First off, 30 rounds is not “high capacity”, it’s standard capacity for an AR. 60 rounders are high capacity. For a pistol, magazines over 10 rounds are rarely high-capacity. A simple example is the Sig P226, which in 9mm normally carries 15 rounds. High capacity magazines go beyond that, pushing 17-20 or even 30 rounds; as these are magazines that often don’t seat flush in the magazine well. High-capacity versus standard capacity is dependent upon the model of firearm. With that bit of gun-specifics out of the way…
Huffpo has this piece saying that Democrat congresswoman Diana Degette from Colorado and mindless anti-gunner NY Democrat congresswoman Carolyn “Shoulder-Thing-That-Goes-Up” McCarthy are pushing to introduce a “high-capacity” magazine ban on the first day of the new congress.
Still, backers are hopeful, noting that a ban on high-capacity magazines — which have been involved in many of the recent high-profile instances of mass gun violence — would be a smaller concession for gun-rights advocates than a broader assault weapons ban.
Translation: “We think we can get the stupid Fudds to go along with this because there are still a few Zumbos out there who think the Second Amendment is about duck hunting and their aristocratic priviledges and not about disarming the serfs… especially black people.”
The bill Democrats will introduce would limit magazines, belts, drums, feed strips and “similar device[s]” to 10 rounds of ammunition. It would allow people to hold on to the “large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]” that they currently own, but prohibit them from buying others or transferring the ones they have.
Because the best way to disarm the citizens is slowly, over a couple generations. When they aren’t used to having freedom anymore, they’ll never notice. How do you boil a frog?
The bill would also exempt retired and current law enforcement officials who use those devices for “purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)” as well as contractors who have been licensed to carry the devices for security purposes required by federal law.
Because some animals are more equal than others, and the enforcers for the state should always have access to weapons that allow them to “shoot as many people as possible“.
“I’m not so naïve as to think that we can pass some law that will stop a deranged person from taking a gun and shooting people,” DeGette told The Huffington Post two weeks ago. “What I am interested in is making it as difficult as possible for that deranged person to shoot as many people as possible.”
Yes, no gun law can work, so we must pass a law against 300 million other citizens. Clearly, only the state should have those tools that allow them to shoot as many people as possible.
It’s somehow amazing to watch so-called liberals, who are really leftists, statists, progressives and/or liberal fascists (mostly the same thing in this regard), decree that a tool isn’t used for valid self-defense because it’s only used “to shoot as many people as possible”, and then declare that only the government should have them. They completely ignore legitimate usages like that having more ammo is a good thing if you’re defending yourself against any type of attack, and that just because you could fire more in a defensive situation, you don’t necessarily have to fire more; and sometimes a few rounds can act as a deterrent (consider deterring a mob – one rare time where warning shots may be helpful). Their ideology can’t allow them to understand that firearms are for self-defense.
Huffpo notes an interesting correction:
This article previously stated that no Republicans have expressed support for a ban on high-capacity magazines. A reader points out that Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) has called such legislation “helpful,” while incoming Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said he would “consider looking at some of the larger magazines” as a response to the Newtown shootings.
Yup, it’s helpful for big government RINOs who want to expand the state against the citizen. It’s also helpful for RINOs who enjoy unemployment, and it’s helpful for the voters, so we know which ones to get primary out and replace with good representatives.
Speaking of good representatives, Texas’ newest Senator, Ted Cruz, has this to say on the subject:
Sadly, but predictably, it took just minutes for liberals to begin exploiting this horror to push their own gun-control schemes. One media pundit after another blathered on about their deep desire to strip away our Second Amendment rights — despite the fact that no gun-control laws could possibly have prevented this madman from stealing guns from a law-abiding citizen and murdering these children.
President Obama leapt on the bandwagon, renewing his call to come after our guns. And Senator Feinstein reintroduced an even more aggressive “assault weapons ban” that would, among other things, create a national firearms registry — a government list of those Americans who choose to exercise our constitutional rights.
This is wrong, and I will fight to stop it. It contravenes the Bill of Rights, and it is foolhardy policy — consistently, those jurisdictions that enact the most restrictive firearms policies have the highest crime and murder rates, and those jurisdictions that protect our right to keep and bear arms have the lowest.
He has a national petition going as well – not just for Texans.
For those honestly wondering what the deal with magazines is, consider this piece by The Truth About Guns:
…Because Government Troops Have High Capacity Magazines
When I am asked why I need a magazine for my “assault rifle” larger than 10 rounds, the answer is “because soldiers carry magazines larger than 10 rounds.” The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from more than just criminals. It was also understood that each sovereign state in the union would need to depend on its citizen militias to project power as needed. That meant well-armed men . . .
Our founding fathers also understood the danger of too much power in the hands of a government. They took great pains to hobble it through a system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment gave us the means of rebellion should the government go too far in encroaching on our freedom.
I’m not an anarchist or an insurrectionist. I think government is a good thing. Liberty must be ordered to be meaningful. To prosper, civil matters like contracts need to be adjudicated peacefully and fairly. Criminals must be punished sufficiently to suppress their activity.
That said, too much government is lethal. Untold millions suffer under the malignant brutality of all-powerful governments. Western European fascism, eastern European communism, communism in the Far East and Southeast Asia, totalitarian socialist nations from Cuba and throughout Central America. Over and over again, these governments resort to oppression and murder to maintain power over a helpless populace.
Socialists like Senator Feinstein and President Obama have access to the same data you and I do. They know that confiscating baseball bats would save more murder victims than confiscating AR-15s would. They know that the Clinton assault rifle ban did nothing meaningful to reduce crime. Why then are they hell bent on making a move that’s already proven worthless for the ostensible reason it’s been proposed?
We have no reason to think these college-educated adults have fully benign intent. What would they do different if they were working to set America up for a future tyranny that today’s Americans would openly rebel against?
We’re not necessarily talking today, or even tomorrow, but 10, 20, 50, or 100 years down the road. The Second Amendment prevents far, far worse things. Visit Heart Mountain and then try to say “it can’t happen here”.