senate Democraps adding high capacity mag ban to cyberbill.

[Zundfolge]

Time to vote him out.

Was time to vote him out before he was voted in.

Bennet is worse, but they're both Democrats.

[sniper7]

You can keep the ones you already have. Not that this makes it any better.

From the proposed Amendment:

ssshhh... your killing my scare tactics.

[Teufelhund]

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.

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.

[Teufelhund]

ssshhh... your killing my scare tactics.

Sorry, I'll play along from now on.

[Wiggity]

Email sent to both senators. Can't believe this horseshit.

[O2HeN2]

I see this as well. An all out ban. no grandfathering or anything.

It won't pass, but this goes to show you what we are up against.

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!"

O2

[hollohas]

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

^This exactly.

[theGinsue]

Just added this to my FB page:

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

[bogie]

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.

[PSS]

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.