Skip to content

Notes on High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices(tm)

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 offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

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.

Any questions?

{ 7 } Comments

  1. Speakertweaker | July 27, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    This. This right here. This is why.

  2. Jim | July 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Right on Papa. I love the fire, but let me add in something else. We’ve seen with natural disasters that government breaks down. Katrina, the Colorado wildfires, ice storms, floods, the power grid going down for days. In those times, there are not enough police and National Guard around to protect your homes and businesses.

    Preventing citizens from buying semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, or other weapons prevents us from being able to defend ourselves when disaster strikes. What do you do when mobs of men come to take your generator? A 10 shot handgun won’t hold them off. An AR-15 might.

    And most important, as you said. Fuck You, That’s Why.

  3. Xman | July 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Fuck the entire Mos Eisley Cantina cast of freaks that sponsored this legislation and everyone who supports them.


    With a rusty chainsaw.

  4. TomcatTCH | July 30, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    you forgot the handfull of gravel for lube Xman.

  5. Robert Fowler | July 31, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    I’m sharing this. The freak show that is our Congress needs a good cleaning out.

  6. Rick C | July 31, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Is “because banning normal-capacity magazines doesn’t help” a good enough reason? IIRC the VA Tech shooter used 10 and 15-round magazines, but he had preloaded a whole bunch of ’em, maybe 10 or more. It doesn’t take that long to swap a mag, especially if, say, you had a whole bunch on your belt where you could reach ’em real fast.

  7. Mike | July 31, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    I will add, a crazy shooter wearing armor may absorb some lead before the armed citizen defender realizes he must shift aim to head, or pelvis. And, what if the next Holmes is not alone, but has a couple of other armored maniacs with him (Think Columbine). You could go through a 17 round magazine pretty quickly that way. Certainly through 10 or 5 in a wheel gun.

    Yes, the ordinary armed citizen may be confronted with a situation where a few shots are simply not enough.

{ 3 } Trackbacks

  1. SayUncle » ‘need’ | July 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    […] Because fuck you, that’s why. […]

  2. […] Need does not enter into it. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

  3. […] Really though, the probably the most succinct, simple and yet wise beyond the mere words reason that… […]