False Narratives and The Anti-2A Fight – The Uvalde shooting was a tragedy and unfortunately like vultures, the anti-2A crowd is already attempting to “never let a tragedy go to waste”, this time by targeting one of the most popular calibers for concealed carry, pistol shooting, and self-defense.
According to the current administration, the 9mm is considered a “high caliber” weapon that is a “weapon of war” and the capacity should be limited to 10 rounds or less. Additionally, the POTUS was quoted as saying you couldn’t “buy a cannon” at the time of the signing of the Constitution, or other weapons of war. The 9mm is the most popular handgun round in the United States, both for training, and for self-defense, and like the attempt to go after the AR-15, it seems targeted specifically as it is so popular. It is plain to see to those who are students of history that these are all patently false, but I will go over all of these talking points specifically to debunk them.
The 9mm is “High Powered”
For years the argument has been that the 9mm is anything but high-powered. In fact, for over a decade, many police forces were actively changing out their standard sidearms in favor of the 40 S&W. The US Military as far back as 2015 was looking at changing their ammo selection due to several issues in both Iraq and Afghanistan of soldiers shooting multiple times with their 9mm and not having effective stopping power. Granted, a lot of this must go with shot placement, and ammunition type (of which the US military uses Full Metal Jacket Ball ammo, not hollow points). There is not a single Department of Wildlife that recommends a 9mm as a potential sidearm for dangerous animals like bears, mountain lions, or wolves, with most recommending at least a 10mm, if not a 357/44mag wheel gun (depending on how far north). I have only recently started looking at 9mm as a carry round as I like to have enough guns to cover all of my bases, be they 2 or 4-legged threats. But to call it a high-powered weapon, whereas many others like 44 magnum, 45 ACP, and others are not mentioned, leads me to believe that this is a false argument.
Magazine limit of 10 rounds
This seems to be a constant talking point that a magazine limit will somehow make a weapon less capable than if it had 15, 30, or 100. Let me be very clear, this is a fallacy. I lived in the People’s Republic of California where this was the law. San Bernadino, most gang crimes in LA, or other areas were all done with guns that had these limitations. I went to the range over the weekend, and I was able to run dry, drop the mag, change with a full mag, go back into the battery, and engage the target in about 2 seconds. If we go off the narrative that the break gives people a chance to tackle/run, by the time you realize he is out of ammo, start to move and sprint, you are already likely to be targeted. Usain Bolt is the fastest man ever to run 11.25 meters in one second….so if he happens to be there you might be ok, if not well there goes that narrative. Do you know what does go fast enough to make a difference? A bullet fired from a concealed carrier firing back at the would-be perpetrator.
Couldn’t buy a cannon:
I love this argument because to me this is asinine. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, you could buy your own cannon. The same went with small arms, and some were even significantly better than the ones purchased by the government. Trappers and hunters relied on accurate rifles to put food on the table, defense from Native Americans, and put coins in their pockets. Consequently, many of the partisan groups carried American long rifles, with ranges out to 200 yards, which became almost legendary in the fight against the British. That would be the equivalent of me being able to purchase an M4, a Howitzer, or Machine Guns today. This is also moronic as at the time of the Revolution, there was no internet, no computer, typewriters, or cell phones, yet the 1st Amendment still applies, as does the 4th to protecting your privacy without your consent (or it did).
Target the popular guns
With several cases currently at the Supreme Court in favor of the 2nd Amendment, many of the previous targeting of popular weapons like the AR-15 Modern Sporting Rifle, were struck down as they are weapons in common use that would cause undue hardship on the populace. Fox News reported that 4 of every 10 handguns is chambered in 9mm. This to my non-lawyer education, would state that if we tried to ban them, it would be impossible and cause undue hardship on the population.
New Laws same as the old laws:
Laws are only as good as their enforceability and if people follow them. When you make 4 in 10 guns illegal overnight, it is safe to say that a large preponderance of the population will not comply, making them instant criminals overnight. It is important to note that the only way to make it enforceable is to know who has them and unless the NICS checks or 4473s are being collected and registering gun owners (illegal but not out of the realm of government over-reach), there is no telling who has what or where. Second, you would have to send law enforcement to conduct raids on potentially armed houses, with people who wouldn’t give up those firearms, making it extremely dangerous to those deputies to do that mission. The military can’t be used on US soil, and I doubt many National Guards troops would obey an order to raid a suburban home. So essentially it is unenforceable. The second point is that people will not follow them, especially criminals because by nature they tend to not follow the laws. The first place I fired a fully automatic firearm was in Australia (yeah, despite their massive gun laws).
The school shooter in Uvalde used a handgun. He was 18. In order to own and operate a handgun you need to be 21. I watched this weekend at a local shooting range this weekend where an 18-year-old soldier was denied the ability to rent a handgun to practice at the range (he is issued the same gun to go to war).
So what do we do? That is what is being asked because we “have to do something” according to the reactionary politics of the day. Here
is what I recommend.
- 1. If you have no firearm, go buy one. Go buy two. Buy spare magazines, ammunition, holsters from JM4 Tactical, and mag pouches from them too.
- 2. Call your Representative and Senator’s office, and email them. Do it at the state and National levels. Let them know not to vote away your rights. Call your sheriff’s department and ask if they will enforce Un-Constitutional Laws, and that you will intend to vote them out if you do.
- 3. Get training. Just having a gun is part of the battle, but knowing how to use it plays into the calculus of the people meaning to do you harm, or take that gun away.
- 4. Don’t give an inch. Not one. Aside from the 18th Amendment, there are very few if any laws that have ever been enacted that have been taken away. Some might call this a “slippery slope” argument, but if you know history, you can see countless situations where the government restricted firearms and then turned around and committed mass atrocities.
These are your rights. Your kids’ rights. The shooter was stopped by a good man with a gun, something that is not mentioned often. Nor do they mention the same day an armed woman saved hundreds at a graduation party by shooting and killing a would-be shooter who had a gun illegally….she did so likely with a 9mm.
Author: Ian Bolser