That did not take long. You know the 2nd was created for hunters. Hunters don't need high cap mags. Sarcasm of course
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...security-bill/
Printable View
That did not take long. You know the 2nd was created for hunters. Hunters don't need high cap mags. Sarcasm of course
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...security-bill/
Yep, writing my senators now.
Also, S.3414 creates a new DHS linked government bureaucracy to regulate the internet ... at the expense of our privacy and liberty of course.
So maybe this amendment will get two birds knocked out with one stone.
Underhanded, sneaky, traitorous...
Obligatory mails sent to elected officials.
This is not something to be quietly hidden in the pages of an unrelated bill and surreptitiously adopted in the dark of night. Despite the widely held belief of many of our elected representatives, the Federal Government exists for The People. Subsequently I appeal to your sense of honesty and fair play to do the right thing and either force this insidious deceit to brave the light of public scrutiny or better decried by the just sons of Liberty for it's chicanery.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Kind regards,
W. ********
When does this come up for a vote?
Letters sent to both. Mine were not nearly so eloquent as Whistler's.
It has come to my attention that legislation which would place restrictions on the sale, manufacture, and possession of "high-capacity" magazines has been proposed as an amendment to a pending cyber-security bill.
I oppose legislation which would place restrictions on magazines of any capacity, and will not support legislators who would back such legislation.
Sincerely,
Jason ********
Do we have an amendment number for this. I'm seeing two different ones.
Does it really matter if the Senate does manage to pass this? The house will never approve it.
Does it matter that a large number of the nation's elected representatives would pass legislation of this type? I think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waywardson174
MF's! God, I want the pimp hand for them Dems right now!
I'm going to put this plainly and simply- Stripper clips don't work with 10 round magazines! I buy most of my ammo for my AR as M855 5.56mm ball rounds from Federal. They come in an ammo can on stripper clips with the loading tool and it makes for loading my mags 100x faster and easier... if this goes through what happens if one of my PMAGs breaks? What if I want more? Fuck you stupid dems and your false thinking that this will fix anything.
You know what would be nice, a law that says you can't add unrelated legislation to a bill whos topic has nothing to do with bill's primary focus.
Sentence would be life living next to a gun range, to watch the horror of freedom lovin fools having fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazin
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like possession of a mag that can hold more than 10 rounds is illegal, not just the transfer.
did you guys see that shit?! 10 years for selling a freakin' magazine! AND my dumb ass brought my pmags to the stan with me, since we weren't going to be issued any, and I just read the part in there about not being able to bring mags into the states. Fuck me and the money I spent, right?
I'm with you on this 100%. I don't know how we've allowed such an under-handed practice to persist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazin
That's exactly how it reads. It places restrictions on the transfer, possession, import, and manufacture (requires serial numbers for new mags) for anyone except government organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
The mags you own before the bill is passed would be grandfathered in.
I sent to both as well, took me less than 3 minutes! [Rant1]
................wankers!
The cyber bill is a shitstorm to begin with. Add this and it is a veritable typhoon of diarrhea. Apparently they think they can accomplish more by lumping assaults on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights together...
Sent to all appropriate reps:
Quote:
Good Day,
It has come to my attention that a rider to the pending cybersecurity bill has been added to restrict the possession, sale, and manufacture of magazines for semiautomatic firearms that hold more than 10 rounds. While I am against the initial bill as a poorly written piece of legislation that will egregiously abridge our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the addition of this backdoor gun control measure is unconscionable. Magazine restrictions historically have had no effect on crime rates, and only affect those that abide by the law in the first place. Instead of placing onerous and unconstitutional burdens on law abiding gun enthusiasts, more effort should be concentrated on enforcement of the thousands of gun laws already on the books. Attempting to sidestep the legitimate legislative process on an issue that affects tens of millions of law abiding gun owners is reprehensible at best, and I respectfully request that you express your vigorous opposition.
Sent today:
Good morning Mr Bennett,
Current events in Colorado has caused quite the uproar in the political scene.
While the event of late is most assuredly a tragedy what is almost as tragic is the pathetic knee jerk reaction of our elected officials, media and public figures.
Do the above realize the ignorance and immaturity of placing blame of of a deranged individual on an inanimate object(s)? The voting public certainly do.
The firearms and or magazines DID NOT commit this heinous act, rather a very sick individual did.
As an enthusiast of the shooting sports I take an extremely dim view of any individual or organization who endorses or attempts to further infringe on the Rights of lawful firearms owners.
When a tragic incident such as Aurora, Virginia Tech or Columbine occurs the first reaction is to blame an object, impose new laws and regulations in an attempt to change human behaviors.
FAIL!
All what is accomplished when such regulations are imposed is further infringing upon individuals that did not commit a crime.
These people vote Mr Bennett.
And they remember.
Now I see that an attempt to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is being attached to a "Cybersecurity Bill".
I do not support politics as this, sneaking additional riders is reprehensible and underhanded.
I strongly urge you NOT to support such a bill. If we are to have a discussion regarding firearms and the issues that surround potential further restrictions then have the courage to stand before your constituents and have the discussion.
Along the same note, the United States is currently in discussion with the United Nations regarding international trade in small arms. This treaty has the potential to cause irreparable damage to the rights of lawful firearms owners within the United States.
Let me remind you Mr Bennett, the United States is a sovereign nation.
A sovereign nation with a Constitution.
A Constitution that you, as an elected official swore an oath to uphold.
Any endorsement of the above named treaty is a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States.
This borders on treason Mr Bennett. I believe the overwhelming majority of your constituents and citizens of the United States would view upon your endorsement of the above treaty and any other attempt to further restrict, ban or otherwise infringe upon the rights of lawful firearm owners and enthusiasts with great disfavor.
We vote.
We remember.
"I am absolutely terrified of all this gun control talk floating around lately. The UN Arms trade treaty... Obama's lip service on "AK47's on the streets"... the rider that was tacked onto the cyber bill... I want to let you know that I support absolutely NO more gun control in America, and will not support any official who thinks that the government can destroy my rights. I'm in Afghanistan right now and I fully expect to return home to a country that is just as safe and free as when I left it.
Thanks,
Josh."
My letters.
I sent this to both:
Quote:
It has been brought to my attention that Sen. Schumer has made an addendum to the Cyber Security Bill that would ban sales of new firearm magazines. This is unfair. One person out of 80 million used his gun to commit an atrocity last week here in Aurora. It makes no sense to punish the rest of the populace like this. Never mind the fact that this evil high capacity magazine was the only weapon he brought with him to the theater that failed. That crappy magazine saved lives. Please respect my right to own firearms as I see fit, knowing that I, nor the rest of the shooting community has any intention of committing a crime with our tools.
Thank you.
HAHA He really wrote FAIL in a letter to his rep! Love it![Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
It won't pass, but this goes to show you what we are up against.
and don't think for a second obama wouldn't sign it either.
And Eric Holder won't be signing off on anything to help us out. that is a well known fact.
Just imagine what kind of crap can be put on the presidents desk if he has 4 more years. I hope this churns your stomach a bit...especially at the polls.
I wrote them both. Simple and to the point.
Quote:
It has come to my attention that there is a rider currently being attached to the cybersecurity bill that would ban "high capacity" magazines from sale or transfer. As a sportsman, hunter, and lawful gun owner I can not support such a law. Additionally it very underhanded to attach this rider to a completely unrelated bill.
I can not in good conscience support this bill, nor any public office holder that would.
Sincerely,
-------------
I'll just go ahead and say it right now... I feel the urge to vomit every time I hear or read the word "Obama"- and "Democrat" doesn't fare much better. These assholes make me sick... again it's back to that "If we don't like something we simply don't use it, if they don't like something they want to see it banned."Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Udall will be worthless, this was on his facebook:
Mark Udall
Passing a strong cybersecurity bill is one of the most important things the Senate can do next week. I will use my positions on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee to do everything I can to improve our cybersecurity and strengthen our national security.
Time to vote him out.
You can keep the ones you already have. Not that this makes it any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
From the proposed Amendment:
Quote:
‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
‘‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
I see Ridge posted (your avatar gave you away). I posted there as well. I wasn't as nice as you were, so they will probably remove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
What an awful bill, I am severely dissappointed
I had a more "tactical" looking avatar, but changed it last friday morning in the aftermath. Didn't want to do anything to resemble the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Was time to vote him out before he was voted in. [Tooth]Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Bennet is worse, but they're both Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
ssshhh... your killing my scare tactics.
Probably a good idea. Last Friday there were other boards (incorrectly, of course) pointing at one of our members here as "the shooter," I suspect his avatar had something to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Sorry, I'll play along from now on. [Flower]
Email sent to both senators. Can't believe this horseshit.
For those of you that haven't figured this out yet, this is a sucessful approach that the antis have been using for years. Ask for everything, then "compromise" and the [mostly] republicans fall for it hook, line and sinker every time -- if this magazine ploy reaches its endgame, the 'pubs will be happily voting for a freeze on > 10 round magazines and defending it on the grounds "We made sure you could keep yours! See, we're pro-gun!"Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
O2
^This exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
Just added this to my FB page:
Quote:
Since the tragedy at the theater in Aurora last week there has been a renewed call among the anti-gun community to restrict gun ownership and to limit the capacity of magazines in firearms that use magazines to feed them. It is the latter issue I want to address now.
Those with any experience know that limiting magazine capacity won't stop or minimize the violence of those out to commit atrocities such as the Aurora shooting. With a little practice, a magazine can be changed out in under a second. These limitations already exist in places like California but have not should to decrease the level of violent crime one bit. Such restrictions are nothing more than a "feel good" measure for the anti-gun community and those naive to believe they could make a difference.
On Thursday, Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY) Went to the Senate floor to introduce an amendment to the CyberSecurity Act bill. This amendment, with many others, is up for vote next week. A major long-time anti-gun activist, Sen. Shumer has come to realize that the legislative tide turned against him after the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban (AWB) went into effect; the same AWB that most experts agree did little to nothing to reduce incidents of violent crime. Since then, Sen. Shumer -whose state has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, yet still leads with some of the worst violent crime in the tion - has changed his tactics. Now, instead of the hard-edged anti-gun assaults he's known for, he's playing a different angle to the same goal. In his speech before his fellow Senators, he gently stated that Democrats don't want to take guns away from the law-abiding citizens of our nation but, perhaps, we need to implement a few "reasonable" restrictions. In listening to his speech I could almost hear him saying "It's for the children". Sen. Shumer called for "compromise".
It's interesting how these calls for "reasonable" or "common-sense" restrictions and compromises always leave law-abiding gun owners with a little more infringment upon their rights but never give them back anything that's already been taken away. Not much of a compromise from where I stand.
The amendment Senator Shumer introduced for inclusion in the CyberSecurity Act bill would make it illegal to possess any firearms magazine with A capacity over 10 rounds. 10 rounds? This is the same limitation in place in California which is plagued with violent crime. This limitation WILL NOT make it harder from criminals to cause harm or even reduce the severity of their violent acts. This would apply to ALL firearms - handguns, rifles and shotguns with the exception of .22 rimfire.
Remember, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (the foremost law of our land) ends with "shall not be infringed". If you feel like I do and believe that this amendment would not effect criminals but does infringe upon our lawful right, then I urge you to immediately start contacting the members of the U.S. Senate around the country (not just from your own state) and tell them to vote AGAINST this amendment. Let them know that law-abiding firearms owners have a long memory and we'll remember their vote when we vote!
https://apps.facebook.com/thehillsocial/content/240657
What's the plan for the millions of high capacity mags already in circulation? Could the next logical step be dispatchment of TSA agents to pound the pavement and round them all up? They can pound sand.
Limiting mag capacity is a token victory for the liberal base and will have no consequence except to make the law abiding citizen weaker. Well that is their point after all.
Looks like it would also ban tube fed magazines which would affect lever action rifles. It does have an exception for tube fed .22 caliber weapons. How considerate.