Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Reject any effort to restrict firearm capability

Carolyn McCarthy and other anti-gun activists believe that crippling firearm magazine capacity to some arbitrary number of rounds somehow stops crime. This issue resurfaced along with irrational hysteria related to the recent Tucson shooting. They seem to ignore that fact that the last such ban had no effect on crime.

Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic. Why have people like McCarthy picked a ten-round limit? Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense to me. Are they saying that responsible Americans should not have have firepower at least comparable to the criminals who are, be definition, not deterred by gun (or any) laws? That also makes no sense. Is McCarthy saying that her husband was wise and correct in not having had a gun with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds to protect himself on the evening he was murdered? She can speak for herself and her dead husband, but she has no right or authority to deny the rest of us the most effective means to defend ourselves and loved ones from the likes of Colin Ferguson -- a gun with full-capacity magazines.

During the 10-year full-capacity magazine ban included in Bill Clinton's '94 Gun Ban, only law enforcement could get full-capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds). (Even the NY Times admitted the ban failed to achieve its objective.) The public faces the same criminals police do! Since the public (crime victims) is almost always first at the scene of any crime, any restrictions for the public must always at least match what police can use. If lawmaker's can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits, they cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.

Criminals are already prohibited from having a magazine of any size. A law restricting size for the rest of us adds nothing to safety. What we really need to stop shooting rampages is not another feel-good law written on a mere piece of paper. What we need is removal of all restrictions on responsible armed people who can respond.

"A well regulated militia" is a stated intent of the Second Amendment. At Virginia's US Constitution ratification convention in 1788, George Mason expressed the founders' understanding of the militia when he said, "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials." (See also 10 USC Sec. 311)

Clearly, the Second Amendment is only partially about "sporting" guns or hunting ducks as implied in the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968 and current unconstitutional ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) rules. The Amendment protects our right to own any arm, especially militia arms. Forcing the citizens and the militia to cope with crippled magazines or firearms is an unreasonable infringement of the Second Amendment. Limiting full-capacity guns and magazines and militia-type arms to the government and its agents is elitist and extremely dangerous to life, liberty, and happiness. Such a shameful move only panders to those without the capacity or initiative to reason (the preferred constituency of most politicians).

Natural law gives us sufficient restrictions on mala en se crimes -- those acts which are inherently wrong or evil such as assault, murder, and infringing liberty. We do not need more mala prohibita laws -- crimes (such as the responsible possession and use of effective firearms) that are often arbitrarily created just because some bully (ie McCarthy) wants to.

I have learned that an amendment to ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds may be snuck into law as an amendment to legislation unrelated to crime. (This reminds me of the nation's desperate need for's "One Subject at a Time Act".)

If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any. Congress and the Whitehouse must oppose and repeal any amendment or legislation with any infringement on Second Amendment rights.

No comments:

Post a Comment