With the Dayton shooter having used a 100-round magazine, such higher-capacity magazines are firmly in the spotlight once again.
Anti-gun activists, the kind of people who have probably never fired a gun and have never actually studied gunfights to any degree, have been railing all about how you don’t need 100 rounds for self-defense.
However, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky sent out a tweet yesterday that kind of destroyed that argument.
Some have asked, “who needs 100 rounds?”
If 6 brave, trained, and alert police officers with professionally maintained weapons fired 58 rounds to subdue the Dayton shooter,
I’d say my wife deserves at least that many chances to protect herself and my kids when I’m not home.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 7, 2019
Of course, I’m not a huge fan of 100-round magazines myself. They’re heavy and my past experiences with them showed them to be unreliable at best. I understand they’re better these days, but I find myself unmotivated to find out for myself at the moment.
Still, I’m also a believer that it’s generally not my place to judge what someone else believes works best for their defense needs.
More importantly, though, is that the Second Amendment has no clause saying that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…unless it lets you shoot a whole bunch without reloading.
All over social media, a lot of armchair experts are pontificating about what people need for self-defense. Yet Massie’s tweet opens the door for so many more arguments.
For example, it also reminds me of when Tucker Carlson’s wife was home alone and the house was surrounded by angry protestors who then crossed the line and tried to kick the door in. That’s awful similar to what transpired at Sen. Mitch McConnell’s home just the other night.
Hundreds of people surrounding a home, simply because they disagree with someone, terrifying those inside and in one instance tried to gain entry into the home, and these people think I shouldn’t be allowed to have an AR-15 with a 100-round magazine? Of course, since the people who are surrounding houses and trying to kick in doors are the same people saying I shouldn’t have such weapons, it’s not surprising. The violent typically prefer unarmed victims.
However, as Massie points out, we “gun guys” may not be the one facing the threat. My wife can’t swap out a magazine as quickly as I can. She knows how to do it, but she doesn’t practice with it like I do. For her, a higher-capacity magazine, something more than a 30-round mag, would probably be for the best. That way, she doesn’t have to. It’s not like she’s going to be carrying that through the woods or anything, so weight would be less of a factor, too.
See? It’s not difficult to see scenarios where someone might just need the very thing someone is trying to ban.
Be it from political disagreements or a general riot, a single person may find themselves needing all the firepower they can muster. The last thing the government needs to do is restrict just how much a private citizen can have, because I promise you, people will die because they didn’t have enough rounds. Sure as the Lord made little green apples, someone will be killed because they didn’t have a large enough magazine.
Meanwhile, criminals will still do what they want to do, including get larger magazines. Such is the way of the world.