Tamara nails the mag-cap game:

The thing about “magazine capacity restrictions” is that they’re fundamentally and philosophically flawed. Anyone saying that “magazine capacity restrictions” would have “prevented” the outrage at Safeway is either barely brighter than a turnip or being fundamentally dishonest:

  • If magazines were limited to ten rounds, then you’re okay with ten corpses.
  • If it was just a six-shooter, you’ve got six cooling bodies to clean up on aisle three.
  • Even single-shot flintlocks (you know, like the kind you always say the “founding fathers could envision”) leave Congresswoman Giffords on the same ventilator as Gaston Glock’s latest offering.

So by saying you’re in favor of magazines that hold no more than X rounds, you’re publicly stating that it’s only X+1 bodies that bother you. If that’s not what you mean to say, then come out and state your real intentions.

Or are you chicken?

Of course they’re chicken. They’d rather squeeze the Constitution like a roll of Charmin than to admit they’d rather wipe their asses with it. Besides, with a restricted-capacity magazine, there might not be a bullet left for the perp to use on himself.



One Response to +1

  1. kishnevi says:

    I think the 30 round restriction is absurd for another reason.

    I’ll put it this way: if you’re in a situation where you need (legitimately) to shoot off 30 rounds in a hurry, you’re probably in a situation where you need to shoot off a lot more than 30 rounds in a hurry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: