Acceptable Restriction

I saw this on Day Of Our Trailers.


It’s a poll by the Chicago Tribune. They want suggestions as to the best way to restrict rights listed in the Constitution after the city loses the Supreme Court case about them limiting the rights listed in the Constitution. They think they are going to lose the case, and need a scheme that might pass Constitutional muster until a court case about THAT one wends its way up the appeals process. That makes me feel good, when even the cheerleaders think their team will lose.

One of the items up for bid on this auction of tyranny is, “No big clips for those weapons”. On this I am wholly in agreement. Definitely. No one needs a big clip. They should be banned. That 43 round clip you use in your Garand? VERBOTEN! Those two sleeves of bullets you shove into your Mk4 Enfield? Those 2 clips of 97 .303 rounds? NEIN! You have to restrict yourself to two 5 round clips there for a total of 10 in the rifle. Not 194 rounds. That’s the way of the DEVIL. And whenever I tried a 43 rounder in my Garand, I found that accuracy dropped off considerably anyway. (though the hardest part was shoving that monster in there!) I stick to 8 rounders now. I can see allowing 10 for your museum quality .276 Pedersen Garand. That’s fine, too, I guess.

So, yes Chicago, ban those big clips. You have my support. No restriction on magazines. If you keep people from reading magazines then that is a 1st Amendment violation. You are a newspaper, you should KNOW THAT.