“Magazines greater than 10 rounds are for terrorists and gangsters” -- Untruth

“Magazines greater than 10 rounds are for terrorists and gangsters”

There are many issues that fall outside logic here.

• Law Enforcement 

The most obvious distinction is: What about those put in charge of enforcing legislative actions?* Do they also qualify as “Terrorists and gangsters” or do those whom that have been called law enforcement, military, federal agents, etc, get a special convenience? I suppose by the above statement the logic would be, “well, they need more rounds to fight against the terrorists that are breaking the law!” Thus: 

• Creating Class System 

I shall explain this by analogy. If we take the same distinction of how things are held and the use of a magazine to simplify holding ammunition, then let us assume that instead of bullets we are talking about dollars and instead of magazines we are talking about the size of the bill and that terrorists and gangsters are replaced with some other ‘corporate’ villain. So to restate the above: “Dollar bills greater than 10 dollars are for corp. bank presidents and drug dealers.” Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? Because you immediately realize subconsciously that if we made such a distinction, that is only villains were allowed access to large denominations of currency, they (and the villains and the politicians) would be the only ones that had it, and thus, only the rich ultra 1%.  It would create an inequality. Which would create a class system of those that have one object and those that do not have that object. Funny, how the very people whom oppose the idea of classism or racism are the same people that so often try to enforce another version of it on someone else . It’s really not hard because, after all, people objectify and vilify their neighbors: 

• Arming ‘villains’ by disarming ‘citizens’ 

Thus, in the end, what such a statement really says about the person whom could say it is, that they believe their neighbors and friends are villains, evil people, not willing to do good. This objectification is the worst form of social sin, for it makes the worst mistake any individual can make, which is to assume that somehow they are freer, smarter, more gifted, wiser and frankly, just plain better people, than the others they surround themselves with. What other item, but the sin of arrogance, could such a person be holding if they somehow think that everyone else, whom disagrees with their ideals of ownership in a piece of plastic that simply allows the owner an easier tool to manage individual rounds of ammunition (yes, a magazine is simply a storage device, not unlike your wallet or a bookshelf or your ipod…imagine if there were arrogant people whom thought it best to limit the sizes of those things for your own good!  You shouldn't have so much credit: smaller wallet. You shouldn't waste so much time reading pulp: smaller bookshelf.  You shouldn't listen to much country music: smaller ipod!) if not the worst of human endeavors? Yes, worst. For it is such people that would enslave others for their own cowardice and fear of others values or opinions. They don't like that other people are free.  If they were not afraid of 11 round magazines, there would be no hair pulling about it. Instead they hold a position that makes zero logical sense and then, have the audacity, without argument and facts, to say we are criminals and terrorists. Then I suppose at that point, my argument becomes irrelevant, then? For whom would trust a terrorist or criminal? 

All said. Ownership is a personal right. Not just ownership in guns and gun paraphernalia, but in all manner of objects. Individuals should be trusted as individuals until such a time as they can’t be trusted. My father always said, trust the dealer, but still cut the cards. If you walk into an situation where you need to know how to protect yourself and you don’t? How is that my fault?   Imagine it being your fault if the guy in the cube next to you lied to get his job and can't do it and you lost your job.  Imagine it being your issue if the business in the next state gave its patron's food poisoning and you had to close your business.  We need to stop laying blame on the good people of this country for acts they have nothing to do with.  We need to grow up and recognize that each of our lives is our responsibility.  Ours and ours alone.  If we choose to go through live expecting other people to take care of us and at some point find ourselves destitute or faced by a mad man with a gun, our lack of education, our lack of training, our lack of knowing that some day this could happen is no one else's fault by our own. (It's good that we try to give such situations a safety net, but it is not there as crutch or worse as tool to control.  The police are suppose to be a safety net, not a way being). Only a childish foot stomping brat would blame some guy two thousand miles away for his problems.

Grow up, grow a pair and get your own house in order.

-----

*Much of the so-called laws passed today are in fact illegal acts that force us to give up our natural rights, some of rights we are forced to give up are legally represented in our Constitution.  Thus, I tend to stay away from directly calling those members in uniforms 'law enforcement' without first ensuring that the caveat of them following illegal orders is made.  Again, I believe that the police specifically are there to 'catch' criminals that we individuals were unable to stop.  I am adamantly against the idea of the police dictating social policy and thus, telling us how to live.