I’m getting pretty sick of hearing about this big Second Amendment argument that has erupted after this recent bout of horrific shooting rampages. Saying that banning assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition clips is a violation of the second amendment is the dumbest fucking argument I’ve ever heard, yet I keep hearing it repeated over and over again. When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they weren’t walking around with AR-15 assault rifles and 100-round clips. They had 1 to 2 shot pistols and rifles, so to say your right to own assault rifles is being violated is irrelevant because the founding fathers wouldn’t have any fucking idea what an assault rifle was if they saw one because they didn’t exist when the Constitution was drawn up. And I’m sure they never dreamed a gun would have the capability to carry 100 rounds of ammo because when they came up with the second amendment, they knew that no living person (that isn’t involved in heavy military combat on a regular basis) needs that much ammunition when using domestic guns for their intended purpose. Last time I checked, it doesn’t take 100 bullets to take down a deer (unless you’re a horrible fucking shot). How about we stop worrying so much about whether or not we’re allowed to own items that are essentially irrelevant and focus on fixing the multitude of other problems in our country?
"If Congress does nothing else, it should ban high-capacity magazines… In every one of the 22 mass shootings between 1984 and 2011, the killer used a clip that carried more than 10 bullets. Those oversized magazines enabled the shooters to collectively fire more than 1,500 rounds in schools, workplaces, churches, and other public places, murdering 225 people and wounding 242 more. Bystanders or police were able to overpower the shooters only when they stopped to reload. There is no need in civil society for such weapons of mass destruction." - Pg. 2, The Week. January 25, 2013. Vol 13; Issue 601.