A high-capacity magazine (HCM) for a semi-automatic gun (which includes most handguns) is considered to be one that can hold more than 10 rounds. HCMs are what Democrats desire to outlaw. HCMs are not dangerous, of course; they are simply the things that hold the things that come out of the things that criminals sometimes use to kill people (though they more often use knives and fists).
It is not the guns, or the magazines and rounds inside them, that society needs to worry about. It is evil people. What is an evil person? Someone who does evil. From Christianity’s perspective, we are all evil to some degree. But some of us commit more evil than others.
Gangs would be a good example of this. Gangs are the greatest contributors to gun violence in big cities. So why doesn’t the government get into the business of regulating gangs? Since they’re regulating how many bullets we’re allowed to have to defend ourselves with (10), they should also regulate how many members a gang is allowed to have. If the number of bullets will be limited to 10, then the number of members in gangs should only be limited to 10.
Why can’t we regulate that? It can’t be because bad guys, such as gang members, don’t obey the rules; we know that they do obey rules. The government implies as much whenever it places a Gun-Free Zone sign on any property. Isn’t the reason the government wants to ban the scary-looking guns because, they think, it’s exclusively bad guys who use them? If we outlaw those guns and how many rounds their magazines can hold, then the bad guys will say, “Crap, I can’t use this gun to kill these people; it’s against the law.”
So if we can dictate to would-be mass-murderers how many bullets they may use to kill us, and what guns they may use, of course we can dictate to gangs that they must put a limit on the number of members they’re allowed to admit. This would disperse lots of gangs that currently have tens of thousands of members across the United States.
Both good guys and bad guys use guns, right? But good guys don’t join gangs; only bad guys do. So just regulate gangs.
I wrote on Monday about “10 to 15” black kids who beat up a mid-50s white man in the middle of the street while he was carrying groceries home. If, rather than trying to limit our gun use, the government had made a law that told those hooligans they could not expand their hangout group beyond 10 members, the poor man they were stomping would have been able to Trayvon Martin their butts.
Ah, but then that would bring about the relentless accusations of racism. We can’t defend ourselves against black attackers; we must allow blacks to re-enact their rap videos on us without complaint. But that’s an issue to solve in the future. The government loves kicking cans down roads, so they shouldn’t have a problem with that.
Alternatively, the government could just say that joining gangs is illegal. But there might then be some pushback from liberals who say that it’s racist and culturally insensitive to prohibit blacks from taking part of their gang culture (the racism of which point would be totally lost on those claiming the racism in the first place).
Regulation of gangs would significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in Gun Control Land (Chicago), since criminals, according to Democrats, do a pretty good job of following the law. The question is whether or not Obama will be willing to take the necessary steps to de-Chicagify Chicago. He runs the country as a Chicago mob boss, filling cabinet slots with his crony Chicago mobsters. He just might love that city of corruption too much to want to regulate how many members gangs can have.
Oh well, there goes that fantasy.