Magazine Capacity Limits

Many articles and politicians and opinion pages are calling (screaming) for limits on how many rounds a firearm magazine can hold.  There seems to be some idea that civilians don't need any more than x number of rounds in a loaded firearm.

If limiting my magazine to 10 rounds (or 7 in New York) is so grand, why not limit the police and military as well?  After all, their lives aren't worth any more than my life is.  If it makes things safer, without negatively impacting my use of a firearm, why not limit all firearms, not just civilian guns?

At this point, I suspect most advocates would get all huffy and say something like, "But they're GOVERNMENT people.  They're special <insert reason here>."

I say, "Nuts."  My civilian life is worth every bit what some other guy's life is worth, regardless of whether he's a police officer, federal agent, or military service member.  Since limiting the weapons of government officials does nothing positive for them and their effectiveness, there must be another reason for pushing this.

Well, there's at least two: ignorance and ulterior motives.  Ignorance is almost forgivable.  Someone who knows nothing about guns, who's scared of firearms, doesn't understand what he or she is really advocating.  Nor has such an individual seen skilled tactical revolver shooters in action with speed loaders.  And often, the ignorant want to create a special class of citizen, who happens to be a government agent of some sort (military, police, etc).  Bad precedent. 

Second reason: ulterior motives.  Some politicians are honest.  One recently proposed restricting civilians to a single-shot weapon.  Other politicians and groups (such as the Brady group) have advocated for decades to outlaw firearms.  A sweeping ban is nearly impossible.  However, slowing tightening the noose is far easier.

Some shills claim to be pro-Second Amendment, but in favor of "reasonable" gun laws.  Well, restricting the property rights of others, as well as restricting their options with regards to the Second Amendment, is hardly "reasonable."  "Reasonable" would be leaving gun owners alone and focusing on the actions taken by criminals and crazies.  Instead of assigning responsibility, too often, society is willing to make excuses for criminals and crazies and the choices they make and instead assign the blame to inanimate objects.

Keep pouring letters into the various pro-gun groups, such as the NRA and GOA, as well as your congresscritters.  Convince them that compromising (surrendering) our gun rights is a bad idea.  Don't threaten violence.  Just make it clear that it's a bad idea.