January 11, 2011

Lautenberg Reminds Us Why The Founders Want Us Armed

A US Senator announced Monday he would soon present legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition clips after a gunman used one in an attempted assassination of a US lawmaker over the weekend.

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said in a statement.

The Senator from New Jersey is partially correct (though they are magazines, not clips, which are something completely different). The standard-capacity and high-capacity magazines of semi-automatic firearms does enable shooters to have a formidable amount of firepower.

But they most certainly should be on the market, and in the hands of every responsible adult.

Provided such devices, adequate arms, ammunition, and fortitude, even just one person can mow down a crowd... or keep a lynch mob at bay, send rapists to the morgue, stop would-be tyrants, another coup d'etat, or genocide.

Such weapons systems serve as a great equalizer. The Founders intended arms to be used by a "well-regulated" militia comprised of patriotic citizens to keep would-be tyrants at bay, whether those tyrants were Redcoat tyrants of centuries ago, or the mentors and fellow travelers of a sitting President that plotted an American holocaust.

The Founders would applaud rank-and-file Americans having AR-15 carbines, AK-pattern rifles, and yes, semi-automatic pistols with what the gun control industry has chosen to call "high-capacity" magazines. Further, they wanted us to have these arms so that would-be tyrants—the very same legislators attempting to now ban magazines and firearms—could be kept from using the power of the elected elite and the color of law to run roughshod over our freedoms.

We have the Second Amendment not to protect us from wild animals or protect our right to plink at cans, but to keep the powerful and corrupt from becoming tyrannical.This fact is offensive to those now intent on imposing their will upon the populace, and why they push for "sensible" gun control—civilian disarmament—at every turn.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 11, 2011 02:21 PM

I bet the good Senator's bill doesn't stop the Secret Service from using larger magazines.

Posted by: Neo at January 11, 2011 02:23 PM

I feel so inadequate, having only an inexhaustible supply of low capacity 1911 mags. I am certainly no threat to anyone.

Lautenbuerg is famous for the Lautenberg amendment, which he passed before he was booted from the Senate, before he was appointed back in to replace Toricelli. The Lautenberg amendment made it illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to possess a personal firearm. As a soldier in Bosnie, I had to disarm soldiers... in a combat zone... who had protective orders from their wives/gf's back in the states. Oddly enough, the law did not prevent those same people from possessing a crew-served weapon. Take away M16, issue SAW. There, I fixed it.

Stupid cretin.

Posted by: Professor Hale at January 11, 2011 03:56 PM

I also wonder how they came up with the moniker "High Capacity". I think the language itself is leading. Or how they came up with the number 10, to be considered the normal amount of ammo for a pistol. It would be cool if one of the hard-leftys who troll this site would explain how they decided that. Not all pistols have the same diameter ammo, or have a single file stack, so the stock-factory mag number will vary. My M&P 40, for example, has a standard mag and it holds 15. But of course they knew that. So they'd have to build some sort of weird, partially empty mag in order to no longer qualify as "High Capacity"?

As a side note, I don't actually like true high-capacity mags for pistols, cause they look and feel goofy. However those mega-mags for a ruger 10/22 are nice, so you don't have to reload a bunch when you're shooting.

Posted by: brando at January 11, 2011 04:17 PM

Reminds me I have to order another 1000 rds of .223 before the prices go up.

These knuckleheads will use any situation to push their anti-gun agenda. What they truly fear is an armed public which keeps their power fantasy in check. The founders were absolutely right. The added bonus is criminals are no longer assured who the easy target is with more and more folks getting their CHP.

Agree the long Hi-cap mags are unsightly and cumbersome. The 13 + 1 for my Glock 23 is plenty, (plus two in the pouch). But I do like my BC 25 rd banana mags for my 10/22. Been thinkin about the 50 rd barrel mag but not sure of the quality.

Posted by: a6bogie at January 11, 2011 05:10 PM

In all fairness, if the standard capacity magazine for a Glock 17/19 is 17 rounds, then the 33 round magazine is a high capacity magazine.

(And by the same logic, the 17 round magazine is not high capacity.)

Posted by: Phelps at January 11, 2011 05:11 PM

So I wonder how they came up with the number ten? Did they draw it out of a hat?

Posted by: brando at January 11, 2011 05:53 PM

Don't forget, in all the liberal gibberish, one thing is forgotten. In the time of our founders, a Brown Bess was an assault weapon. Suitable for one thing - killing people. The founders knew that and still insisted "the people should have them."

True, they didn't anticipate M16s - but in all fairness, they didn't anticipate the internet either.

That doesn't stop the 1st amendment.

What is happening is crystal clear. There will be attempts to stifle free speech - but only against the right. There will be attempts to destroy the 2nd - but not for the privileged left.

Past is prologue.

Posted by: George at January 11, 2011 06:30 PM

"stop would-be tyrants, another coup d'etat, or genocide."

which is exactly why they want to ban them...

Posted by: JTW at January 12, 2011 02:52 AM

So I wonder how they came up with the number ten? Did they draw it out of a hat?

11 is too many. 9 is too few. Everyone knows this.

Posted by: Professor Hale at January 12, 2011 10:36 AM

what about other arms like heavy machine guns? how would the FF feel about those arms? Or biologics?

Posted by: John ryan at January 14, 2011 08:53 PM

John, this paper makes for an interesting read about the mindset of the Framers regarding military weaponry in the hands of the Citizenry.

An interesting aside, The Newspapers of the day would routinely decry careless firearms handling by individuals, not call for confiscation or bans on ownership. Interesting how things have changed.

"That arms were to be handled only in a safe manner was implicit in such headlines as “Careless Use of Firearms - AGAIN,” id., May 25, at 2, col. 5 (boys hunting in New York, fourteen
year old killed when firearm discharged while being half-cocked.)"
-Footnotes, Page 26 PDF File

Posted by: Jeremy at January 16, 2011 12:38 PM