Really. A “basic freedom”? Is this what the musket-owning Founding Fathers had in mind? Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) thinks so. (Raw Story).
Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday asked Johnson why people needed military-grade weapons like the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and large ammunition clips used by the shooter in Aurora, Colorado where at least 12 were killed and 58 were wounded.
“The left always uses the term ‘assault rifle,’ and they’re really talking about semi-automatic weapons that are used in hunting,” Johnson explained. “That’s what happens in Wisconsin. These are rifles that are used in hunting. Just the fact of the matter is this is really not an issue of guns. This is about sick people doing things you simply can’t prevent. It’s really an issue of freedom.”
Again, going out rabbit and deer hunting surely doesn’t require 100-round magazines, but he persisted in this ludicrous defense.
“Does something that would limit magazines that can carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?” Wallace wondered.
“I believe so,” Johnson insisted. “There are magazines — 30-round magazines — that are just common all over the place. You simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals that want to do harm.”
I have no problem defending the constitutional right to own a gun (though I would not want one myself). But there has to be some common sense agreement that the current gun laws are so permissive in some states (open carry in bars!?) that it’s not helpful either for crime control or self-defense purposes. We’ve got too many people with a propensity toward violence/mental instability who really don’t need to possess a gun, but the situation is largely left unaddressed even after a tragedy involving a gun. 100-round magazines are not necessary to defend one’s property.