by I had a thought provoking comment left the other day by a John Ryan that bears repeating. It was in regard to an infographic I had posted by the American Preppers Network that discussed “high capacity” magazines.
We have to be better at getting the right terms out there. Especially getting them to the talking heads on our side ( they are making lots of mistakes). Otherwise hyperbole wins the day. “Standard capacity” is the winning term. They are proposing “reduced capacity”. “Reduced capacity magazines” diminish a persons ability to defend themselves. 10 is a random # made up out of thin air.
If we meet them on the terms they set, talking about “ high caps don’t save that much time” we lose because nobody ( other that shooters) wants to follow that. We, as proponents for the preservation of the 2nd, have to make sure our arguments are not just convincing to us, but to lay people as well.
“Standard capacity” is what a pistol was designed for. It’s what a rifle was designed for. Artificially limiting that capacity harms a persons right to self defense as codified in Heller. Spread this rationale around.
The Browning Hi-Power was one of the first pistols to use a double-stack
magazine. The magazine size was 13 rounds. That was the size of
magazine that the pistol was designed to use. Likewise, the ubiquitous
Glock 17 was designed to use a magazine containing 17 rounds. Hence, I
presume the name.
I think Mr. Ryan is absolutely correct. We have to take charge of the discussion and to do that we need to be more precise in our language. We cannot let the media or the gun prohibitionists continue to dominate the discussion with the emotionally laden term of “high capacity”. There are good, solid reasons one needs standard capacity magazines in the non-military, non-law enforcement world and we should be making them daily.