I’ve learned this week that I am, not kidding, a “freedom-hating communist”. Why? Because I have no problem limiting Americans’ right to bear arms. I’m not talking about taking away Americans’ right to bear arms. I’m talking about limiting that right. Sort of along the lines of limiting the right to freedom of expression by making it a crime to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theater.
It all started with my tweet “Apparently we can’t restrict high-capacity ammo clips because it would annoy target shooters”.
Someone going by the handle “SomeGrit”, responded, “No, it would limit our right to bear arms that’s why. Also glocks do not use “ammo clips”.
Now, it’s clear that SomeGrit knew what I was talking about with regard to “ammo clips” or he/she wouldn’t have responded. So I responded, “Funny , you knew what I was talking about didn’t you? I’ve NO problem LIMITING your right to bear arms.
And I don’t. I have absolutely no problems putting certain restrictions on the rights of Americans to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment says this:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“Limiting” and “infringing” have two different meanings. “Infringing” basically indicates violating a law. I’m not asking laws to be passed preventing the right to bear arms in America. That, of course, would be an infringement and would be unconstitutional. “Limiting” means putting limitations on that right, not abrogating the right entirely. And the Supreme Court has had a number of decisions that indicate limitations are not “infringements”. The most recent example is the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 where the Court said:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…
So, let’s not pretend that limitations are the same as infringements, m’kay?
And, given that this is true, that’s why I am in full support of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and her bill to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines to only ten bullets (plus one in the chamber.)
“The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” McCarthy wrote Thursday in a “Dear Colleague” letter to House members. “There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.”
This should, in my opinion, should be a no-brainer. But many gun enthusiasts (like Rachel Maddow, I actually call them “zealots”), are having none of it. (Maybe the “no-brain” part is playing some role here?) Any limitations are off the table from their perspective as has been covered in great detail on Maddow’s show this past week. I’m also in strong favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire under the Bush administration.
Let’s face it, when law enforcement officials, the very people most impacted by the lack of limitations on these magazines and weapons, are all but pleading with us to make these changes, I think it’s time for us to wake up and get it done. And I frankly don’t give a damn if target shooters have to stop and reload three times as often.
But we can’t. Because the NRA has a stranglehold on the conversation and members of Congress are so afraid they’ll get dinged on the next NRA rating questionnaire that nobody, it seems, except Rep. McCarthy, has the courage to take it on.
Anyway, as you might imagine, SomeGrit has a different opinion. In an eloquent display of their “brilliance”, they came back with this amazing and truly devastating bit of repartee:
How’s it feel to be a freedom hating communist then?
Oh, SNAP!!! Oh, that stings! Oh, that’s gonna leave a mark!
Actually that was good for last night’s chuckle, I must say. When in doubt, I guess you either invoke Hitler or call your opponent a communist.
It’s so cute when dumbasses get access to the innernetz, isn’t it?
I’m just sayin’…
