Connecticut passed its Glock ban, which doesn’t just impact Glocks. They did it, as per usual, in the name of public safety, all while failing to ignore the facts that criminals aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place and that the full-auto switches are illegal to buy, own, or possess without very specific licenses that most people will never have.
They passed it just the same.
In Connecticut, though, one letter to the editor took issue with a bit of hate thrown at a state lawmaker because of a simple question that no one seems interested in answering.
I was disappointed to see criticism of Representative Mitch Bolinsky for voting against Connecticut’s proposed Glock ban. Whether someone supports or opposes gun control generally, this particular proposal deserves honest scrutiny.
Connecticut already has a 10-round magazine limit. Supporters of the bill argue the ban improves public safety because certain pistols could theoretically be converted to automatic fire with illegal aftermarket devices. But those conversion devices are already illegal under federal law, and automatic weapons themselves are already heavily prohibited.
The practical question is simple: how much additional safety is actually gained?
With a 10-round limit already in place, the difference in discharging 10 rounds between rapid semiautomatic fire and illegal automatic fire is often only a fraction of a second. Even supporters of the bill acknowledge the focus is largely on the possibility of illegal modification, not on the firearm’s normal lawful operation. Given Brandon Moore’s background as a West Point graduate, Army officer, combat veteran, and Apache pilot, one would expect an understanding of the technical distinction between lawful semiautomatic firearms and illegally converted automatic weapons, which makes the practical effectiveness of this proposal a fair subject for public debate.
Like it or not, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” People may disagree on how that should be interpreted, but constitutional rights are not supposed to be selectively respected only when politically convenient.
The practical question itself is an interesting one, because while we can all make the constitutional arguments in our sleep, most likely, the reality is that many people don’t really seem to understand that “shall not be infringed” means that our rights shall not be infringed at all. So, you need to frame commentary based on where people are, mentally, rather than rely purely on the (completely valid) constitutional arguments.
And here, the letter writer asks a simple question that it seems people are offended by it even being asked.
If Connecticut’s laws work as they are, then how much additional safety would be obtained by banning an entire category of handguns that might be illegally modified with a device that’s already illegal to buy, sell, or own?
If the magazine limits work, does the gun taking a half-second longer to empty a magazine actually matter in any appreciable way?
No? Then why ban the guns at all?
If you argue that the magazine ban isn’t respected by criminals, then I have to ask why you think they won’t get striker-fired handguns to modify just as easily?
Seriously, these bans are probably the most ridiculous bits of gun control I’ve ever seen, especially when Glock has actually tried to modify their design. Some people are just really good at finding ways around stuff like that.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
