Your “High Capacity Magazines” are of the Devil

 

By Mr. Twisted 

Do you know what the best part is about our current political climate?

No? Well, don’t feel bad – neither does anyone else. But just in case you were thinking that your elected officials weren’t doing anything worthless lately, I’ve come to smash that fantasy with the hammer of reality.

While most of Congress is filled with a bunch of blowhards and stiffs in suits who are exactly as boring and lacking in fortitude as you would imagine, there are a few in there who truly go above and beyond the call of duty and do some things that are stupid even by the standards of normal representatives. And that’s really saying something.

In this particular case, I’m referring to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NY) and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and their attempt to restrict your individual rights when it comes to the size of magazine you buy for your rifle and the amount of ammunition you can purchase online. In their infinite wisdom, they believe it is a “reasonable” infringement on your rights to pick arbitrary numbers to set as a standard for what you can and can’t have, so they have introduced a piece of legislation to limit that for you so that you don’t go and hurt yourself. They are, after all, experts in the field of firearms and the practical use of said tools, right?

But here’s the best part: they have introduced these not as stand-alone pieces of legislation, but as amendments to bills with some pretty solid bipartisan support.

S.3414, The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, is a bill that, like the name says, deals with cyber security and the infrastructure therein (not exactly a strong suit of our government, by the way, if the recent in-air hijacking of a Dep. of Homeland Security drone – in air – by a few college students is any indication). The Act had fairly solid bipartisan support with 84 Aye votes in the Senate. And then good ol’ Senator Schumer slid in S.A. 2575, an amendment that would make it illegal to transfer or possess a “feeding” device that would hold more than 10 rounds, and was apparently hoping nobody would notice.

That is in addition to the bill being proposed by Senator Lautenberg called the “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act,” whereby any “large quantity” purchase of ammunition (over 1,000 rounds) via the internet must be reported by law enforcement. Because obviously anyone buying that much ammo is a criminal…

Let me see if I can summarize my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible.

One, I don’t think we need an “Act” to deal with cyber security. If it doesn’t work, fix it.

Two, despite my overwhelming desire to throw a flying triangle choke on the next person that says there is such a thing as “reasonable gun control,” I will try to remain calm and simply state that, no, restricting the number of rounds one can carry in a single magazine will have absolutely no effect on crime whatsoever. I could digress down a wicked rabbit trail here by giving a lot of data to show that reality in no way supports these proposals, but I will simply say, to those who think it’s a good idea….choke yourself.

Three, at what point does any rational human being think that we need law enforcement getting involved in the amount of ammunition people are purchasing? This is a slippery slope, to be sure. Who gets to decide the arbitrary number of “too much” ammo? Who decides who controls the database of names of those who exceeded that number? And what happens to those who do? What about the competitive shooters who routinely go through that many rounds in a month? I’d be willing to bet that a good number of readers here do not think it strange to purchase 1000 rounds at one time.

The last tactical shooting class I attended in the private sector required a bare minimum of 1200 rounds in 3 days. That is not extreme by any stretch of the imagination in the world of practical/tactical firearms courses. The law being proposed by people like Sens. Schumer, Lautenberg, and Feinstein would require me to go on a list of suspects (let’s be honest and call it what it is) for purchasing that much ammo. Geez, this “freedom” thing seems different than it should…

I know that some of you are thinking “yeah, but there would be numerous ways around a law like that…” Of course there would. Buying 999 rounds at multiple locations, for example. But that’s not the point — if I want to be treated like a child in what I can and cannot have, I will either move to France or go back to being 12 years old. Neither sound all that appealing. And, more importantly, laws like these ignore the glaringly obvious truth — that politicians work for us and they are not elected to protect us from ourselves.

In 1927, a man by the name of Andrew Kehoe killed 45 in the largest mass murder at a school our country has ever seen using some explosives and his car. In 1978, Jim Jones convinced 900-plus people to kill themselves with blue Kool-Aid. In 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed with a few airliners that had been hijacked using nothing but some box cutters. The point here is that crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons that are often completely unexplainable, and they do so using whatever means are available to them. A law that prevents individuals from owning certain items has never prevented people from enacting evil — nor will it ever do so.

What silly laws do succeed in doing is pissing off people like you and me and adding one more annoyance to our lives that are becoming increasingly influenced by nanny-like government bureaucrats. They are, in effect, saying that you can’t be trusted (yes, you — the one holding the bottle of tequila and a bowl of Fruit Loops) and that politicians know more than you do about your own safety.

Three or four Senators who have been in office for a long time carry a substantial amount of weight when it comes to legislation like this. Be wary of what’s going on in Washington, lest they try to sneak more stuff like this past you in the name of “cybersecurity.” This will be up for vote by the end of the week.

Oh and, by the way, for any of you former assistant gunners/ammo bearers, you are officially a “feeding device” and, therefore, deemed illegal should this law pass. Cheers!

 

 

 

21 Comments

1. 

   Josh

   August 5, 2012 at 2:28 am

   ” I could digress down a wicked rabbit trail here by giving a lot of data to show that reality in no way supports these proposals, but I will simply say, to those who think it’s a good idea….choke yourself.”

   Let me first say that I agree with you. But, as a PhD candidate, dismissing arguments with the statement “choke yourself” is absurd. Show your statistics and studies; I genuinely want to see them and the stats therein. Scientific findings will only strengthen your argument; unless you’re writing for creationists.

   Reply
   • 

     Josh (another one)

     August 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

     I see your point. I dont think that playing the “Devil’s Advocate” will win you many friends here.

     As a caviot to what you’re saying though, John Lott’s books are the most complete studies on the subject.

     Reply
   • 

     Mr. Twisted

     August 5, 2012 at 3:12 pm

     Josh,

     First, take a look at the site you’re reading this article on. We are not writing PhD thesis arguments. We are not writing history books, nor are we writing legal documents. We try to inject some humor into these subjects because, well, to be quite honest, a lot of subjects like this one are utterly ridiculous.

     Second, as “Josh (another one)” pointed out, John Lott’s work is a great place to start, as is that of David Kopel.

     Third, calling something that was obviously intended as a joke “absurd” is itself absurd. Buy a sense of humor, man.

     Fourth, the jab at creationists was ridiculous and baseless, and not at all on point for this discussion; it only shows your desire to pick a fight about a subject of your choosing. Let me guess, you’re a science major of some type? Biology? Chemistry? Get over yourself.

     Reply
   • 

     Creationists

     August 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm

     In all fairness, if creationists cared about science, statistics or logic, we probably wouldn’t have creationists.

     Reply
   • 

     FiresSrn't

     August 11, 2012 at 3:46 pm

     As someone who doesn’t give a damn I feel obligated to say, “No one cares PhD Candidacy.”

     Reply
2. 

   Drill

   August 5, 2012 at 6:54 am

   Hey Josh…….choke yourself you scientific turd!
   “science” can’t prove everything. Let me get back to my bunker and get my sector stakes set in.

   Reply
3. 

   Pete

   August 5, 2012 at 10:13 am

   Josh,

   What part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” don’t you fucking get? That right there is the law of the land, and any law, rule, regulation, etc. that infringes on said right is illegal. So take your PhD candidacy and shove it. Choke yourself.

   Reply
4. 

   Rotti

   August 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

   Hey.

   …someone tell Josh to go choke himself.

   Reply
5. 

   Adam Broussard

   August 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm

   “flying triangle choke”

   Well played, sir. I nearly choked on my beverage at that one. Here’s the trick, it’s the “bullet button” of magazines. A funnel with a locking device that holds three “feeding devices” of ten rounds each. I call it, the Bullet Funnel (patent pending)

   Or a thirty round volley gun O.o

   But in all seriousness, you are absolutely correct.

   Reply
6. 

   Justin

   August 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm

   Lautenberg is a senator (if you can call him that) from the great state of New Jersey. As we like to call it: The People’s Republic of New Jersey. The 2d toughest state in which to own a firearm in the Union. Somehow, some way, the individuals elected to office believe that laws intended to prevent the purchase of firearms will lead to a reduction in violent gun crime. The way that a reduction in apple orchards directly leads to a reduction in the consumption of applesauce. And that’s what is contained by these representatives’ huge, oversized (egos) craniums: applesauce.

   Reply
   • 

     Mr. Twisted

     August 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm

     Justin,

     Roger that on Senator Lautenberg being from NJ and not NY as I had him labeled. I knew that and just had NY stuck in my head due to all the anti-gun silliness coming from that area as of late.

     Reply
7. 

   James

   August 5, 2012 at 11:25 pm

   Those high capacity magazines suck, they are so prone to jamming! Seriously though guys, this whole ‘let’s crack down on gun ownership” thing is bad news. Just look at Australia if you want to see where these bozo’s are heading with gun control. In Aussieland the criminals are better armed than the law abiding citizens.

   Reply
8. 

   CJ

   August 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm

   I came across a great article about the current push to ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” today. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control

   Who decides what “high capacity” is anyway? Why ten rounds? When I go to the range to sling lead, the last thing I want to do is have to change magazines every ten freaking rounds~!!!! When I’m president, I will seek a constitutional amendment requiring every single American to own a gun. I will end welfare and instead give every American a free gun on their 21st birthday.

   Reply
   • 

     RU Rob

     August 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm

     CJ For President!!!

     Reply
9. 

   Drew

   August 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm

   Mr. Twisted,

   First, please do me a solid and delete my email from this post, lest the snoopers come looking. If these acts pass I am about to alert the authorities to myself, and since I own a few 30 round magazines I guess I will be some sort of gun owning criminal, even though I have never broken any laws other than speed limits.

   I purchase more than 1000 rounds routinely, as I enjoy sporting clays and that is 100 rounds at a time. I was buying my rounds online for a few reasons, such as value, convenience, and fact that I can’t buy more that two boxes of shotgun shells without raising a flag at my local sporting goods store!
   One correction for you, Laughingburg is from NJ, not NY.

   I have really despised politicians of all sorts for some time now, and this sort of needless and ineffective Big Brother meddling is precisly why…

   Reply
10. 

    Cris

    August 13, 2012 at 5:06 am

    The more I hear those people at work the more I think they come to Italy for vacation and like what they saw.. and I am not refering to monuments..
    Summary of italian law on gun(s)
    You can own maximum 3 common weapon (my Glock 21 is a common weapon)
    You can own maximum 6 sport weapon (my HK MR223 is a sport weapon)
    There are no limit in the hunting weapon you can own (my upcoming Remington 700 in .308 is considered a hunting weapon..)
    You can become a gun collector: you can own more than the gun stated before but you must sign a contract with a security company to have an alarm system and the Police can come and check your collection (I suppose at any time they want but I am not sure about this since I am not a collector.. yet)
    Now, on ammo:
    You can own as much as 1500 rounds of hunting ammo
    You can own as much as 200 rounds of other ammo where other means “handgun ammo”.
    Yes, to make a long story short, they are trying to take away your freedom, they are trying to give the organized crime an advantage and they are trying to give an even bigger advantage to the average criminal.
    This is my very personal point of viw, hope nobody get offended and please you all forgive me for my poor English
    Ciao
    CV

    Reply
    • 

      Ted N

      September 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm

      Your English is better than my Italian, and thanks for the snapshot from across the pond! Hope they repeal a bunch of that stuff for you guys!

      Reply
11. 

    Chris Lett

    January 4, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Yep. All I can say is well written and insightful

    Reply
12. 

    Mike

    January 4, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Couple of things – Awesome post. Love the humor, and I think that Mr. Twisted has it on.

    Second – Somebody who is a Ph.D. candidate is going to talk about data. It is the world they live in, and he is correct that it strengthens the argument. There is enough data to support the argument either way though – it’s all about how the data is used. So we shouldn’t pick on Josh too much. And he is right in a way. Scientific evidence (doesn’t have to be natural sciences either – psychologists and educators are very data-driven).

    Third – John Lott’s credibility is in severe doubt. He is very smart, but not admitting errors in the past and pretending to be a girl student of his.

    Fourth – Josh this is a great place to find humor and people of similar mindsets. Chill out and relax. Sometimes it is ok to not think about the data – I say this as someone who creates data driven models on a daily basis.

    Fifth – I’m just glad I was never an AG or an ammo bearer – was always the gunner.

    Reply
13. 

    Mike

    January 4, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Ok, that post was disjointed. My English is worse than Cris’.

    Reply
14. 

    Keegan

    January 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Good stuff. People forget that the shooting at Virginia Tech was carried out by one man and two pistols, one with a 10 round magazine and the other a 15 round mag. What the news didn’t exactly advertise was that he had 17 magazines on his person. A monkey can change a mag in less than 3 seconds and if you practice a little, you can trim quite a bit off. So this is what a high capacity magazine ban will get you: 3 seconds to wish you were carrying.

    Reply