Skip to content

Democrats add a gun control amendment to the Cybersecurity bill

July 27, 2012

  Rahm Emanuel once said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste because it allows you to implement policy which would you would otherwise be able to pass. Barack Obama lives by this mantra, as do many other Democrats, and today Chuck Schumer decided to use the Colorado theater shooting as just such a crisis.

  Chuck Schumer, and several other Democrats, decided that in the wake of that tragic shooting it would be pertinent to add a gun control amendment to the Cybersecurity bill. Here is what he is proposing:

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.

  This amendment outlaws the future sales or transfers of any weapon with a “large capacity” feeding device because Jim Holmes walked into that movie theater with just such a weapon; it has been reported that his weapon of choice was equipped with a 100 round magazine. The theory for banning large capacity magazines is this; if Jim Holmes had a lower capacity magazine he would have had to stop to reload several times and during one of his down times he might have been subdued before he could continue shooting. However the easiest way to subdue a shooter is if there is another person in the room with a weapon who can take advantage of a momentary pause in the shooting, but that wasn’t going to happen in Aurora Colorado because the theater was a gun free zone. In all likelihood Holmes would have been able to reload several times and no additional lives would have been saved.

  Here we have an example of the federal government trying to implement laws to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of one deranged individual. But this amendment is even worse than that when you look at what this amendment would actually ban because this would ban all magazines larger than 10 rounds. Hardly a high capacity feeding device, and in fact quite a normal feeding device for a handgun.

    With the exception of .22 caliber weapons, because the amendment exempts them, this would ban virtually all handguns with the exception of revolvers and some sub-compact handguns. This amendment would make my weapon of choice–a compact handgun with a 12 round magazine–illegal to purchase in the future and it would prevent me from selling or transferring its ownership to another law abiding American citizen. Why am I being punished for the actions of Jim Holmes? I have done nothing wrong.

  This amendment is hardly “reasonable”and in fact it goes well beyond anything that can even be considered “reasonable” because it comes dangerously close to banning the sale of all handguns with the exception of those which are usually only used for target practice.

  I would like to think that even if this amendment passes the Senate it would be defeated in the Tea Party controlled House, but this is the same House which voted to authorize spying on American citizens with unmanned drones, and this is the same House which deemed the United States as a battlefield and authorized detaining American citizens indefinitely and without charges, so nothing is certain any more.

  Please write and call your Senators and your Representatives and demand they oppose this amendment for this may be the most direct attack on the second amendment that we have ever seen.

  Our constitution hangs in the balance.

34 Comments leave one →
  1. July 27, 2012 8:11 pm

    Uh, I hope you don’t think Emmanuel was the first to come up with the idea of exploiting crises; the most egregious example is the USA PATRIOT ACT.

    As to the amendment, the synopsis you offer in the text box seems to say that it applies to the large capacity magazines and belts themselves, and not any particular weapons. Other summaries of the amendment I’ve seen characterize it the same way. Yet immediately after the synopsis, you mischaracterize the amendment, claiming that it prohibits the sale or transfer of weapons with large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. The amendment does not prohibit you from owning, selling, or transferring your favorite handgun, but it does prohibit your including a 12-round magazine in the transaction.

    I think Schumer guarantees the defeat of his legislation by setting the capacity limit so low, and I think it was done deliberately to generate campaign issues for the Dems. Just how loudly would you folks be screaming if the ban was only on feeding devices of 50 rounds or more?

    Trust me – there will be no new gun control legislation because the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want it. Schumer’s playing to his choir on this. In a Congressional session marked by the GOP unsuccessfully trying to repeal a single piece of legislation close to 35 times without success, just to make a point with the radicals among their constituents, you could give the Dems a little bit of rhythm on this . . .

    Take good care, and may God bless us all!

    TGY

    Like

    • July 27, 2012 8:26 pm

      I have been critical of the PATRIOT Act in the past and it was the precursor to the NDAA and FAA Reauthorization Act, just like all government policies they expand over time. Yes, the ban is on the magazine and not the weapon itself, you are right about that, but the weapon is pretty useless without the magazine now isn’t it? I don’t have a problem with reasonable gun control laws, but as I said in the post, this goes well beyond what anyone should consider reasonable and it only affects the people who have done nothing wrong.
      You may be right about Schumer’s motivation however.

      Like

      • July 28, 2012 8:43 am

        Actually, it appears to be Lautenberg’s bill.

        Isn’t there a smaller capacity magazine for your handgun?

        And I still think the Dems just wanted an on-the-record vote to paint the GOP as a bunch of gun nuts. If they were serious about high-capacity magazines, they’d have set the limit higher – because you know they did their research and knew that many automatics have magazines that routinely hold more than 10 rounds.

        Have a great weekend, and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • July 28, 2012 6:49 pm

        That is a great question and I googled my handgun for replacement parts because I didn’t know the answer. I was able to find ten round magazines that would fit the less expensive version of my handgun, but I have the “pro” version and wasn’t able to find anything less than the twelve round clip it came with. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but I didn’t find it.
        You could be right about the motivation, but there are also a couple of other possibilities as well. It could be the Democrats introduced this legislation knowing it would fail to give the impression they were doing something when in reality they were doing nothing, although I don’t know what that would gain them. And then there is simply the possibility that they really don’t know much about the subject they are trying to regulate and are unaware of just how overreaching this law really would be.

        Like

      • cmblake6 permalink
        July 28, 2012 8:58 pm

        “reasonable gun control laws”? Ain’t no such thing. You KNOW that! Damnit, NO PC!

        Like

      • July 29, 2012 8:26 am

        Yeah, their definition of “reasonable” and my definition of “reasonable” aren’t even in the same league.

        Like

  2. July 27, 2012 8:11 pm

    Why don’t the Democrats pass a law that it is illegal to be mentally ill. It makes as much sense as ban large ammo feed devices and would save the same number of lives; zero. There is another strange thing I was thinking about today. Because Holmes used gund to do his he is considered a rampage killer. However, if he had use one or more of his bombs to do his killing, he would be considered a terrorist. Go figure.

    Like

    • July 27, 2012 8:27 pm

      I am actually surprised that more Dems aren’t calling this a terrorist attack to justify that DHS homegrown terrorist report.

      Like

  3. July 27, 2012 8:32 pm

    But the UN Weapons Treaty thing just bit the dust!! 😛

    Like

    • July 27, 2012 8:34 pm

      It did! I hadn’t heard that.

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      July 28, 2012 8:05 pm

      Fred, it did bite the dust, but only for a “look see” for about 6 months out. Hmmmm, after the election, go figure. Do you think it might be that more people would NOT vote for Obama if it had passed? Surely not! We have more than enough gun laws on the books, they only need to be enforced…there is no need to add more. And, yes Steve we are being punished for one persons actions, but that is all it takes to start getting people worked up and worried about their safety. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel a whole lot safer with my 38 special within arms reach. I can’t say the same for dialing 911 and waiting for “help” to show up. I will not sit back and be a willing victim just so others can feel safe that those pesky guns are off the street. Are they that stupid to believe that the bad guys are going to abide by a clip restriction? Really?

      Like

      • cmblake6 permalink
        July 28, 2012 9:01 pm

        Lou222, it’s only another step towards oppression. You don’t just ram it in dry, you lube it and slip it in just a half inch at a time.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        July 28, 2012 9:17 pm

        Call me Lou, CM! Baby steps? How nice of them, so as not to make it hurt so much, right? There are those that believe and then there are those of us that question. Glad I am the questioning kind.

        Like

      • July 29, 2012 8:29 am

        What a coincidence that it got pushed back until after the election! This is yet another reason–if another one is needed–to make to that Barack Obama gets voted out of office in November. There is no telling what he is capable of with four years of not having to worry about reelection. Remember, to use his own words, he can be more flexible after the election.

        Like

      • July 29, 2012 8:31 am

        That’s right. Small incremental steps so that you don’t realized what happened to your freedoms until it is too late.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        July 29, 2012 8:36 am

        Yep, it will be kicked into high gear once he is back in office. At that point, I doubt there will be any stopping all the Executive Orders that will be coming out of our house .Right now he is testing the waters and so far he is getting a positive result with what he is doing, there is very little fight coming out of either the House or Senate, so he will continue doing it. Flexible will be his middle name after he gets back in. We have to make sure he doesn’t, but with all his attorneys in place to watch for “voter fraud”, how sure are we that it can be a fair fight? I am not optimistic.

        Like

      • July 29, 2012 8:41 am

        I don’t even want to think about the steps he will take if he wins reelection, there will be no stopping him at that point and you are right. He does seem to be testing the waters right now, and to this point there has been very little pushback from the Republicans.
        He has his lawyers in place and he also has the DOJ cracking down on states which are trying to make sure we have a fair election, there is reason for concern.

        Like

  4. Georgia Peach permalink
    July 27, 2012 9:55 pm

    Wasn’t it that large capacity feeding device that jammed so he switched to another gun? Didn’t he have several guns? I don’t know what this is supposed to solve. Just another way the for government to flex their authority.

    Like

    • LD Jackson permalink
      July 28, 2012 5:45 am

      That is exactly what happened. His large capacity magazine jammed, as they are apt to do, and he had to switch to a different weapon. That was a Remington 870 Pump Shotgun, loaded with buckshot. No less a dangerous weapon, even though the action has to be pumped each time before shooting. I wonder how many people in that theater felt safer because he was no longer using a large capacity magazine?

      Like

    • July 28, 2012 6:52 pm

      That is a great point GP and Larry and one I wished I had remembered when I was writing this post. His gun did jam and he was forced to switch weapons in the middle of the shooting, this had the same effect as if he was carrying a weapon with a smaller magazine yet nobody was able to take advantage of his mishap because the law abiding citizens did not carry weapons into a gun free zone.

      Like

  5. MaddMedic permalink
    July 28, 2012 12:03 am

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
    Democrats..cannot trust them…hypocritical fools..

    Like

  6. LD Jackson permalink
    July 28, 2012 5:47 am

    I seriously doubt this amendment will be going anywhere. Having said that, I still think a ban on large capacity magazines would be useless in defeating crimes that involve guns. As with any ban on firearms and accessories, it completely misses the point.

    Like

    • July 28, 2012 6:53 pm

      I like to think it is going nowhere and it probably won’t, but at this point in time I really don’t trust many people in our government to do the right thing.

      Like

      • cmblake6 permalink
        July 28, 2012 9:04 pm

        None, actually.

        Like

    • cmblake6 permalink
      July 28, 2012 9:03 pm

      No, they are using it as the k-y.

      Like

  7. donchute permalink
    July 28, 2012 5:47 am

    Oppose! Can’t we just get these dim-wits out of office…Please!

    PLU from SSF

    Like

  8. July 29, 2012 9:59 pm

    11+ round mags banned in California and now our murder rate is 0!

    Thanks mag ban!

    Like

  9. Leonard permalink
    July 30, 2012 5:43 pm

    too bad that the ban he is trying to enforce against all weapons, EXCEPT 22 rround bullets. The weapon that was used was an assualt rifle configured for 22 rounds. Not .223 or .556 rounds that would have set off all kinds of warnings.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Pinecone Fletcher: Saturday Links | What Would The Founders Think?
  2. Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Crying over spilt milk edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: