Please pay attention, people. This is how we'll keep our rights! Ban high capacity, just like they ban it for our 2nd Amendment brethren who make dove, not war.Oldgringo wrote: I'll be really surprised if the issue of high(?) capacity magazines doesn't come up again real soon. I, for one, won't have a problem with it.
< snip >
Since we're on the subject, where is the big objection to shotguns being limited to three shots for fur and feathers. That has been the rule ever since I was knee high to a grasshopper.
Clearly, the founding fathers never foresaw the dietary mayhem of bacon wrapped terducken on one reload. Think of the little ones at that same dinner table who could be crippled by fat. Ban high capacity mass shooting for the children, and I'm not talking about bacon wrapped terducken with a side of Jonathon Swift's modest veal. Think of their little beer guts!
We ban high capacity shotguns for killing duckies. If you really feel a need for bacon wrapped terducken, you can take the time to educate your children about congestive heart failure, and you can take the time to reload, too.
Note the specific way this proposed capacity ban ties to mass shootings of unarmed people as well as actual sitting ducks.
Just as we ban high capacity in shotguns while they are used for the practice of bird zapping, we should ban high, I mean "normal," capacity magazines while used for the practice of mass murder.
While y'all are debating with the gunman about whether to call the police because of the killing, or the game warden because of how many rounds the killer had in his gun at one time, I'll try to do the right thing with my subcompact Sig. Be warned, though. I'm a hypocrite. Due to magazine capacity, my little Sig is no six-shooter and it's wonderfully felonious in California.
Here in Texas, twelve in the bullpen, one in the chamber (always!), and another 17 in my spare magazine gives me that dreadful 30 round reserve and a happy spring in my step.
While somebody searches Google for the game warden's number, I'll petition Providence for an opportunity, a stable sight picture, and the strength to live with myself, in that order.
Note to Oldgringo - I'm with you in spirit. Violence in any form sickens me, and against children is a special crime against God. I respectfully oppose restricting gun rights as a cure to evil. If anything, as long as cold dead hands prevail, the debate will concentrate on firearms. Political capital that could be used in winnable fights against other rights will be wasted - as long as cold dead hands prevail. Guns protect us in many ways that never involve a shot fired. I may be (literally) dead wrong, but I prefer the risk of death to the certainty of lost freedom. Just one lonely opinion, of course, and out of step with the times. I cherish reading your thoughts, as well as all those posted here.