January 12, 2011

Extended Magazines

With the massacre in Tucson once again thrusting Second Amendment rights into the spotlight, advocates on both sides of the aisle are filling the airwaves with rhetoric on the issue. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who no one can dispute is as familiar with the pain inflicted due to gun violence as one can be, is once again broaching the subject of banning high-capacity bullet magazines for guns. We couldn't agree more with McCarthy's efforts.

As anyone who's read this blog knows, our writings almost always lean to the right. We support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and believe people who are thoroughly screened should always have that right.

That being said, I have yet to see, hear or read one substantive argument as to why someone who owns a handgun needs a clip with a capacity of 31 bullets, as Tucson shooter Jared Loughner had in his Glock. Simply saying "it's my right" is a bullshit position. Saying that "the Constitution allows it" is a lie. Our forefathers, who had amazing wisdom and foresight, wrote that portion of the Constitution at a time when defense of one's home against tyranny and mayhem was priority number one. It hardly applies today.

Some will say that it wouldn't have made a difference in Tucson; we'll never know if that's accurate or not. What we do know is that Loughner was stopped when he, after exhausting his initial 31-round clip, dropped the about-to-be-inserted second clip with an additional 31 rounds. Those seconds allowed bystanders to pounce on him and subdue him until law enforcement authorities arrived.

A standard Glock 19 (9mm) can hold up to 16 rounds - 15+1. So what if that clip that Loughner had didn't contain 31 rounds? What if it contained 16, and he managed to drop the magazine in the same manner that he did on Saturday while attempting to reload? Would less people have been shot on that fateful day? The reality is that we'll never know because the clip that he used did in fact contain 31 rounds.

What we do know is that no rational person needs a clip with 31 rounds - you don't need it to hunt and you don't need it for personal protection. Would it be suitable for members of the law enforcement community or military personnel? Absolutely. But for the average person, a 16-round clip should be more than sufficient to provide the type of personal protection afforded by the Second Amendment.

If I'm wrong on this, I would welcome anyone the opportunity to provide me the rationale as to why a 31-round clip is needed or even wanted. I won't hold my breath.


The Avenger said...

Protecting the Second Amendment while implementing reasonable regulations....maybe that's the type of civil discourse and policy discussion everyone is now clamoring for.

Rocketboy said...

How about I explain why someone would "need" an extended clip, when you explain why someone would "need" a car that goes faster than the posted speed limit.