January 26, 2013

Ah, a gun control Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Newark's Raymond Magnani perfectly exemplifies the idiotic arrogance of the gun control crowd. In his letter pondering why gun rights advocates are skeptical about restrictions on the size of magazines, he writes:

1. Its my right. Actually our rights are defined by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, not by us as individuals.

Nope. We are all endowed by our Creator with certain natural rights, most prevalent among them being life, liberty and property. No piece of paper -- even the Constitution -- grants us anything. To quote Thomas Paine,

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Even the Supreme Court cannot "take away" our rights, even on the premise of "interpreting" the Constitution.

2. I need it to hunt. You should spend some time learning how to aim.

Oh! What snark there, Ray! So let me get this straight -- limiting the size of magazines means people who want to shoot more (when hunting) can just ... buy more magazines. So, a proposed law which restricts the size of magazines effectively ... does nothing.

3. I need it to protect my home and family. Only if your gang is involved in a turf battle with a rival gang.

Ah yes, more arrogant snark. Indeed, it's a good thing we have omniscient arbiters like Ray who "know" what limit we need on magazines in order to protect those most precious to us! Nevertheless, if there's a size limit on magazines, what prevents one from ... purchasing additional magazines? If there's no law against multiple purchases, then, again, magazine size restrictions are basically useless. All they'll do is make "progressives" feel good about themselves for "doing something." (Remember, intentions are really what count to them.) If there are concurrent purchase limitations, then here we are again where people like Ray would harm law-abiding folks at the expense of criminals -- who, y'know, don't follow laws. That's why they're CRIMINALS.

3. I just like shooting lots of bullets. Its fun. Give me a break.

You actually heard this "argument" as a reason to not limit magazine size? I doubt it. But if you did, no argument here.

4. I need it to protect myself and my family from the government. Thats why the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment. Really? This is the underlying argument? To wage war on our own soldiers?

Yeah, Ray, really. That was [one of the] underlying arguments for the 2nd Amendment. I always love it when "progressives" mock folks who bring this up -- as if, if an administration decided to gun grab, police departments and US soldiers in the military, would blindly follow what the president ordered. Does anyone really believe that would happen? And sensibly theorizing that it wouldn't, consider how an armed populace -- in conjunction with dissenting police and military forces -- would struggle against that "tyrannical government."

(Note: Either Ray or the News Journal can't count. One of them did indeed use the number "3" above twice, not yours truly.)

Posted by Hube at January 26, 2013 11:01 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

You missed an even dopier part of this letter: he literally doesn't count to 5 correctly. He uses 3 twice.

Posted by: Paul Smith Jr at January 26, 2013 11:08 AM

Could be the paper's fault. I should add a note at the end of the post.

Posted by: Hube at January 26, 2013 11:12 AM

Where did this dope learn to count? LOL.

Posted by: Carl at January 26, 2013 02:16 PM

So I suppose if someone broke into this dude's house, he'd just let the criminals kill him and his family. That's the typical anti-gunner mindset.

Posted by: Carl at January 26, 2013 02:29 PM

How cute he still thinks the Military will defend him after he violates the Constitution. Apparently he's forgotten how well trained the Modern Militery is on Nuremburg. He hasn't considered the ramifications equipment will come out of the closet that hasn't seen action in hundreds of years Trebuchets to take out runways, black powder bombs or dynamite to take out larger transformers. It won't be a "nice" war.

Posted by: Catseye at January 31, 2013 09:34 PM

DHS and FEMA aren't the military and they're the agencies most likely to be involved, note all their recent drills.

Google: Military Training Drill Scares Houston Residents. Helicopters & Gun Fire

Machine gun fire from military helicopters Miami Florida

Google maps: (Domestic Helicopter Terror Drill Map Same drill, helicopters rappelling troops onto tall buildings, gun shots, no advance municipal communication, classified "domestic terror BS") Had a link to it but moderation...

At least the alternative media is keeping an eye on it. Because the global or corporate/$tate media syndicate of America Inc. sure isn't these days.

Posted by: mynym at February 1, 2013 07:36 AM

He doesn't need a gun if a criminal breaks in, he can merely call the police. They should be there within 20 minutes. Newtown was 23 minutes.

Posted by: Sara at February 1, 2013 07:40 AM