Ammunition Capacity Limits – the “why” of the matter

Trying to cut to the chase; there are two possible reasons that I can see, why a rogue government (and let’s be honest– that’s what we’ve had for some time now) would want to limit ammunition capacity. One would be simply to irritate and harass their political opposition, putting a few innocent people in jail now and then as a bonus. The other would be to limit the ability of the citizenry to fight against mass attacks (two or more assailants).i.e. to promote the ease of government attacking citizens. A possible third reason, going along in part with the first, would be to generally degrade society with more complex laws, more bureaucracy and more violent crime (criminals will have 30 round mags, but law-abiders won’t).

Any or all of those motivations would appeal naturally to any authoritarian, and to anyone who sees the founding of the U.S. as a problem (unfair, unjust, etc.)

If anyone can think of another reason, I’d like to know it.

ETA, 1-18-13; I’d thought of another, hoping maybe someone would chime in with it, and Publius pretty much, sort of did in comments here, though it’s not the way I would have put it. That motivation being to control the framework of the conflict (between liberty and authoritarianism), to keep us fighting THEIR fight and not ours. On that they have done a most excellent job– I bet you can find a million words, just today, about details of this or that proposed restriction and how it will not “work”. Well, it is working– they’re keeping us talking about THEIR ideas. As I’ve said before and elsewhere; it is a subtle yet crucial tactic, though most every little kid understands it. You see that bratty kid fussing loudly at his mother in the supermarket? He knows how to keep his mom off balance, off kilter, off her game, distracted, irritated, embarrassed, until he gets something from her (recently I noticed one such brat pause in his “tantrum” to look around and make sure he was getting a reaction from bystanders, then resume his fake tantrum, thus demonstrating that he understood exactly what he was doing). HE set the agenda, the framework of the conflict, not his mom. That one should have occurred to me foremost. It goes along with number one, but the distinction is between simply wanting to irritate your opposition on one hand, because you dislike them, and maintaining control of the whole discussion’s very framework on the other. The communists are experts at this.


6 thoughts on “Ammunition Capacity Limits – the “why” of the matter

  1. Along the lines of your first reason – to make owning weapons risky, and create reasons for police to inspect weapons. “Everyone knows if a cop is inspecting your property, you *must* have done something wrong”…

    That goes a long way to killing gun culture.

  2. To remind everyone who’s boss. That’s why. I think the rest just kind of happens as collateral damage, but it stems from that premise. Most of politics is just a giant game of “king of the hill”. Remember that one? I played that game sometimes as a kid, not because I really wanted to or cared, but mostly because not playing was a good way to get ostracised more than I already was. The only difference is that there is no longer an actual hill.

  3. Somewhere in the Gulag books, Solzhenitsyn talks about the use of the criminal element in the camps to oppress the political element. I think that is part of what is going on here, except without the camps, yet.

  4. Richard; I’d heard something like that before, though it was in reference to Chicago and other high crime, low information cities having been run entirely by communists (Democrats) for decades. The language went something like; “…to keep the people terrorized or intimidated…” It fits, given that those cities have some of the most oppressive gun restrictions, and that it is well documented that when law abiding people carry guns, crime tends to drop. If you look at the miles and miles of post Apocalypse style desolation in Detroit, I think there can be little doubt. Authoritarians want all our heads down, intimidated, afraid to speak out, afraid to even look at what’s happening. “Thou shall not be aware” is the order of the day, coming down through the generations.

    Hey; did you see that Mayor Nagin was finally indicted? That’s how we get ’em. Just bring them up on charges and quit dancing around the subject.

  5. That fourth reason is exactly why we should be pushing HARD to repeal the Hughes Amendment at every opportunity.

    We get them fighting back against us getting real M4 carbines for just $200 more than a normal AR…

  6. I like to start my utilitarian arguments, which Ma and Pa Kettle need, by noting that in our system of government we begin with absolute rights and thus the burden is always on those who would restrict rights to justify with facts or logic that restricting a right is necessary and will actually work. Peacable exercise does not need to be justified.

    Then I show how those restrictions won’t work using our standard arguments.

    If someone doesn’t “get it”, I use the parallel of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof/right to remain silent in the court system. Most folks get that.

Comments are closed.