|
Common Sense: Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.
Reasonable: Being in accordance with reason…
Reason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially: something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.
In the past few weeks a few new laws have been submitted or will be submitted to Congress. I have read the text of all that have been submitted, and will only discuss one of those. I’m not 100% against against it, however I do not like the terms that have been used “Common Sense and Reasonable” to describe it. These words are being used to make those that disagree with the legislation as not reasonable, or unable to use common sense.
H.R. 308: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
-‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--
--‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
To me the number “10” seems arbitrary, that it was somehow magically pulled out of a hat. Personally, I’m a fan of odd numbers and would have chosen any odd number between 11 and 21. I have not been able to locate why “10” is the magical number. I have read statements from Mrs. McCarthy and have yet to see an explanation on the number 10. Yes she has stated that we as Americans need to limit the sizes of magazines in order to not prevent mass shootings, but to limit their impact. Simply put: I cannot see how 10 is the superior choice while balancing the legal use of firearms.
The bill continues:
--‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’.
So I can have a tubular magazine that can hold 21 rounds and possibly a loop-hole for a speed loader for it that holds 120 rounds, but not a flat magazine in the same caliber with 11 rounds? What is the difference if the magazine is a tube extending forward or a box inserted in the bottom? To me this does not seem to be in accordance with the common sense I am being asked to judge this with. Basically this law says that it is 100% ok to have more rounds in a firearm, in a bill designed specifically to limit the number of rounds that a firearm can hold.
The bill continues:
-‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
--‘(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
Here is where our government puts a safety net in for themselves. Basically this is the part where our government says that the rules apply to thee but not to me. To me this flies in the face of reasonable, when our government is telling us what is good for us, when they do not have to abide by the same rules. We are all equal… Just some of us are more equal than others.
--‘(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
Here is the part where private security corporations get to keep and buy their so-called “extended magazines”.
‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or
Here is where more of a select few more “citizens” get to continue to purchase, possess or transfer these “extended magazines”.
To me this number seems too arbitrary, and there seems to be a huge double-standard in the wording of this bill. I look at it simply as the pistols and civilian copies of what the police carry, should not be restricted by the government on the simple premise that “What is it that the police will encounter where they need extended magazines, that the general public will not encounter.”. Correct me if I am wrong, but on the whole is it not the general public that calls the police when they encounter what the police will eventually encounter?
This bill came directly out of the tragedy in Tucson as per statements from Congresswoman McCarthy. This bill, as written would not have stopped the mass-shooting at all. Perhaps it may have lessened the volume of those shot and I can respect that, however there is still some contention as to whether the shooter was reloading, or could not clear a jam.
Mass shootings, as rare as they are, do have a very negative impact on society and we should absolutely work to limit their occurrence not just limit the number of victims with a lot of “what ifs”. This bill to me, in an offhanded way flies in the face of being reasonable. That it is somehow ok to have mass shootings as long as we have a lower body count. I would rather get to the root of the issue and prevent the entire event.
What would have happened if the school the shooter was attending had the resources to handle someone with his mental condition? What if they could have provided or given the shooter a direct avenue to seek or be provided with the help he needed? Would he then have been able to legally purchase his firearms? Would he have been placed into an institution? Would he have been given any medication that he required? What if 100% NICS state compliance was mandatory (the funding she voted for is there)? If we want to play with “what ifs” perhaps we should address the root cause and prevent him from obtaining the firearm in the first place. Look what happened in Virgina after the VT shooter. Today he would not have been able to purchase the firearms he used.
Everything said and done, I do not disagree entirely with the bill, however I personally feel that 10 rounds is an arbitrary number that was concluded without study or evidence.
I reviewed her bills that she herself has submitted to congress over the past session. I think that the main reason she failed to get any of them out of committee, is that she has not educated herself in regards to the lawful use of firearms and also to me to hold all firearm owners in contempt given the language in the bills. Given her personal situation I completely understand this, but when the vast majority of gun regulations she has attempted to pass, violates the privacy, dignity, civil rights or intelligence of all firearm owners in America, she cannot expect her bills to be passed. This in my opinion is neither “Common Sense” nor “Reasonable”.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
