The most common rallying cry among those that are seeking to destroy the Constitution is based on talking about “needs”. They say no one “needs” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The basic question becomes, who are they to define “needs”?
They justify that by talking about “feelings”. They feel that their position is morally superior. Since they feel that (without any objective proof), it somehow gives them the right – in their minds only – to define “needs”.
Thankfully, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) do not talk about needs. They deal in RIGHTS, powers, and authority. And among the RIGHTS that are granted the protection of the Bill of Rights are the RIGHT to freedom of speech (which they use and hold dear) and the RIGHT to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (which they don’t care about).
There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about NEEDS, but in our nations founding documents is a statement about “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” – which are called “certain unalienable Rights”. Theis means that they can not be trashed by man.
Now, in my pursuit of happiness, I have a great many magazines for my firearms with capacities of 13, 17, 20, 30, 33, and even 50 or more rounds of ammunition. My personal home defense firearm is DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER with a capacity of 50 rounds of ammunition. Why should I have my happiness and the intended function of my defensive arms reduced by a lawmaker, especially when I have done nothing wrong?
Don’t we, as a nation, believe in punishing people that do bad things, not people that do good things?
I don’t attempt to define the needs of any Senator, as long as what they do does not interfere with any of my rights – especially those which are afforded the protections of the Bill of Rights. If the Senator from California feels the need for armed security or to carry a concealed firearm of her own, that’s fine with me. I’m sure that those providing her security use firearms that function as intended by their manufacturers – including holding the amount of ammunition intended by their manufacturer.
When people start talking about “feelings” as a way to justify “needs” in relation to legislation, you can be certain that no good will come of the effort. It’s the first step in attempting to trample upon the rights of others.