Sunday, February 20, 2011

The debate was hoppin' on a Sunday evening...

... and that's a good thing.

Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini started off the discussion on his Facebook page:

"Banning a 33-bullet magazine like the one used in the Tucson shooting does no more harm to the 2nd Amendment than preventing people from shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater does to the 1st Amendment." 

Our initial response to this facile statement, cleaned up a bit for grammar and clarity (and with grateful acknowledgement to Tam for providing the meat of this argument):  

"And just who would be allowed to determine the number of rounds (N) in a magazine that would be "appropriate"?  Keep in mind that 1. Whatever N is ultimately decided to be, the person who came up with that number is basically saying that (N+1) people are not worth a private citizen being able to defend, and 2. Anti-gun politicians and activists won't be satisfied with whatever N happens to be and will constantly agitate for (N-1) rounds to be the new limit until N is as low as possible, with zero being the ultimate goal.

You see, the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center have finally realized that firearms are never going to be banned in America, thanks to several key Supreme Court decisions. Their new strategy, then, is to restrict ammunition types, amounts and magazine capacities as much as possible (for example, trying to back-door ban key components of ammo by misusing the EPA, outlawing mail-order sales in California and the aforementioned magazine capacity limits) , since there is no such Constitutional prohibition on such acts.  That's how harm would be done to the Second Amendment, Mr. Montini - a firearm without ammunition is basically a metal and wood club.

 Our own personal view? Law-abiding citizens should be entitled to the same magazine capacities as the military and law enforcement, since the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to successfully fight back against a tyrannical and out-of-control government, not preserve hunting or target-shooting activities." 

The debate jumped off from there.

A polite and well-informed discussion by passionate people is always welcome around here.

No comments: