United Liberty
The facts of life on high capacity magazines
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 2:10pm | posted by Tom Knighton
James Holmes is an evil man. Sick? Quite possibly, but evil none the less. The same can be said of Jared Loughner who is responsible for the Tuscon shooting. The two men, and the events they started, also have something else in common. Both sparked the debate regarding high capacity magazines.
First, let’s clarify something for the non-gun folks who may be reading. Most semi-automatic weapons are designed around specific magazines. For an AR-15 or an AK-47, that is a 30 round magazine. For a 9 mm pistol, it’s usually in the neighborhood of 15 rounds. Those are properly considered standard capacity magazines, not high capacity.
Now that the bit of nomenclature is out of the way, I know that opponents of guns don’t see any reason why someone needs so many rounds in their magazine. Well, let me touch on that one. I probably don’t. On that note though, neither do the vast majority of police officers in this country who could legally secure these so-called “hi capacity” magazines during the Assault Weapon Ban. Law enforcement was exempt from the ban, yet how many officers legally discharge their firearms during the course of their career, not counting range time? Very, very few.
Despite what the movies tell us, police officers find themselves needing to discharge their weapons remarkably few times. Most police officers go their entire careers and never fire their weapons. The same is true for most private gun owners as well.
So why do they get to have something that we, the ordinary citizen, can’t get? The argument is something along the lines of the fact that police officers are charged with protecting us citizens from harm (the SCOTUS case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales doesn’t play into it apparently). Regular folks don’t find themselves in the dicy situation cops do, or so some might argue.
The problem is that we regular citizens can find ourselves in some pretty bad spots as well. For example, people who own businesses with large amounts of cash on hand or valuable merchandise may become the target of violent criminals. I’m a journalist. Part of my job is to “get the story”. That may mean that I have to go into bad neighborhoods. Do we have less of a right to be protected? Of course not.
Loughner and Holmes’ crimes are often used as examples of how bad high capacity magazines are. Loughner used 30 round magazines for his Glock pistols, while Holmes use a 100 round magazine for his Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15. In both cases, these weapons jammed. Gun enthusiasts weren’t surprised. Both of these ultra large capacity magazines are notorious for jams. Oh, they look cool as hell, but they generally suck.
However, let’s say some people get their way. Let’s say these magazines, as well as what gun folks think of a “standard capacity” magazines, are banned. Well, unless you ban any ownership - and there are plenty who wouldn’t mind that in the least - then there is still a glut of magazines out on the market. Now, these magazines that suck are even harder to get, but the 30 rounders will be easier to get.
Some madman who is planning on a killing spree like this will now no longer count on these large capacity magazines. Instead, they’re likely to spend time practicing reloads. Even with ten round magazines, with proper practice a reload can happen very quickly. The body count is unlikely to drop, and in Loughner’s case may have actually increased (he was stopped when his weapon jammed. Holmes simply transitioned to a different weapon).
Will that stop those who want to ban these things? Of course not. They are the type that cry for regulations, regardless of who those regulations impact. They are part of the “do something right away!” crowd that politicians seek to appease after an event like this. They don’t think “rights” matter after all, primarily because some other people have done bad things.
Here’s a weird thought for you folks. Why don’t we quit trying to blame everything else, and start blaming James Holmes. He’s the tool that took a weapon and shot people. It wasn’t me or any other law abiding gun owner. Blame him, punish him, and let’s all try and move on from this senseless tragedy.
It’s not easy, but it’s important to try. I know. I lost a very dear friend in the Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle, Washington back in May. It would be easy to scream for regulations, but Kimbery Lynn Layfield was the kind of person who would expect me to stick to my principles. So, instead, I’ve tried to move on. In the case of the Aurora, CO shooting, we need to do the same as a nation.
Let’s just quit blaming guns for the work of a madman.
Senator Frank Lautenburg,
I see that you are very passionate about taking away the right of every citizen of this country to own, posses, or transfer high capacity ammunition magazines. I understand for you this is just a start to the road in which you dream of a gun free America, where the right to keep and bear arms has been completely abolished. A country where only the police and military have the weapons and provide a violence free utopia for all Americans and your imposed view of liberty and justice prevail. The impassioned and emotionally based arguments you present of course seem to call for finding middle ground, making compromises, and abjure us to think of all of the “senseless” deaths that gun accidents cause ever year in homes. It is an emotionally charged argument that tugs at the very heart strings of our better side to outlaw the evil gun, or in the very least the high capacity magazines, and somehow this will banish those with evil intent from committing unspeakable acts of terror. If somehow we can just end the manufacture and sale of these implements the monsters will just all go away.
As amazing of plan as it sounds the reality is that it is all just a wonderful fairytale crafted to mislead and misguide the general population. It serves as much towards the common good as trying to regulate, though law and legislation, the gravitational pull of the earth or the very laws of physics. In short it is devoid of common sense and historical precedence and according to the US Constitution should be beyond your rights to even propose such legislation. It was seen by the crafters of the Constitution that threats from within and without would seek to undermine the very rights that are enumerated in the Constitution and what many know as the Bill of Rights. Senator let us speak for just a second past the very core of this debate on a larger scale of exactly what the founding fathers sought to speak of in response to liberty versus tyranny.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
Our founding fathers had determined from the very beginning and made their intent very clear that all men were endowed by natural law certain rights that that were not to be infringed, unalienable, and were not the domain of the government to dictate. You see these were rights and not privileges and as such these are not given to us by the US Constitution, but they are enumerated as to limit the federal, state, or even local government from any power to legislate on these rights endowed upon all men from the order of natural law. It should be further noted that our founding fathers intended to provide safe guards, checks, and balances against any threat that should arise against their pursuit of Life, Liberty, or Happiness. It is in this light that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were established to further Enumerate the rights endowed upon man by the order of natural law.
Now comes into play the very crux of the issue which is now being debated among millions of Americans and of course this or course is the Second Amendment right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. To be more specific where exactly is the limitations of these rights in balance with the right of the government to put “common sense regulation” and restrictions upon this right. The truth of the matter is that there is no limitation or restriction that the government may impose upon these rights. I must however defer to the founding fathers on their own opinion of regulation on firearms:
“The great object is that every man be armed.” - Patrick Henry
“Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.” – Patrick Henry
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements” – Thomas Jefferson
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” - George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
You see Senator our founding fathers were very clear on the right keep and bear arms. It is further of note that the founding fathers wished to establish a very clear blueprint to ensure these liberties existed as long as our country existed. The Bill of Rights, specifically speaking, the second amendment has little do with sport shooting, target practice, or hunting. It was established as a primary part of the checks and balances to protect the rights endowed upon all men by the order of natural law. It was established so that by his own hand citizens may provide for the defense of their persons, family, and property from tyranny whether it be from any source foreign, domestic threats, or simply the will of one individual that is hell bent on imposing his tyranny and evil intent upon his fellow man. This last is I think in our modern society of the utmost importance as seen in the case of the last horrible shooting and the inability of those in the theater to defend themselves. The second amendment is the ability of the human to defend himself in absence of others who would defend him. It is not only an individual right to defend his persons, family, and property, but it is also his solemn duty as well. Our founding fathers could not have been more clear as to these rights, the manner in which they were enumerated, and attempts to take these rights from them as they were done so by the order of natural law.
As far as common sense is concerned in relation to gun control and its ability to prevent such tragedies as happen last week in Colorado. I present to you the Columbine shooting and the very fact it happened well into an assault weapons ban crafted yourself and others of your own political leaning. It must also be noted that this shooting occurred in an area that was designated a gun free zone. I also present as evidence the shooting in Norway in which a man committed unspeakable acts in the name of obscure political leanings. This tragedy also occurred in a country where all “assault weapons”, high capacity magazines, and for the most part any firearm is very strictly controlled and highly inaccessible to the civilian population. In the relation to such efforts to control firearms, magazines, and ammunition many of the recent occurrences of such wholesale slaughter has occurred in states, countries, or areas were strict gun control measures have been implemented for many years. The ideal that banning high capacity magazines or semi-automatic weapons will prevent such occurrences is in fact little more than a farce or fairytale crafted to reach the political goal of a total ban of gun ownership and dissolution of the Second Amendment. It serves little more than to restrict the endowed rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the very tyranny of individuals seeking to impose their own evil intent upon others. It is no small wonder that firearms constitute and are responsible for preventing the deaths of over 100,000 citizen who have used them in encounters with criminals that intended to due them serious bodily harm or death. Here however is a list of tragedies that have occurred in nations that now have the same gun laws you are proposing:
- Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
- Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
- Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
- Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
- Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
- Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
- Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
- Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
- Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
- Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year’s Eve.
- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
It is very clear what history, our founding fathers, clearly ascertainable data on firearms, and millions of American think of Gun control. It speaks volumes that it was enshrined and Enumerated in the US Constitution. The impassioned and emotionally charged article your wrote has little to do with reality or the true intent of our founding fathers. I served this nation for well over eight years in the military, was wounded in service to this country, and then served a further six years in law enforcement. I believe that as long as we keep the right to keep and bear arms tyranny either foreign, domestic, or on an individual level shall never prevail. Your assault upon these liberties through back door amendments to bills not even closely related is a disgrace and shame upon you sir! I would like for you to explain to me and everyone else in this country how banning high capacity magazine will make the internet a safer and more secure place. I am not even sure how you can even articulate how these two subjects are even closely related. Your pontification, grandstanding, and using these tragedies as political cannon fodder is of the most base nature and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. Your actions do dishonor to your station, your office, your constituents, and above all your sacred oath of office.
Post new comment