[44 AMP]

First off, why do we continue to use the framework of the right deniers?

NEED has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

They always demand for us to explain why we have a need for this, or that. They demand that we justify ourselves to them. That assumes that THEY have both the right and the power to decide, for US what we should be allowed to have, based on our convincing them of a need.

This automatically places us on the defensive, a weaker position in the argument. As a mild reminder, there is a line in one of those old, musty "outmoded" documents that refers to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Nothing in that one about having to justify a need.....

in fact, it has been reported (although seldom lately) that early drafts of that document used the phrase "pursuit of property" or "posession of property"....

I have a couple of guns with a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine of 100rnds. That's the way the factory made them.

Since we already have laws that say you cannot shoot people for fun and profit (and these are routinely broken) what possible good can laws limiting any physical features of a firearm do? Nothing but annoy the people who want such things but would never break the law.

I consider telling me I cannot do or have a thing, because someone else might do somthing bad with it to be a prior restraint on my rights (that pesky pursuit of happiness thing), as well as treating me like a child that is incapable of making a good decision.

How odd it is that these same people who actively treat us as incapable of making important decisions are completely willing to accept our decisions as rational and valid, when it is a vote to put them in office.