Via Kevin.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
…
S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
…
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.
Molon Labe.
Now, wouldn’t that be ironic if the Batman shooter turned out to have used an M&P AR15-22, the S&W 22 LR clone of an AR, that had a 100 round drum on it? According to one blurb I read that looks more likely than an AR based on some of the injury reports and pictures.
You’d think the MSM, after nearly a week, would be able to get something as basic a fact as that correct…. but then, I guess, maybe not.
Molon Labe indeed.
I have plenty of magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. I’ll possess most of them on the day I die. I say “most” only because a few fall into the “might sell someday” category. If they think that will change then I’ll only warn them that the only thing they can change about it is “the day I die” part. And I’ll be taking some of them with me.
Schumer’s amendment, like the previous ban, does not affect magazines already possessed. Which means that it is ineffective, like the last ban, in doing anything but raising the price of such magazines by a few dollars since millions of them exist.
Its another stunt.
SPQR: Looking at the text of the amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r11265ula9:e1664:), it looks like that while posession of magazines currently owned would not be banned, the transfer of them would be.
Differences bolded.
Any verbiage on magazine parts? Many states that ban regular size magazines don’t ban “rebuild kits” for magazines. Even then the new section is useless, people can still make new bodies, the body is not a device, essentially the spring and follower are the feeder… It’s all crap anyway…
‘if each side gave some’ from Schumer means “If you’ll let us do what we want.”
“if each side gave some?”
Why then is he proposing a bill more several than the post Gifford’s shooting, which was soundly rejected?
…I meant “more severe”.
OK, let’s compromise.
Here is the gun control law that I want (insert legal wordsmithing as needed): “It is illegal to commit assault, robbery, rape, or murder using a firearm. ALL other firearm related laws, at all levels of government, are hereby repealed.”
Now, one of only two possibilities exists:
1) The law works, and all of our gun-related problems go away, or
2) The law doesn’t work, and we still have gun-related problems.
If # 1, the problem is over, and you should be happy (I know I would be), and now you’ll leave me alone, because there there are no more gun problems.
If # 2, then what could possibly make you think that whatever and however many brain-damaged laws you could propose would possibly make any difference at all??
Get back to me when you have an answer…..I’ll be here, cleaning my guns….. 🙂
Richard
Lawdog’s piece on ‘compromise’:http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.