Diana Degette explanation on why a ban for high capacity mags

[kanekutter05]

http://degette.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1223:degette-and-mccarthy-call-for-congress-to-ban-high-capacity-magazines&catid=76:press-releases-&Itemid=227

Boy that about says it all doesnt it? All I can say is vote at the polls and with your wallets folks.

[MOD: I'm gonna quote the text of the article here for folks and explain to those (like me) who don't/didn't know that Diana Degette is a U.S. Representative from CO and the "Chief Deputy Whip / Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Ranking Member / representing 1st District of Colorado"]

DEGETTE AND MCCARTHY CALL FOR CONGRESS TO BAN HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES
Advocate for Reasonable Step to Stop Terrible Shootings from Becoming Mass Casualties
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) today joined with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) and Senators Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Robert Menendez (NJ) to call on Congress to pass a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips. In last week’s horrific theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado, the gunman entered the theater with multiple weapons, including an AR-15 semiautomatic weapon, with a 100-round magazine. Reports indicate that the gunman was able to shoot 71 people in only a couple of minutes.

Beginning when she first arrived in Congress 16 years ago, Rep. DeGette has led the charge on introducing bills on multiple occasions that would ban these high-capacity clips, beginning with the bill’s first introduction in 1998. In this Congress, DeGette and McCarthy have once again introduced a similar bill, H.R.308, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, to ban high-capacity magazines. Sens. Lautenberg and Menendez have introduced similar legislation in the U.S. Senate. Today’s press conference focused on calling for action on this bill, particularly in light of the mass casualty in Aurora.

Rep. DeGette’s remarks are as follows:
“First of all, on behalf of the citizens of Colorado, I’d like to express our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support our community has received from across the nation, since the horrible events of early last Friday morning.

“In addition to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez, I’m particularly pleased to be here today with Representative Carolyn McCarthy. She and I came together to Congress in 1996, and we immediately began working together to introduce our first bill to ban the use of high capacity magazines. Yet here we are, 16 years later, and in the wake of another violent tragedy, it’s impossible to understand why an ordinary citizen can get a hold of a high-capacity magazine that can fire 100 rounds in 90 seconds.

“The senseless violence of last week’s theater shooting in Aurora has affected people from all over the Denver-area community, and, as days pass, we keep finding out just how close it came to so many of us. My 18 year old daughter has a friend that was in the theater just next door; and a friend of our family lost her nephew in the tragedy. Three of the deceased gunned down last week – including little six-year-old Veronica Moser – lived in my district and were part of the community I have the privilege of representing. And the heartbreaking stories go on and on. So today, I join with hundreds of thousands of families in simply saying, enough is enough.

“Our same community went through the horrific experience of Columbine back in 1999. Since then our nation has suffered through Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and of course the shooting of our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords last year, just to name a few. In every case, in the days following the violence, while everyone grieves and mourns the great losses, we hear the same tired, stale arguments from pundits on both sides of the aisle: ‘Gun control is off the table…’ ‘It’s a nonstarter’… ‘there’s no political will to do it.’ Well I think all of us standing here today refuse to accept that.

“Yes, the second amendment grants Americans the right to own a gun. But the second amendment does NOT grant people the right to walk into a theater with a high-capacity ammunition clip and kill or maim scores of their fellow Americans.

“So today I call on Congress and our nation to finally have that conversation. The conversation that finally recognizes that it’s not about banning all guns; it’s not about taking people’s guns away; it’s about taking reasonable steps that will stop people from having guns only designed to kill many, many, people in a short period of time.

“Some of those on the other side of the aisle have been proclaiming that you are never going to be able to completely stop someone from taking a weapon into a theater or a school or a mall, or any other public place, and start shooting innocent citizens. That may very well be true – but I’ll tell you something – we might not be able to stop that person from bringing in a weapon, but we sure as heck can stop that person from being able to shoot 71 people out of 200 in just a couple of minutes.

“Many others are also saying – just like they always do – that if someone in the theater had a gun, they could have shot the gunman. To the people who say that, I would say that, first of all, Colorado has a concealed carry statute – so it’s possible someone did have a gun in that theater. But when you have a situation with a darkened, crowded, theater; a gunman who unleashes tear gas into the crowd; who is covered in virtually head-to-toe bulletproof protection; and shooting a semiautomatic weapon with a 100-round clip… the notion that someone is going to pull out a gun and be able to shoot this man is completely ridiculous.

“Since Rep. McCarthy and I have been in Congress, we’ve had 23 moments of silence on the Floor of the House for victims of gun violence. Let me say that again – 23 moments of silence. And we’ll have another one later today for the Aurora theater massacre. How many more moments of silence do we have to have? How many more prayer vigils do we have to go to? How many more memorial services and funerals must we attend? The time has come to end the same old conversations and instead, come together to stop terrible shootings from becoming mass casualties.


“I understand the Second Amendment. I believe in the Second Amendment. But we have a duty – every single Member of Congress has a duty – to protect every American man, woman and child from the horrific massacres we experienced in Aurora last week.”

[Ronin13]

Holy crap! I didn't know that! A magazine that can fire 100 rounds in 90 seconds!? We do need ban these- I don't think my evil black Glock can fire as fast as that magazine can! [Bang]
What a stupid twit! Ban guns that can kill many many people in a short amount of time? Any gun is capable of that- well except for muzzle loaders, but it's in the hands of the person willing to kill, so does that mean we should ban garden tools too? Because in an evil person's hands they could use hedge clippers to kill many many people. [Mad]

[colorider]

The "clip" jammed up the gun and stopped his shooting. They should be praising the 100 round clip.

[airborneranger]

The "clip" jammed up the gun and stopped his shooting. They should be praising the 100 round clip.

I noticed the same thing. If you are going to ban something, then you need to know what you are talking about.

[Scanker19]

Are they just going to ignore the bombs? Had this been a Muslim he'd be on his way to GITMO or Area 51.

Timothy McVey was personally responsible for killing 168 people in 1995, because he didn't use guns. No talk of banning bombs or Ryder trucks, yet in Aurora it was the inanimate object that did the killing.

I was going to call her, but I'm on enough lists as it is.

[SuperiorDG]

This has me wondering. They say he first used a 870 shotgun. If he fired 7 rounds through it and was using 00 buck then that right there is 63 9mm pellets. I wonder how many people shoot were hit by these rounds? He also transitioned to the S&W .40 after the AR jammed. How many of these rounds caused hits? It could very well be that these two guns were more destructive then the AR and it's 100 round mag. Just wondering. It will be intrusting to see the police report and see what really was the cause of the most damage.

[dwalker460]

It was a Glock .40 :)


You have to be careful with the magazine limit thing, as what it really is is a distraction to avert attention from thier true agenda, and is one of those things that a "reasonable" person sits back and says, "yeah I cant see how that would hurt anything to ban those" and just goes along with it, not realizing they open the door to further and further sanctions.

[Whistler]

There is a link (http://www.house.gov/formdegette/legist-contact-form.shtml) on that same site to contact Ms. DeGette and communicate your thoughts on her position as I suspect she doesn't frequent this forum.

[SuperiorDG]

It was a Glock .40 :) It was a Glock 22 shooting a S&W.40 round.[Beer]

[Bitter Clinger]

I just threw up in my mouth......what a dumb bitch.

[Monky]

It was a Glock .40 :)




Only professionals carry a Glock .40.

[dwalker460]

Only professionals carry a Glock .40.

Thats right, its a High Power Police Pistol right? Need to get all this new terminology down before I embarass myself

[Rucker61]

This has me wondering. They say he first used a 870 shotgun. If he fired 7 rounds through it and was using 00 buck then that right there is 63 9mm pellets. I wonder how many people shoot were hit by these rounds? He also transitioned to the S&W .40 after the AR jammed. How many of these rounds caused hits? It could very well be that these two guns were more destructive then the AR and it's 100 round mag. Just wondering. It will be intrusting to see the police report and see what really was the cause of the most damage.

I saw in the Denver post that one victim, who lived, was hit by all three weapons.

[T-Jet]

What 'head to toe protection' did he have on? From what I've heard it was a load bearing rig.

[HoneyBadger]

“Yes, the second amendment grants Americans the right to own a gun. But the second amendment does NOT grant people the right to walk into a theater with a high-capacity ammunition clip and kill or maim scores of their fellow Americans."

Don't we already have laws prohibiting this type of behavior?

[kanekutter05]

What 'head to toe protection' did he have on? From what I've heard it was a load bearing rig.

Exactly...misinformation abound. Just like her assumption that "the notion that someone is going to pull out a gun and be able to shoot this man is completely ridiculous" is itself completely ridiculous.

[Rucker61]

I just sent this:

"Ms DeGette,
I'm not an owner of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic military style weapon, but I used to be. I'm a military veteran and an active shooter, and tend to vote Democratic about 99% of the time. I, like other gun owners, are as equally horrified by the tragedy in Aurora as you are, but I'd like to address your recent statement with regards to high-capacity magazines. I didn't own one when I was an AR-15 owner, mainly due to cost: the magazine itself is expensive and it would encourage me to shoot more ammo at my paper targets, and ammo is expensive. However, I don't feel that banning a magazine based on size is going to get you to the goal you evidently seek, of making the public safer.
The military uses standard 30 round magazines in their selective fire weapons, and if the 100 round magazines were more "dangerous", don't you think they would use them? Sure, the government might not pay for them, but our individual soldiers has a strong sense of self-preservation and have shown that they don't mind spending their own money in that goal.
Secondly, many of the victims were killed or wounded by the shooter's other two weapons, neither of which held more than 17 rounds. Without knowing the full details of which weapons inflicted what damage, I think you're being a bit dishonest in pointing out the high-capacity magazine as the chief enabler. When more details are forthcoming, try to validate with an expert the difference in suffering we would have seen between the actual weapons and magazines used compared to the buckshot-laden shotgun, an AR with say 3 30 round magazines and the .40 cal Glock pistol. I'll bet that you'll find very little difference, and in fact a true expert will likely find that less suffering was inflicted by the shooter using the 100rd magazine than could have been, as it jammed during the shooting, as they are known for doing.
Lastly, your expert will likely tell you that most murders and assaults in this country are caused by criminals using illegal handguns, most of which hold between 6 and 17 cartridges. Why don't you focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals if maximizing public safety is your goal? Eliminating high capacity magazines has been shown in the past to have no discernible effect on crime, and since any law that might pass will in all probability have a grandfather clause, what really will you have accomplished?"

[flan7211]

Are we really going to allow them to install another AWB or mag ban? What could we do to stop them?

[jake]

It was a Glock .40 :)


You have to be careful with the magazine limit thing, as what it really is is a distraction to avert attention from thier true agenda, and is one of those things that a "reasonable" person sits back and says, "yeah I cant see how that would hurt anything to ban those" and just goes along with it, not realizing they open the door to further and further sanctions.
I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

[Whistler]

Hypocrisy. She would have you believe the BG is capable of wreaking havoc unmolested despite limited mobility and visibility but an armed law-abiding citizen is incapable of any effective counter-action. As a representative from Colorado you would think she would be aware the site of this tragedy was posted as a "gun-free" zone and that if "someone" "possibly had a gun" they would be in violation of ineffective laws already on the books.


Many others are also saying – just like they always do – that if someone in the theater had a gun, they could have shot the gunman. To the people who say that, I would say that, first of all, Colorado has a concealed carry statute – so it’s possible someone did have a gun in that theater.

[brianut]

Absurd to think a ban will stop someone intent on doing harm.

Maybe we need more signage that states no firearms are allowed, it was obvious he didn't see the sign, otherwise he would have gone somewhere else so he wouldn't be breaking the rules/law.

On a related note, when we write to these polititians and give them our opinions and stress that we will use our voting right to speak loudly, do they even see these? Do they even care?

as an example I work at a medical facility and you as a patient have the ability to "email your doctor" the docs typically never see that, it all gets filtered by a nurse or admin type person with nursing background.

I would have to assume nobody even see's them, they probably go straight to a trash file.

[flan7211]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

Understanding its still sarcasm.

Never! Its all or nothing from here for us. Gun owners have been violated enough. They won't trade favors. Give these mice a cookie and we'll wind up with nothing. These military guns do have a purpose to protect the people from these morons. One person is to blame James Holmes. Blame and punish him. I will not be giving up anything.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

Arm more citizen and allow them to be armed in public places - that will prevent massacre of unarmed citizen. All of massacre occurred in gun free zone.

And it's a magazine, dweeb!!!

[jake]

Arm more citizen and allow them to be armed in public places - that will prevent massacre of unarmed citizen. All of massacre occurred in gun free zone.

And it's a magazine, dweeb!!!
Hmm, I wonder if that was the joke!

[airborneranger]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

Sarcasm - I like it. [Beer]

[kanekutter05]

I just sent this:

"Ms DeGette,
I'm not an owner of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic military style weapon, but I used to be. I'm a military veteran and an active shooter, and tend to vote Democratic about 99% of the time. I, like other gun owners, are as equally horrified by the tragedy in Aurora as you are, but I'd like to address your recent statement with regards to high-capacity magazines. I didn't own one when I was an AR-15 owner, mainly due to cost: the magazine itself is expensive and it would encourage me to shoot more ammo at my paper targets, and ammo is expensive. However, I don't feel that banning a magazine based on size is going to get you to the goal you evidently seek, of making the public safer.
The military uses standard 30 round magazines in their selective fire weapons, and if the 100 round magazines were more "dangerous", don't you think they would use them? Sure, the government might not pay for them, but our individual soldiers has a strong sense of self-preservation and have shown that they don't mind spending their own money in that goal.
Secondly, many of the victims were killed or wounded by the shooter's other two weapons, neither of which held more than 17 rounds. Without knowing the full details of which weapons inflicted what damage, I think you're being a bit dishonest in pointing out the high-capacity magazine as the chief enabler. When more details are forthcoming, try to validate with an expert the difference in suffering we would have seen between the actual weapons and magazines used compared to the buckshot-laden shotgun, an AR with say 3 30 round magazines and the .40 cal Glock pistol. I'll bet that you'll find very little difference, and in fact a true expert will likely find that less suffering was inflicted by the shooter using the 100rd magazine than could have been, as it jammed during the shooting, as they are known for doing.
Lastly, your expert will likely tell you that most murders and assaults in this country are caused by criminals using illegal handguns, most of which hold between 6 and 17 cartridges. Why don't you focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals if maximizing public safety is your goal? Eliminating high capacity magazines has been shown in the past to have no discernible effect on crime, and since any law that might pass will in all probability have a grandfather clause, what really will you have accomplished?"

Can I email her and go "Yeah...what that guy said +1"?

[Whistler]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

No compromise. In every documented historical case so-called "common sense" restrictions to gun ownership ultimately result in gun confiscation and a virtually complete ban on firearms as well as elimination of self-defense as justification for firearm ownership resulting in substantial increases in violent crime.

"This is America, that can't happen here. All we are saying is let's use common sense to keep our children safe!"

Ask the Brits or the Australians or Mexico and numerous other countries how those "common sense" gun laws worked out for them.

[Ronin13]

We need to get this asshole out of office:

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.
Never have I wanted to see someone out of a job so badly in my entire life, and I've had some pretty terrible fellow employees in the last 13 years of my life that I've been employed.

[10mm-man]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

UMMMM....NO!

[kanekutter05]

We need to get this asshole out of office:

Never have I wanted to see someone out of a job so badly in my entire life, and I've had some pretty terrible fellow employees in the last 13 years of my life that I've been employed.

Hahahahaha...I had no idea that Barack Hussein translated to "fuckface" in english[ROFL3]

[Irving]

Even though I shouldn't be, I am astounded, amazed, astonished (Sexy Beast) at the complete lack of logic involved here. Obviously, the rate of fire, and capacity are unrelated to each other, yet even the dem guy's email does not even bring up the specific, and simple way that she is wrong.

[Byte Stryke]

In light of your decision to place blame squarely on the weapons used, might I remind you that criminals and those with evil intent have absolutely no regard to whatever laws you might pass. This is evident by the fact that both Murder and felony assault are illegal in Colorado, Suspect did them anyway.
My Adult Son was in that theater as well, this wasn't a "friend of a friend", this is Flesh and Blood that has trained with Members of the Littleton police department, And your legislation Disarmed him and Forced him to be a Victim. Anti-gun and Gun Control legislation only works to disarm those that are disinclined to break the laws leaving them at the mercy of those that are not. This is evident by the fact that all of these mass shooting sprees occur in "Gun Free zones".
I will be voting against everyone using this crime to further their political careers and everyone that wishes to impose their Utopian views on my family.We live in a world where it takes police almost 4 minutes to respond from the Lobby and the carnage was over in less than 2.

[HoneyBadger]

I just sent her this:



Rep. DeGette,

I am thankful that you came forward to speak about the tragic murders at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora last week. I agree that there are some legislative changes that should be made, such as allowing Colorado residents to protect themselves with a concealed weapon without needing a permit and lengthy investigation which does nothing to curtail crime, however I find it very unnerving how little you know about the legislation you call for.

First things first: You wrote in your statement “Yes, the second amendment grants Americans the right to own a gun. But the second amendment does NOT grant people the right to walk into a theater with a high-capacity ammunition clip and kill or maim scores of their fellow Americans." Do we not already have laws that prohibit murder? Assault? Those laws are very effective at stopping murderers and assaulters, aren't they? I'm sure they made Mr. Holmes reconsider his actions.

Or perhaps he just missed the sign at the entrance to the theater that advertised it as a "gun free zone". Maybe the correct solution is to pass legislation that would force any business who wants to create a gun free zone to post the signs on their emergency exits as well. This could have prevented the whole incident, right? Please try to understand that legislation only restricts upstanding Americans who follow the law to begin with. Someone intent on a heinous crime is certainly not going to abide by a law restricting the sale or use of a larger capacity magazine.

Credibility. Let’s talk about credibility. You talk a lot about the “100 round clip.” I have never seen or heard of a clip that holds 100 rounds. Perhaps you were referencing a magazine that can hold 100 rounds, but either way, your terminology is incorrect and really diminishes your credibility. Furthermore, in your counter-argument to the possibility of an armed citizen carrying a concealed weapon for their defense, you stated that Mr. Holmes, the alleged murderer, assaulted the theater with tear gas and was wearing “head to toe bulletproof protection”. While there was initially a great deal of confusion about both of these elements, there is little to no evidence that he either had tear gas, nor “head to toe bulletproof protection”. If you have evidence to the contrary that is admissible in court, I would love to hear about it so I can stop spreading misinformation the way you do.

You close your statement by reassuring Americans everywhere that you believe in the second amendment, but quickly reverse course to say that it is personally your duty to protect every American from being massacred. Where were you when Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City? What about the Virginia Tech murders when Seung Hui Cho murdered 32 people and wounded 17 more with two handguns? Were those “assault handguns”? Our ancient ancestors used to kill each other with rocks. Were those “assault rocks”? I hope you see my point. You have committed a basic logical flaw by placing the blame for this horrific massacre on an inanimate object, instead of the person who committed the murderous act. Magazines, regardless of their size, are no more guilty of murder than gasoline is guilty of arson or computers are guilty of hacking. If you were correct on this, then we should limit the amount of gas a person is legally allowed to carry in their vehicle at once, since cars are responsible for so many deaths annually and cars with large gas tanks are even more deadly.

Ma’am, although we may not agree on your poor attempt at policy change, everyone can certainly agree on two things. One, you do not know what you are talking about and you are trying to create legislation that will harm the liberty of every American. Two, you will not be receiving my support and the support of many liberty-loving Americans, come the next election cycle.
I would appreciate a response via the email address I left for you.

Respectfully yours,

David Anonymous
Registered voter

My writing skills aren't the best, so please give me some feedback folks!

[kanekutter05]

I'm glad there are such well spoken people such as HoneyBadger and Rucker. I started to write a letter to Degette...but I think I used the term "dumb bitch" a few too many times. I decided I better cool off for a bit :)

[Rucker61]

I just sent her this:




My writing skills aren't the best, so please give me some feedback folks!

I think you did a wonderful job. I especially liked your "stop spreading misinformation" comment. Very nice turn of phrase.

[battle_sight_zero]

Feedback, you did a great job. Now instead of a magazine and so called evil rifle ban how about using the laws we have on the book. I also suspect that CU knew about Holmes and his potential danger to the public. They are sure circling the wagons. What about the notebook? Was it really sitting in the mail room since July 12 th a full 8 days before the shooting? I also read somewhere that Holmes had 2 roommates living with him up until May- June. How about a law that holds Government accountable when they don't invetigate suspicious actions activity that eventually hurts someone. Quite frankly I belive Diane and the other politicians need to wait to see how and why this happened.

[tmckay2]

Well even though it goes against my basic principles I would actually consider limiting magazines to 20 rounds if they take all the restrictions ad tax stamps away associated with suppressors and sbrs. When's the last time you heard of those being used in a crime? Plus the 20 rounders would save me money on ammo.

[battle_sight_zero]

Well even though it goes against my basic principles I would actually consider limiting magazines to 20 rounds if they take all the restrictions ad tax stamps away associated with suppressors and sbrs. When's the last time you heard of those being used in a crime? Plus the 20 rounders would save me money on ammo.

I personally appreciate your thoughts, but enough is enough. No comprimise. You notice how all these political clowns say hunters dont need that and this? That came from 1994 ban when gun rights were based on the needs of hunters. Well i am Hunter but i also enjoy shooting sports which requires other rifles. Personally a line is drawn in the sand for me and that is that we have existing criminal laws that should be used to hold criminals accountable , please use those laws. Give politicians and inch they will take a mile. That 20 round mag will soon be eliminated to where we are loading our AR rifles like bolt rifles because the 10 or even 5 round mag has to be permanently attached to the lower. I don't want to be like California people who allowed the line to be crossed.

[Rucker61]

Well even though it goes against my basic principles I would actually consider limiting magazines to 20 rounds if they take all the restrictions ad tax stamps away associated with suppressors and sbrs. When's the last time you heard of those being used in a crime? Plus the 20 rounders would save me money on ammo.

If you can afford suppressors and SBRs, you don't need to rob anyone. What if you could only buy large capacity mags in a storefront, not via online sales?

[flan7211]

If you can afford suppressors and SBRs, you don't need to rob anyone. What if you could only buy large capacity mags in a storefront, not via online sales?

No damnit, not one more curb of our rights. This is not about what can be used in a crime, or hunters, or anything other than the principles of our constitution. We are a people based on popular sovereignty do not take away any of the their insurance against tyranny.

[68Charger]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

Sure, you can limit my "clips" to 10 rounds, as long as the legislation clearly defines a "clip" correctly, and that definition does NOT include magazines...[ROFL1]

[revor]

She needs to learn the difference between clips and magazines

[Rucker61]

No damnit, not one more curb of our rights. This is not about what can be used in a crime, or hunters, or anything other than the principles of our constitution. We are a people based on popular sovereignty do not take away any of the their insurance against tyranny.

How would a requirement that certain products be purchased face to face rather than online be a curb of rights? Let's assume no paperwork is required. I don't actually consider this to be a solution that would work, but the right to shop on the Internet isn't a constitutional one.

[flan7211]

How would a requirement that certain products be purchased face to face rather than online be a curb of rights? Let's assume no paperwork is required. I don't actually consider this to be a solution that would work, but the right to shop on the Internet isn't a constitutional one.

Ok how about the limit on online sales is a true violation of the interstate commerce clause? Interstate commerce meant regulating states ability to put duties and tariffs on each other not regulate consumer goods just because they cross state lines.

Storefront you are forced to pay taxes while online you don't. Storefront faggot will upcharge it making it more expensive. So they can funnel our freedoms into nice little avenues that can be easily shut down later.

[kanekutter05]

If you can afford suppressors and SBRs, you don't need to rob anyone. What if you could only buy large capacity mags in a storefront, not via online sales?

But would you have to go through a background check in order to get one?

[jake]

Sure, you can limit my "clips" to 10 rounds, as long as the legislation clearly defines a "clip" correctly, and that definition does NOT include magazines...[ROFL1]
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110920014257/creepypasta/images/1/13/Thats_the_joke.jpg

[Byte Stryke]

If you can afford suppressors and SBRs, you don't need to rob anyone. What if you could only buy large capacity mags in a storefront, not via online sales?

Storefronts like "firing line" already jack the prices to almost double the online cost.

why is the elimination of a free market a good idea again?

[hatidua]

Getting hung up on the distinction between magazine and clip, and the fact that the media uses them interchangeably is a distraction. They want the overall capacity of a given firearm reduced, the wording they use is somewhat irrelevant to all but a few folk that are semantically obsessed or trying to drive up their post count.

[Wiggity]

Getting hung up on the distinction between magazine and clip, and the fact that the media uses them interchangeably is a distraction. They want the overall capacity of a given firearm reduced, the wording they use is somewhat irrelevant to all but a few folk that are semantically obsessed or trying to drive up their post count.


this is true, if a bill is passed, the lawyers who write it will not overlook that small detail

[Ridge]

I posted on her Facebook wall


Ms DeGette, what do you plan to do to curtail dangerous drivers on the road? I'd like to ask you to consider a ban on high capacity fuel tanks. With today's modern fuel efficiency, there is no need for people to be able to travel hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas.

[Irving]

Tmckay, your suggestion would only serve to spotlight the legality of sbr, sbs, supressors, and machine guns; which have NEVER been illegal. Even during the 1994 AWB, "assault" weapons weren't illegal. That's how far below the radar they are.

[speedysst]

We need to get this asshole out of office:

Never have I wanted to see someone out of a job so badly in my entire life, and I've had some pretty terrible fellow employees in the last 13 years of my life that I've been employed.

I strongly agree that AK-47s should NOT be in the hands of criminals! I, however, am NOT a criminal, thus, I will be keeping mine. I thought we had rules forbidding CRIMINALS from possessing firearms. What? Criminals would dare to break the law?

[Prometheus]

I am tired of hearing that they believe in the second amendment but we should limit our guns by hunting standards, the second amendment was instituted to protect our freedoms and liberty, who cares what is suitable for hunters, its a different subject.

[Rucker61]

Ok how about the limit on online sales is a true violation of the interstate commerce clause? Interstate commerce meant regulating states ability to put duties and tariffs on each other not regulate consumer goods just because they cross state lines.



Interesting point on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Other than firearms, are there any other goods that can't be directly mail-ordered?




Storefront you are forced to pay taxes while online you don't. Storefront faggot will upcharge it making it more expensive. So they can funnel our freedoms into nice little avenues that can be easily shut down later.

I understand why you might find online purchases more attractive, but it's just as easy to shut down online purchasing of goods as it is to shutdown a storefront.

[Tweety Bird]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)
Count me OUT! Every time we say YES to them, it encourages them to continue this witch hunt.

[Caithford]

Interesting point on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Other than firearms, are there any other goods that can't be directly mail-ordered?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. However, technically, you're supposed to pay "use tax" on anything you buy online when you file your income taxes in the beginning of the year. That means paying 2.7% to the state for everything you bought online from an out of state retailer, and possibly paying the 3-5% to your city (depending on the county). I think most of Jeffco is safe, but I haven't checked in a while.

Back on topic, I also sent in feedback and said something to the effect of "you're wrong." To be honest, I think a death toll of less than 25% is a good thing. I shudder when I think of what the asshat could have done had he decided to throw some Molotov cocktails into the mix of people just sitting there in the seats. Not only would the death rate have been higher, but more than likely the grievous injury rate would have been greater as well.

Not to mention the fact he could have more severely damaged the theatre in the process.

Either way, guns are a tool like any other. There's no restrictions on the manufacture of knives or hammers... there shouldn't be on firearms either. It would be nice if some of our fucktard legislators would do more than watch "Commando" and learn how firearms actually work. Watch a USPSA match, and see how much fun the competitors have, and do so safely.

But no, the "majority of firearms owners will agree" with her. My ass.

[Tweety Bird]

How would a requirement that certain products be purchased face to face rather than online be a curb of rights? Let's assume no paperwork is required. I don't actually consider this to be a solution that would work, but the right to shop on the Internet isn't a constitutional one.
It's a difference without a distinction in my mind.

What would requiring face-to-face purchases do to prevent this non-problem? Would you require the mag purchase to be handled by a FFL holder?

I don't understand the logic.

[DD977GM2]

I emailed her my concern for her relelection and my desire to campaign against her and for her opponent
if she persues any kind of firearm or firearm related legistlation restricting our right. [Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]

[Ridge]

I think the time has come for us to be reasonable too. Surely we can come to some kind of compromise here, after all we all condemn these kind of massacres and want to do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again.

I would be all in favour of agreeing to limit high capacity clips to say, ten rounds maximum, if they would agree to allow us to keep our 'assault rifles' and 'AK47s' and barrel shrouds. Who's with me?

;)

I'm in favor of keeping criminals away from guns. How about that?

[Rucker61]

It's a difference without a distinction in my mind.

What would requiring face-to-face purchases do to prevent this non-problem? Would you require the mag purchase to be handled by a FFL holder?

I don't understand the logic.

I'm not saying it's necessary logical. I was just wondering about the middle ground, if a compromised proved necessary, between the folks that want to ban the sale of high capacity mags entirely and those of us who think that's it's a total non-issue. I'm really not seeing the level of hysteria out there that I expected, and I'm hoping that really does mean "no new laws".

[Irving]

You don't need to compromise on non-issues. Compromising only legitimizes the non-issue.

[jake]

I thought the reference to barrel shrouds would clue most of you in. I thought the safety wink would finish the job. I even dragged out Rainier Wolfcastle for you all.

Tsk tsk, CO-AR15.

[Aloha_Shooter]

She's too stupid to get it but ...


I just read your misinformed knee-jerk call for a ban on high capacity magazines. It fits in with your anti-Second Amendment views but as usual doesn't conform to reality. Instead of making more laws that don't work, why don't you, Lautenberg and Schumer work toward putting some teeth in the laws that do? We'd be much better off dissuading these miscreants by not letting them predict that an entire closed room of people are weaponless targets.

The problem in this case was a sad deluded individual who could easily have switched to a fire bomb or truck bomb that would have created even more casualties. Instead of harassing legal gun owners, you should be calling for more opportunities for people to train and equip themselves to defend themselves instead of resorting to being innocent targets.

[cstone]

Is it nit picking to mention that the 2nd Amendment does not grant citizens the right to own guns?

The 2A prohibits the government from infringing on a right that all people are born with. I do not need any laws to protect my right. I only expect the government to abide by the laws that gave the government it's purpose for existence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/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.

[flan7211]

Is it nit picking to mention that the 2nd Amendment does not grant citizens the right to own guns?

The 2A prohibits the government from infringing on a right that all people are born with. I do not need any laws to protect my right. I only expect the government to abide by the laws that gave the government it's purpose for existence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/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.


Hear, Hear! No need for any other discussion.

[theGinsue]

Hmm, I wonder if that was the joke!

Next time you need to use the special sarcasm font to remove any question of your meaning. <JK>



Hear, Hear! No need for any other discussion.
Agreed. Well stated cstone.

[HoneyBadger]

Here's the email response I got: (just a canned response of course...)

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting my office via e-mail. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

As a Congressional courtesy, I can only respond to residents of the First District of Colorado. Based on the address you provided, you live in another Congressional district. You may use the following link to find your U.S. Representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Sincerely,

Diana DeGette
Member of Congress

Should I resend it with an 1st district address and see what happens?


hmmmmmmmm....

[Ronin13]

I'm going to put this simply and plainly, in the words of Tommy Lee Jones from the Fugitive "I... Don't... Bargain!" No compromise! Let me put that in terms you all can understand:
NO COMPROMISE!
These democrats don't understand give and take, they only understand take. You give them any bit of our 2a rights and they'll start going for more and more and more until there's a big whited out section between the 1st and 3rd amendments.

[sturn18]

The link that DeGette's office sent back is kind of a mess. It shows who your current representatives are, but with CO redistricting for this election a lot of us will be voting for or against an incumbent who has never been in our district before.

Coffman has been my Rep until this election, now I get to vote against DeGette. I wonder if I would get the same canned response.

[HoneyBadger]

The link that DeGette's office sent back is kind of a mess. It shows who your current representatives are, but with CO redistricting for this election a lot of us will be voting for or against an incumbent who has never been in our district before.

Coffman has been my Rep until this election, now I get to vote against DeGette. I wonder if I would get the same canned response.

Either way, vote against DeGette [Beer]