I’ll admit: my own views on the 2nd amendment are muddy. I agree that the Constitution affirms an individual right to gun ownership. Yet a lot of the restrictions of that right that are proposed from time to time also seem sensible to me. At the same time, as an only very occasional gun user, I am also aware that I don’t have the best sensitivities on the issue. So when I heard Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s proposal to revive the ban on extended magazines, I consulted the most experienced gun user I know, the blogger who writes under the byline “Sean Linnane.”
What’s your view on restoring the ban on extended magazines? Sounds reasonable doesn’t it?
Ask this question of the people living on the border at high-level crossing points in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
A ban on extended magazines is not at all reasonable, for several reasons:
a) The Second Amendment specifies a tactical capability – i.e. the citizenry is armed for military purposes. The way it reads, we should actually be armed & trained just like they are in Switzerland (and Israel).
b) Such partial weapons bans are symbolic. They target ‘cosmetic’ portions of weaponry and serve as stepping stones to gun control (as in Illinois, New York, Washington DC and Massachusetts).
c) The day you have to defend yourself and your family, you will want the highest capacity magazines available. It is not High Noon; in a situation even a trained marksman seeks cover and puts as many rounds downrange as possible.
The sane, logical reason we oppose such “reasonable” measures are because they constrain law-abiding citizens while the criminals continue to arm themselves with anything and everything available.
Answer your question?