By Mr. Twisted

Do you know what the best part is about our current political climate?

No? Well, don’t feel bad – neither does anyone else. But just in case you were thinking that your elected officials weren’t doing anything worthless lately, I’ve come to smash that fantasy with the hammer of reality.

While most of Congress is filled with a bunch of blowhards and stiffs in suits who are exactly as boring and lacking in fortitude as you would imagine, there are a few in there who truly go above and beyond the call of duty and do some things that are stupid even by the standards of normal representatives. And that’s really saying something.

In this particular case, I’m referring to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NY) and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and their attempt to restrict your individual rights when it comes to the size of magazine you buy for your rifle and the amount of ammunition you can purchase online. In their infinite wisdom, they believe it is a “reasonable” infringement on your rights to pick arbitrary numbers to set as a standard for what you can and can’t have, so they have introduced a piece of legislation to limit that for you so that you don’t go and hurt yourself. They are, after all, experts in the field of firearms and the practical use of said tools, right?

But here’s the best part: they have introduced these not as stand-alone pieces of legislation, but as amendments to bills with some pretty solid bipartisan support.

S.3414, The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, is a bill that, like the name says, deals with cyber security and the infrastructure therein (not exactly a strong suit of our government, by the way, if the recent in-air hijacking of a Dep. of Homeland Security drone – in air – by a few college students is any indication). The Act had fairly solid bipartisan support with 84 Aye votes in the Senate. And then good ol’ Senator Schumer slid in S.A. 2575, an amendment that would make it illegal to transfer or possess a “feeding” device that would hold more than 10 rounds, and was apparently hoping nobody would notice.

That is in addition to the bill being proposed by Senator Lautenberg called the “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act,” whereby any “large quantity” purchase of ammunition (over 1,000 rounds) via the internet must be reported by law enforcement. Because obviously anyone buying that much ammo is a criminal…

Let me see if I can summarize my thoughts on this as succinctly as possible.

One, I don’t think we need an “Act” to deal with cyber security. If it doesn’t work, fix it.

Two, despite my overwhelming desire to throw a flying triangle choke on the next person that says there is such a thing as “reasonable gun control,” I will try to remain calm and simply state that, no, restricting the number of rounds one can carry in a single magazine will have absolutely no effect on crime whatsoever. I could digress down a wicked rabbit trail here by giving a lot of data to show that reality in no way supports these proposals, but I will simply say, to those who think it’s a good idea….choke yourself.

Three, at what point does any rational human being think that we need law enforcement getting involved in the amount of ammunition people are purchasing? This is a slippery slope, to be sure. Who gets to decide the arbitrary number of “too much” ammo? Who decides who controls the database of names of those who exceeded that number? And what happens to those who do? What about the competitive shooters who routinely go through that many rounds in a month? I’d be willing to bet that a good number of readers here do not think it strange to purchase 1000 rounds at one time.

The last tactical shooting class I attended in the private sector required a bare minimum of 1200 rounds in 3 days. That is not extreme by any stretch of the imagination in the world of practical/tactical firearms courses. The law being proposed by people like Sens. Schumer, Lautenberg, and Feinstein would require me to go on a list of suspects (let’s be honest and call it what it is) for purchasing that much ammo. Geez, this “freedom” thing seems different than it should…

I know that some of you are thinking “yeah, but there would be numerous ways around a law like that…” Of course there would. Buying 999 rounds at multiple locations, for example. But that’s not the point — if I want to be treated like a child in what I can and cannot have, I will either move to France or go back to being 12 years old. Neither sound all that appealing. And, more importantly, laws like these ignore the glaringly obvious truth — that politicians work for us and they are not elected to protect us from ourselves.

In 1927, a man by the name of Andrew Kehoe killed 45 in the largest mass murder at a school our country has ever seen using some explosives and his car. In 1978, Jim Jones convinced 900-plus people to kill themselves with blue Kool-Aid. In 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed with a few airliners that had been hijacked using nothing but some box cutters. The point here is that crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons that are often completely unexplainable, and they do so using whatever means are available to them. A law that prevents individuals from owning certain items has never prevented people from enacting evil — nor will it ever do so.

What silly laws do succeed in doing is pissing off people like you and me and adding one more annoyance to our lives that are becoming increasingly influenced by nanny-like government bureaucrats. They are, in effect, saying that you can’t be trusted (yes, you — the one holding the bottle of tequila and a bowl of Fruit Loops) and that politicians know more than you do about your own safety.

Three or four Senators who have been in office for a long time carry a substantial amount of weight when it comes to legislation like this. Be wary of what’s going on in Washington, lest they try to sneak more stuff like this past you in the name of “cybersecurity.” This will be up for vote by the end of the week.

Oh and, by the way, for any of you former assistant gunners/ammo bearers, you are officially a “feeding device” and, therefore, deemed illegal should this law pass. Cheers!

Comments

comments