Diana Degette explanation on why a ban for high capacity mags

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flan7211

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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.

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jake

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tweety Bird

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".