, that’s the end? Or would you rather have 12? Or 17? Or 20? Or 30 or 60 or 100 or 100,000? Is your life not worth defending? No one ever leaves a gunfight going “man, I wish I didn’t have all that ammo at the beginning”. Someone might say “I’m glad I didn’t need it”, but no one ever says “I wish I had run out and been killed instead.” More ammunition is always good (unless you’re drowing or on fire) because it means you have more chances to succeed. Ideally, you never need them, but if you do, no one wants to be limited.
A bodyguard needs them to protect his client, a cop needs them to protect himself, and you need them to protect yourself. A license, a commission, or a badge don’t mean someone else’s life is more important than yours.
A self-defense shooting may not be a woman defending herself from a rapist in an alley. It may be a woman defending herself from her male family members who want to “honor kill” her. It may be a elderly black man defending himself from a gang of racist thugs intent on a lynching. Or a gay man who accidentally crosses the boundary from the neighborhood of Boys Town to Little Arabia and finds himself the target of religiously-mandated execution.
There was a time when firearms were even marketed for those who lived in rural areas and might suffer depredation by bandits. (And back then a 12 year-old could buy it through the mail… and yet there were no school shootings.)
Worth noting is that the roots of gun control are racism. It’s always centered in the power structure trying to suppress the underclass, and usually that means minorities. This is why many southern states that are supposedly culturally pro-gun still have anti-gun laws on the books. For example, North Carolina requires pistol purchase permits. If you want a handgun for self defense, the sheriff gets to decide if you get to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, or gets to decide that you’re the wrong color (or a Marine if you live in Onslow County) and you can’t. Texas still has no provision for open carry. Many states and the federal government have laws against “cheap handguns” or “Saturday night specials”, which were originally called “n*ggertown Saturday night specials” – and were banned by racists based on fears of an armed populace (poor black people also wanted guns to protect themselves from criminals of all colors). California’s bans kicked in after the Black Panther march on Sacramento with guns in the open.
Something worth noting, for those that think the state should decide on your rights:
Adam Winkler, author of the forthcoming book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right to Bear Arms in America,” traced the birth of the modern gun rights movement to the Black Panthers in the September issue of The Atlantic. In it was a fact of history that I’d never heard: “Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied,” Winkler wrote. “But from then on, armed supporters guarded his home.”
The Ruling Class has always sought to disarm the citizen in order to control him. A disarmed populace enables the tyrant, no matter color or creed. An armed populace guards against tyranny.
Also, for those concerned about “large” amounts of ammunition (which is something else that comes up right after the mag bans), consider that many folks who shoot buy in bulk. If you burn 100 rounds per range trip for one particular gun, and make one trip per month, you burn 1200 rounds at the end of the year. That’s not much at all. Now if you buy that ammo one box at a time, it’s expensive. If you buy a couple of cases, you can leave the ammo sit (it takes a long time for most ammo to go bad, especially if stored properly), and when you buy in bulk, you can save quite a bit of cash. Plus if you decide to go out for a weekend and introduce someone to shooting and burn through 300 rounds plinking at bowling pins (fun!), it’s nice to have that on hand. For folks who are really serious shooters will go through a lot more, and will often buy in very large quantities to have the ammo on hand throughout the course of a year – as well as to beat inflation. For those unaware, metals prices skyrocketed in the last few years, ammo prices went up and up and up. A case of 500 rounds of 7.62×39 for Teh EVIL AK-style rifles went from $50 to $150. A 50-round box of 9mm went from $5 (I still have some at that price from Dick’s Sporting Goods in KS) to $12-15. The $5 ammo that I did and still have yet to shoot has helped me beat inflation. It’d be as though you could buy gas for your car that would last for years – and thus stay at the same price, defeating inflation.
Meanwhile, a citizen with a gun in Utah stopped a knife-wielding maniac who had begun attacking innocent people.
HotAir notes that gun bans aren’t popular anyway. If you want to keep it that way, invite people to go shooting with you.