As I read your guest editorial which was featured in the Feb. 21st edition of The Fort Mill Times titled, “Banning high capacity clips would be baby step in right direction,” I just shook my head at the willful ignorance of the writer concerning guns.
Just the title alone is an example of that. Gun owners or people familiar with semi automatic weapons know that the piece of equipment that holds bullets is a magazine and not a clip. “Clip” is a made up name from Hollywood, as is the idea that a gun shot can be completely silent, by using a thing called a “silencer,” which doesn’t exist. What does exist is a suppressor, that lowers the decibel level of the gun shot. Suppressors are extremely expensive, starting at around $900, require background checks in addition to finger printing, as well as a federally issued tax stamp, which is in addition to the cost of the suppressor. Therefore, not many gun owners want to spend more than the cost of a gun in order to have a suppressor.
Like so many anti 2nd amendment progressives, the author asserts that any AR platform rifle is akin to military rifles because their appearance is similar. Therefore, we should begin the process of getting rid of the weapons because they look scary! Perhaps if they were painted in rain bow colors they wouldn’t look so scary. Make no mistake, when progressives say the words “reasonable gun laws,” it means step by step, regardless of how long it takes, gun confiscation.
The author then asserts, “At the very least, it would signal that we care enough as a society to admit that somewhere along the line, we seriously erred by flooding the market with guns whose most benign purpose is to fight wars.” The AR-15 and the military version are only similar in appearance, which has nothing to do with the capability of the weapons rate of fire. The military version has the ability to fire one round per trigger pull, a three round burst, or go fully automatic. Th AR-15, which is for sale at any of the area gun retailers, can only fire one round per trigger pull. That’s it, period. Therefore the author, and you by featuring the article are using a typical progressive tactic to create fear, either by ignorance or willful omission.
The writer goes on to claim that banning guns or high capacity magazines is not any kind of constitutional infringement, and uses an absurd airplane with missiles example for a justification. Non military airplanes with sidewinder misses are illegal to begin with, and flying airplanes with misses attached, is not a constitutionally protected right.
Probably the most egregious part of the guest editorial is the assertion that, “Guns should remain legal, but not ones capable of firing 14 rounds per second down range or in a crowed high school hallway.” Again the author is alleging that rifles that can be purchased by the public at any gun retailer can fire 14 rounds per second. This is an outright and typical progressive lie. No semi automatic rifle can possibly achieve that rate of fire, and your writer loses all credibility.