The Founding Fathers and "Arms"

Glock 19 9mm with 33 Round Magazine

Jared L Loughner is accused of using a Glock 19 in last week's shooting spree in which 6 were killed and 13 were wounded. This light weight, easily concealed, semiautomatic handgun ($500) has " become one of the best selling pistols in America."(NYT,12/15/10) In fact Representative Gabrielle Giffords owns one.

The one pictured above contains a 33 round magazine. Loughner allegedly emptied such a magazine and was trying to reload a second one when  he was subdued by bystanders who took the second magazine from him. One can only guess how many more might  have been killed or wounded had they not taken heroic action. From the view of Arizona law, the assailant had done nothing illegal until he opened fire at the representative, her staff and bystanders.

The problem is this:  a Glock with a magazine of 33 rounds is a killing machine. It is, as Paul Helmke  of the Brady Campaign says, "not suited for hunting or personal protection. What it's good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly."

The question is: why are semiautomatics with large magazines legal?  The assailant in this case could have shot one or two victims with any handgun, but he would not have killed six and wounded thirteen. Why do we legalize such a weapon -- a weapon designed for mass slaughter? Conservatives frequently want to examine the intent of the Founding Fathers. Does anyone think those men, in writing the Second Amendment, ever imagined such a weapon? And if one is going to extrapolate the meaning of  "Arms" as used in that amendment, where does it stop?  Should I therefore be allowed to own a Bradley Tank, a SAM missile launcher, a nuclear weapon, a chemical or biological weapon?  


It is a giant leap from a musket or Kentucky Long Rifle to a Glock 19 capable of firing 33 bullets in a matter of seconds.

Having a debate about civil political discourse is fine, but a debate about the legality of semiautomatic weapons is more important.