You don’t need a magazine with more than 10 rounds. That is a “reasonable” restriction.

–Ban Advocate


Do you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?

This, sorry to use a pun, is a loaded question. The question assumes that need has anything to do the issue at hand.

What do I mean by that? Well, in order to answer that question we must first take a step back and deal with the premise of the question. To do that we must look at the difference between a right versus a privilege. A right is something that you as a person own, such as your right to free speech, or your right to freedom of assembly, or your freedom of religion. A right can not be taken away from you, it can only be infringed upon by another party. A privilege, on the other hand, is something is granted to you at the discretion of another party since you receive whatever that privilege is from that other party.

There is no need qualification on a right. That is a logical error since you already own your rights, therefore you don’t have to ask permission to have something that you already own.

The framers of the Constitution understood this argument. We can tell that they understood by how they wrote the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Notice that there is no reference to a “privilege” or “need”, but there is a specific reference to a “right”. Implied in the wording is how the already existing right owned by the people shall not be infringed.

When someone makes the statement that you don’t need something and it is a “reasonable” restriction on why you shouldn’t have it, what they are really doing is asking you to accept their false premise that your right is a privilege, and to allow yourself to be subjected to whatever arbitrary limit they or some other party may want. Their argument requires your consent to get rid of something you already own, that being one of your rights.

If you accept their false premise, then tomorrow, when they decide their arbitrary 10 round magazine is too much and insist on 9, or, an 8, or a 7 round magazine you can’t argue with them since philosophically their arbitrary argument for a 10 round magazine is the same as for a 9 or 8, or whatever. Their argument is based on some arbitrary number combined with your acceptance that your right is actually a privilege and subject to whatever they or some other party want.

They essentially have no argument; they just win by default unless this is pointed out to them.

An excellent way to show just how absurd the need based argument is would be to take another right and then apply the same style of argument. In this case, let’s take free speech as our right to analyze. Let’s suppose that we tell a radio host that they have the right to free speech, but you are going to apply a reasonable restriction through a law that they can talk about whatever they want, but they can only have 10 minutes of political speech on their show ….. and if they go to 11 minutes then they will become a felon. If that sounds ridiculous to you, you would be correct. If you accept that one right can be subject to arbitrary limitations, then any right that you have can also be subject to an arbitrary limitation, which essentially destroys those rights.

And who determines what is reasonable? Why do they get to choose what is reasonable? What may be reasonable to you may be absurd to me. That is the beauty of rights, since a right in many ways can be looked at as “the right to be left alone” and not be subject to the arbitrary whims of another party who may disagree with your beliefs on a particular topic.

So when a person states that you don’t need something that is a right of yours, you can logically answer, “You are correct, an individual doesn’t need it. An individual has a right to have whatever right we are discussing and need has absolutely nothing to do with it”