So in the wake of the Aurora, CO shooting, the question of the day seems to be “Why does anyone need a 100 round magazine for their assault rifle?” And right on cue, the anti-freedom brigade of the Senate whips out the good ‘ol Clinton era magazine ban:
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.
Like I mentioned previously, a lot of new shooters weren’t around for the Bad Old Days of the 1994-2004 ban. And one thing I was disappointed with in my side the last two times we had this tussle was the lack of vinegar in our arguments. When asked to justify our desire to own normal capacity magazines, we obediently trotted out the usual safe, politically correct defenses: NRA High Power shooting, 3 gun competitions, criminals don’t actually use them that often, etc.
However, I will humor the opposition and lay out three reasons why I need big magazines:
1. Because Fuck You, that’s why.
The free exercise of my rights is not contingent on the approval of some parasite government bureaucrat or their pathetic fan club. My right to free speech is not confined to what is considered inoffensive or sensible. I explicitly lay claim to be as offensive as possible without causing provable harm to another. Similarly, the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment to my natural right to keep and bear arms is not limited by “reasonableness” or the comfort level of my neighbors. The words “shall not be infringed” seem completely unambiguous to me, and the use of “militia” in the preamble indicates that anything that is available to light infantry should be available to citizens.
So no, I need not justify the features or capabilities of my weaponry, and fuck you for asking.
2. Because they’re useful, that’s why.
In a perfect model world where we could actually ban normal capacity magazines and make everyone use ten rounders, this prohibition would naturally favor the aggressor. The attacker has every opportunity to plan and prepare and take along as many reloads as he can carry. The defender may only have to work with what is in his gun at the time and is already behind the OODA curve. Thus, higher capacity magazines favor the defender, not the attacker.
But my real objection to magazine bans is that they never affect the police or military. I find it morally reprehensible to give the monopoly on effective weaponry to armed agents of the state, who are directly responsible for probably a billion murders in the modern era. That politicians use the murders of a few to give the murderers of millions exclusivity on arms says everything about where their true sympathies lie.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect sport shooting, hunting, or self defense (though these are pleasant side effects), but rather to act as a firewall against an abusive state by giving the citizens the tools to violently end that state if required. Restricting the tools the citizens have to potentially kill government agents to government agents themselves is the most succinct definition of fascism I can think of.
3. Because Fuck You, that’s why.