Guarding against Reasoned Discourse

I ran across a blog post advocating for the banning of normal capacity magazines today. I left a comment. It immediately showed up but I fear he might engage in some “Reasoned Discourse” so I’m posting my comment here as well:

It’s called a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

There are probably 100 million or more of these normal capacity magazines of greater than 10 round capacity in private hands in the U.S. Because they are “in common use” these magazines are protected by the Heller Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Repealing the common use test would require a new ruling from the Supreme court.


10 thoughts on “Guarding against Reasoned Discourse

  1. Every magazine I own holds more than 10 rounds – I must me one evil person.


  2. Pray tell, exactly what types of firearms for self defense, hunting, target shooting, and other uses, would you personally be willing to allow the citizens of the US to own? Specify caliber (using existing calibers from .17 to 50BMG or 600 Nitro, leaving out military calibers of larger size), operating mechanism (single shot, revolver, semiautomatic, fully automatic), action type (break-open, lever action, bolt action, semiauto open bolt, semiauto closed bolt, and so on) and ammunition capacity.

    This might give us a start on understanding what you hope to accomplish with a ban on normal-capacity magazines for firearms, which have been in common use by civilians and police and military since before World War 1.

    See, it is not the 11th bullet in the magazine that worries me when I am faced with a violent armed criminal, it is the 1st bullet he might shoot at me that gets my full attention. And the only way I see to avoid facing that 1st bullet is to make sure violent armed criminals stay behind the bars of prisons rather than out in public.

    Can you suggest any other way to stop that 1st bullet from being used?

  3. Even if we are left we “primitive” firearms (revolvers and bolt guns, or maybe even less), the population remains armed. That means the gun control people are either just trying to annoy gun enthusiasts – OR they ultimately want to disarm the entire population and leave us like the UK is today.

  4. The guy actually seems halfway open to other opinions, so I took a shot…

    You seem an incredibly intelligent guy that’s willing to review both sides of an equation. I’m ok with others that want gun control because they think it’s right. I’m not ok with folks that do so with the wrong intentions in mind. History lesson, and I apologize if this sounds like I’m insulting your intelligence.

    When our country was formed, it was done because our parent nation at the time was abusive. They taxed, but didn’t give us representation to the King. They passed laws intended to oppress the subjects to the king. The list goes on. The Declaration of Independence was an incredibly well written document. I encourage you to read it word for word.

    We earned our independence through violence. We killed the British soldiers until they cried ‘Uncle!’ We told them we will not tolerate tyrants. Once that was accomplished, our forefathers said “We cannot allow this to happen again.”

    First, they guaranteed our right to say what we want, practice what religion we want, petition the government when we want about whatever we want.

    To guarantee that right, they gave us the Second Amendment. This was not created for hunting. This was created for defense of the nation. At the time, the same guns that were used for hunting were also used to kill the British. Today, the guns available are obviously radically more advanced.

    I have 2 questions for you and I will leave you alone. The first… let’s assume 100 years from now, our country gets a President that decides he wants to stay in power for longer than 2 terms. Let’s say that he can guarantee power to those that side with him. He refuses to step down and uses the monies of the populace for personal gain. It sounds disgusting and it certainly sounds like it couldn’t happen. But can it? I think it can. What should the people do? Accept their role as provider for the elite? Should they again rise up against the usurper? If there is such a huge gap in technology and arms that the military has such advanced weaponry while the subjects have rifles that have the ability to kill little more than jackrabbits, how does that happen?

    My second question is this: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

    Thank you for your time.

    Oh, and on a professional piece of advice… ditch the Social Sidebar stuff. It kills the browser experience and slows the entire works down. The less javascript, the better!


  5. Excellent reply Tango. Even if we assume that any current administration was trustworthy and sufficiently benevolent to be entrusted with a monopoly of force, there is one more issue. You aren’t just trusting them. You are trusting every future group of elected officials with that power.
    As for the advanced weapons we have compared to the founding fathers generation, you can damned well bet that if the redcoats had some type of repeating long arms George Washington and co. would have wanted them as well. I know it has been done many time beforeon this subject, but I’ll end with some quotes

    “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Coxe

    and just who is the militia?

  6. Thank you for taking the time to write as much as you have. Also I thank you for the feedback on the social sidebar it was an experiment which I shall remove. As to what you say on the topic of arms in society. You make excellent points on a populace having to rise up against a tyrannical government if it ever came to that. As to using force against that tyranny I would not be opposed to someone using weapons in self defense.

    In this day and age we are seeing people in the Middle East rising up against such tyranny. They are also doing it non-violently. This is possible because of the modern media environment and technology. The world is watching more than it ever was and a dictator cannot get away with mass murders without people outside of their country knowing about it. So the idea of these groups of people forming militias and taking on a government’s military is simply not feasible. Unless they resorted to guerrilla warfare I suppose.

    None the less no matter the amount of arms the people in Libya have is no much for a jet fighter plane and bombs. This also make me think—we don’t allow people to keep bombs do we?

    Your historic recollection is also important. Yes, the second amendment was not intended for hunting as you say. Keep in mind that this was also before the modern military our nation now has. I live in Arlington, VA and I see the Pentagon almost every day. We have come a long way from the yeomanry rising up with their rifles at the signs of the British.

    Even with all that I’ve said and others have said I still get the belief in having a gun for self defense. I am just concerned about the caliber of the weapon we allow people to have. Does someone need a Tech-9 or is a pistol enough? What about a grenade launcher?

    Thanks again for writing and you are correct I am open-minded on this matter. My concern is as always the violence and the way we stop guns (and bombs for that matter) from falling into the wrong hands is important. Finally the power of the weapon is also important. Would I rather have someone with mental issues able to get just a pistol as opposed to a Tech 9? Yes I would rather that be the case.

  7. Screw it, just going to post the entire altercation.
    From me:

    Some good points, especially about the foreign countries being able to topple governments without much use of arms. I need to research because I’m not sure if they did or did not use arms. In Libya, Ghadafi is a fool and is massacring his people. If the people are NOT using arms, they certainly should.

    When it comes to violence here in the US, the one guarantee is that it will always exist. The issue is what implement they will choose. The gun is the preferred method because people believe it involves little effort. Personally, I think that’s poop because I know for a fact to use a firearm properly involves a LOT of time spent studying and practicing. Let’s say the Brady Campaign manages to ban all firearms. Let’s not blow smoke, you and I both know that given the opportunity, they’d do exactly that, regardless of what Hennigan says. Guns are banned. Criminals still roam the streets. They will NOT be able to get every single gun off of the streets, but let’s make the assumption they do. These criminals that are out there, will they stop their trade of choice? They’re still going to rob homes, mug old men, rape women, and abduct children. That’s what that scum in our society does. They will just use a different weapon to achieve it. The difference now is that ONLY the gun is the great equalizer. Without them, you have a 250 lbs man against a 75 lbs octogenarian in a melee battle.

    With calibers, we have a lot of choice. Whether it’s .22LR (one of the smallest) or a large .50 BMG (the largest available to civilians), they all kill. Some do it more efficiently.

    I encourage you to study your topic more. Not to be insulting, but you are showing ignorance in your topic. You are mixing caliber with the Tech-9 (Tec-9 is the proper name) vs a normal pistol. I do not expect you to understand the ins and outs, but every person on the pro-gun side will trash your arguments unless you use the terms properly. Caliber is the size of the bullet and casing in diameter. A Tec-9 uses a 9mm round. That round is considered second to lowest only to the .380 acp when it comes to personal self defense in effectiveness. The Tec-9 is different in that it provides fully automatic fire.

    Despite the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal with few exceptions, there are still murders every year using them. You NEVER hear of any clean shoots using one of them. This is only because they’re only held by those that do so illegally. The legal ones were only produced for 1 year before 1986 hit and are crazy expensive to own because of that.

    Again, back to caliber. This is a serious question. Where do you learn your information from regarding caliber? News stories almost exclusively leave out details about most calibers. This is because they don’t matter. Let’s use the example of the Major in the Army that killed several before being shot by the security woman. He used a 5.7 (FiveseveN) FN round. This round has roughly the same powder as the 9mm round, but a drastically different shaped bullet. It’s longer and more narrow, giving it an increased Ballistic Coefficient (how far, fast, and accurate it flies). The round is way thinner, but can flies differently. The point is, it’s a tiny round in comparison. Compare it to a .45 acp, one of the most common handgun rounds in existence and it’s dwarfed. Because .45 guns are more expensive, they’re typically owned by the law abiding that take care of their gear. Those with nefarious purposes generally buy cheaper guns. My point is, it’s not about the size of the round, but how the person shoots it. If you put the rounds where they need to be, you will kill your target almost every time. This is why the Marines (and I think the Army) use the .223 caliber round. It’s a SMALL round, it just has a lot of powder behind it and is accurate. However, the Marines train with “One Shot, One Kill.” It’s about where you shoot the person, not about what size the round is that you use.

    Let’s assume they ban all high caliber ammunition. Now your law abiding citizens are forced to use small rounds against criminals who do not follow the law and continue to use the larger caliber rounds.

    Like you, I (and virtually every single other pro-gun person) do not want guns in the hands of the mentally ill or the criminals. Our belief is that we need to enforce the laws on the books. Read the blog “Stuck in Massachusetts” by JayG. He’s frequently posting news stories where some felon previously raped a kid (under 14 age) and got out on good behavior after 6 months. DUI criminals on their 6th DUI. Armed Robbers let out after 5 years even though they killed someone in a previous home invasion.

    Criminals are criminals and they’ll use any implement they can get their hands on, legal or not, and will continue to commit their crimes. The laws that limit which arms can or cannot be used only affect those that choose to follow the law. The ones that follow the laws are not the ones that the populace need to be scared of. We are the ones that are concerned with our families. We’re the ones that want to see our country succeed. We like inviting neighbors over for burgers and dogs and share a beer if you’re into that.

    The only other thing I wanted to touch on was your statement about bombs. We can use bombs. We use them a lot, in fact. The difference is, we blow them up in a controlled manner for entertainment or for work. What state do you live in? If you’re anywhere near Idaho, I think you should spectate at It’s an awesome introduction to shooting for a purpose that’s neither hunting or self-defense. Joe Huffman makes explosives and people blow them up with your REALLY big rifle rounds. Rounds that can go over 1 kilometer accurately. Even though those types of guns are high caliber, require the least amount of background check, are the lowest price, they’re not used for very many crimes. I can easily choose to kill a man from 5 football fields away, yet because I am not a criminal, I do not.

    I have other topics that I like to touch on, but I don’t want to stand on a soap box or pretend I’m a history teacher, so I won’t (at least not yet!) We live in a good society with good people. What we have going against us are the criminals that wish to victimize us and a government that wants to legislate us. Most Liberals (going out on a limb and saying you are a Democrat) believe that the government can fix everything with legislation. The government knows nothing of efficiency and knows everything of short sightedness. They break far more than they fix. The Depression was fixed when the government left the market alone and let it fix itself. The government cannot make all free men feel safe. Only the freedoms we are guaranteed to us individually can do that. They MUST do that and they must ALWAYS be able to do that. When we let the government decide what’s best for us is when we are no longer free men.

    Read the lyrics to “Mother” by Pink Floyd. Not Danzig, that’s a little bit different. 😉

    and from him:

    The more I read from the pro-gun side I now realize that it’s probably time to stop focusing on the weapon and on what we can do to ensure the wrong people don’t get them. I don’t want to ban all guns because you are correct in what you say. I don’t want to own a gun however. If I ever felt unsafe I suppose I would probably opt for another type of weapon I suppose.

    And finally, my reply:

    And that is 100% your right to not exercise your right and ability to own a gun. I wouldn’t dream of forcing you to do that. At the same time, I expect nobody to force me to give up any gun I own.

  8. And, at least he’s seeing the light. It’s not about the guns, it’s about the people that use them.

  9. Wait, I thought “high-capacity magazines” referred to periodicals with an unusually large amount of information in them, thus making it a first amendment issue…

Comments are closed.