Tweet
This may sound harsh...if so, sorry in advance.
Let's do "critical thinking 101" and apply it to your post.
You're first sentence purports to be fact, but contains lots of unsubstantiated assumption.
Your appeal to "authority" (Cheney) is irrelevant in the context of a free people exercising a fundamental right that existed prior to, and was not granted by, rather simply enumerated, by the 2A. You can always find someone willing to throw everyone else under the bus. Also, the AW magazine rule did not ban possession - no way to know it would have had any impact at all - especially since if the guy really wanted them he could have found them illegally.
Your last sentence is pure supposition - certainly not the unequivocal statement of fact you seem to be offering.
Based on the above, I say "no thanks".
Here's a thought when it comes to establishing a workable standard for what the People can keep and Bear. (I acknowledge that, according to Heller, the right is not unlimited) Do the LE folks I hire at the local level carry an arm/ accessory in the course of maintaining our "well ordered mechanism of liberty"? If they have it, criminals will also have it, therefore I should be able to get it. My right to bear arms and defend myself doesn't mean much if I can be legislated/regulated into a disadvantage. The Federalist Papers go into detail on this concept - they conclude that the People will never be more than marginally less well armed than the Army, let alone law enforcement.
Don't get me wrong...I never really considered a 30+ round mag for my Glock. But I see no need for us to pee all over ourselves finding something we can offer back to the other side so we can demonstrate how "reasonable" we are. We should not and cannot accept the premise that the "People" (meaning anyone but felons and mentally ill - those that cannot legally own/bear arms) are really not to be trusted with the right and therefore we can take turns putting on our favorite limitations.
This guy was known to be a head case. You want to do something that would really help? Work on a mechanism that makes sure unstable people get a review - and, if warranted, lose access to (at least legally) acquired arms. Make sure that happens even if their Mom works for the County/local law enforcement.
Rant off
Let's do "critical thinking 101" and apply it to your post.
You're first sentence purports to be fact, but contains lots of unsubstantiated assumption.
Your appeal to "authority" (Cheney) is irrelevant in the context of a free people exercising a fundamental right that existed prior to, and was not granted by, rather simply enumerated, by the 2A. You can always find someone willing to throw everyone else under the bus. Also, the AW magazine rule did not ban possession - no way to know it would have had any impact at all - especially since if the guy really wanted them he could have found them illegally.
Your last sentence is pure supposition - certainly not the unequivocal statement of fact you seem to be offering.
Based on the above, I say "no thanks".
Here's a thought when it comes to establishing a workable standard for what the People can keep and Bear. (I acknowledge that, according to Heller, the right is not unlimited) Do the LE folks I hire at the local level carry an arm/ accessory in the course of maintaining our "well ordered mechanism of liberty"? If they have it, criminals will also have it, therefore I should be able to get it. My right to bear arms and defend myself doesn't mean much if I can be legislated/regulated into a disadvantage. The Federalist Papers go into detail on this concept - they conclude that the People will never be more than marginally less well armed than the Army, let alone law enforcement.
Don't get me wrong...I never really considered a 30+ round mag for my Glock. But I see no need for us to pee all over ourselves finding something we can offer back to the other side so we can demonstrate how "reasonable" we are. We should not and cannot accept the premise that the "People" (meaning anyone but felons and mentally ill - those that cannot legally own/bear arms) are really not to be trusted with the right and therefore we can take turns putting on our favorite limitations.
This guy was known to be a head case. You want to do something that would really help? Work on a mechanism that makes sure unstable people get a review - and, if warranted, lose access to (at least legally) acquired arms. Make sure that happens even if their Mom works for the County/local law enforcement.
Rant off
Comment