Quote of the day—Mac Slavo

There’s no evidence to suggest that magazine capacity laws are in any way constitutional, nor is there any proof that they would actually reduce gun violence. In fact, anyone with any firearm expertise can prove that magazine capacity limits are no barrier for a criminal or mass shooter.

But that doesn’t matter to liberals like Xavier Becerra. He has his agenda, and he thinks the “will of California voters” trumps the fundamental rights of every resident in his state. Thank god we don’t live in a pure democracy, or we would have lost all of our rights long ago.

Mac Slavo
July 5, 2017
Federal Judge Blocks California Magazine Confiscation Law: “The Constitution Is A Shield From The Tyranny Of The Majority”
[See also Sherriff’s demo of how magazine size makes very little difference:

Go to 9:35 of the video to see the myth of shooter being tacked during a magazine change be busted.

It’s not about safety. It’s about control.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mac Slavo

  1. Doesn’t matter; magazines are components to “arms” and therefore the right to keep and bear them is protected.

    Demonstrating that you don’t need the higher capacity magazines is, at best, a dubious way to protect your right to own them. It seems to me, the more important they are to effective combat the more critical the need to own them (the more the right to own them should be protected), and yet you’re making the case that we don’t need them.

    If we take the U.S. v Miller concept of “martial arms are protected whereas an arm not intended for martial use is not” then standard 30 round or higher capacity magazines are protected precisely because they are used by militaries. QED.

    Fortunately, we need not get into those weeds because the second amendment doesn’t qualify the term “arms” in any way. We simply have the right to keep and bear them.

    The CONCEPT or PRINCIPLE of the second amendment is that keeping and bearing arms in defense of self, community and country is a fundamental human right. That concept is being challenged by those who would, Under Color of Law (18 USC 242), limit the exercise of that right by free citizens, and thus the challengers are criminals.

    A right means hands off; it’s outside of government jurisdiction and therefore none of those silly details like magazine capacity matter. There’s really nothing else to discuss, unless we wish to placate or appease the criminals rather than indict and prosecute them.

    I further point out that the only reason we’re having this conversation is because our parents’ and grandparents’ did placate and appease the criminals. They either fell for the Progressive Marxist lies or they were afraid to put the Progressive Marxists down for sedition. Now we’re having to correct their mistakes, fighting “up hill” to restore the protection of rights via constitutional law. Therefore, obviously, appeasement was, and is, a huge mistake.

    At some point we’ll have to cut the crap of arguing irrelevencies with the criminals, on their terms (make no mistake about it; if you’re arguing over firearm design detail then your arguing on the criminals’ terms), and get to the business of locking them up on our, legal, moral, and constitutional, terms..

    • That was covered in the first sentence of the quote:

      There’s no evidence to suggest that magazine capacity laws are in any way constitutional

      The rest is just pounding another “nail in the coffin”.

  2. Xavier Becerra is hiding behind the “will of California voters”…..in reality the will of the electorate is IRRELEVANT to the vast majority of apparatchiks in office.

    And you don’t win this fight by trying to prove you need a specific mag count size, or that pistol grips on rifles are not evil or that the gun doesn’t have a ‘shoulder thingy that goes up’. You win by pounding on the ONLY fact that matters. The Second Amendment is a fundamental god given right and all the laws in the world don’t negate that fact. You pound on the fact that anyone and everyone IN or OUT of office who proposes, supports or votes for ANY law that contradicts the Second Amendment is a TRAITOR. You don’t fight the war on THEIR terms. Make them fight the war to disarm us on OUR terms.

    • This is the perennial debate between those who go by principle, and those who use the utilitarian argument. My inclination is to use both. The same goes for other Constitutional rights.
      For each of them, you can use the “it’s a natural right protected by the Constitution” argument. You can also add a reason why it is good that this is so. For example, why have freedom of religion? On principle, because it’s right for free people to believe as they choose. As a practical matter, because the alternative is the auto-da-fé or the sword of ISIS. Freedom of speech, because the alternative is the Puritans or the NKVD or the Gestapo or the Taliban. And the right to bear arms, because the alternative is Chicago or NYC where the defenseless victims are at the mercy of the criminal class.
      The reason for using the utilitarian argument is that many people find it easier to appreciate concrete examples why something is a good thing to do. That doesn’t mean it should be the only argument used; instead, it’s another tool in the tool box.

      • The “utilitarian” argument is pointless when the opponents aren’t interested in reason, facts or rationality. An INFINITE amount of data proving them wrong would to them be irrelevant. ALL that matters to them is what they want. If trotting out half truths and factoids gains them ground they will do that….but if we respond in kind they simply IGNORE said responses. The issue of gun rights has already polarized America into pretty much two camps. Those who want to disarm us by ANY AND ALL MEANS and who can never be swayed and those who have already decided they either want to own guns or if not personally understand that doing so is a right. The number of people who are undecided on this issue is so small as to be irrelevant. Stop wasting time, money and energy dancing the useless ‘debate dance’ with people who have no intention on ever compromising.

        • More precisely, every argument is pointless when the opposition isn’t interested in reason. Constitution arguments don’t work either when the bad guys just trot our their mindless emotions as justification for their totalitarian goals.
          What I meant is: when dealing with people who still do have some interest in reasoned analysis, it is worth taking out all the tools. By all means use the Constitutional arguments, but don’t ignore the utilitarian ones.
          It may be that the number of people still open to reasoned debate is small; it clearly is not zero.

Comments are closed.