Why deny large-capacity firearm magazines to collectors?

In response to Herald columnist Tom Burke’s recent commentaries (“A gun guy’s take on rights, response to shootings,” The Herald, Sept. 2 and 9):

Burke’s “interest in historical guns” doesn’t mean he has any skin in the game, any more than a fly fisherman cares little about restrictions or prohibitions placed on bait fisherman, their boat size, or the kind of motor, and where, particularly in a state that has laid claim to, all rights and regulatory authority over, all the waters “within the state.”

And while those decisions aren’t his to make, I’m certain he’d have an opinion, especially since it won’t effect him directly. See the parallel?

He says he’s a collector of “historical” firearms and see no need for owning a 100-round drum magazine. Sometimes it’s not about a need, it’s a want, the “cool” factor. Like, the guy might be a collector, like. How many of the mass shootings and suicides you allude to were perpetrated with a 100-round drum magazine and how many lives will be saved if they’re confiscated and banned?

Certainly someone’s done the research that determined they’re such a menace to society as to be listed as a WMD? Following your line of logic to its conclusion; you advocate confiscation and the outlawing of future ownership to those serious private collectors of military items and other citizens that might like to own one for no other reason than to say they own one.

Yet public museums, law enforcement and private security (for the famous, wealthy, etc.), would be exempt, I’m guessing? Sadly, I don’t have the forum to respond to the other rhetoric, issues and solutions of your commentary, but your focus, well meaning as it may be is one reason I’m thankful our founders gave us the Constitution, it’s amendments and the Bill of Rights.

Rich Needham

Everett