Gun control being slid in under the radar....

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by dwcfastrice, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. dwcfastrice

    dwcfastrice Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
    By Ramsey Cox - 07/26/12 07:29 PM ET

    Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

    Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, 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.

    The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). 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.
    The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.



    The proposed amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.

    Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight with Republicans and gun rights activists.

    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.

    He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

    “The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

    Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

    “We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

    Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on proposed amendments to the cybersecurity bill.

    http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure


    grrr.....

    d
     
  2. There is no such thing as “reasonable” Gun Control. Any Gun Control is an infringement on our 2A Rights IMHO. A big part of why I won't join the NRA or support it is because they call for enforcing the Firearms Laws that are currently on the books(Infringement IMHO) instead of working to try and repeal and overturn these Anti-2nd Amendment Laws.
    The magazine ban that was part of the '94 AWB did NOTHING to stop firearms crimes from taking place and only served to drive up the cost of so called "Pre-Ban" magazines for those consumers who wished to buy a Standard Capacity magazine for their firearm.
    If they really want to do something to help stop crime and violence then how about a National CCW Bill that would allow Law Biding Citizens to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection Nation Wide WITHOUT the NEED for a Permit. :rolleyes:
     

  3. It wasn't too long ago there was a member on here advocating a kinder gentler NRA that was less political. Afterall, "democrats know that being anti gun is a losing proposition". The NRA is in this for the long haul and so are the antiguns.
     
  4. dutchs

    dutchs Well-Known Member

    1,000
    195
    Allowing concealed carry can stop some of the unnecessary casulities.
     
  5. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    33,271
    21,639
    Texas
    Democrats have been slipping gun control into bills for ages. Most of the time they're thrown out before the bill is voted on. Sometimes they slip by. Like the Lautenberg amendment in Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which banned ownership of guns for misdemeanor domestic violence. Thousands of police and military personnel were fired and banned from owning firearms overnight.
    Then there is the Hughes amendment slipped into the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Surprise, another New Jersey s***head! Through political trickery not unlike the Obamacare vote, banned further production and transfer of civilian machine-guns. Making full auto guns almost inaccessible to most of us.
    Notice once these laws are enacted they don't get repealed.
     
  6. cutlass327

    cutlass327 New Member

    287
    0
    Ok, so to me "Cybersecurity" would mean stuff like hackerproofing our databases and crap like that.... What would that have to do with a gun? They just throw it on whatever bill they want, hoping it is an important enough bill to pass and drag the crap thru with it.. This should be outlawed more than a standard stock capacity 15 rd magazine for a handgun or rifle!
     
  7. ROYALE-W-CHEESE

    ROYALE-W-CHEESE New Member

    479
    1
    This is nothing new in politics; it is SOP for a lot of bills and acts. There's no law that regulates what can or cannot be scoped within a bill.

    Example: The World Series of Poker was rising on a huge popularity wave year after year for several years. Then in one year it ate a drastic 20+% decline in the field. A huge portion of the field had previously won their $10,000 seats to the main event via satellites. Gaming sites and casinos were no longer allowed to give away that much money in what is essentially "cash-like" prizes. This was because US banks were no longer allowed to pay out large untraceable monetary sums via their PayPal and other Internet wallet accounts.

    You might be asking so what? Well, the so-what is that the law that started this whole chain of events was the Port Authority Act which regulated, among other things, US port safety protocols in the wake of Sept 11.

    We all asked what does online poker have to do with port security and terrorism. The answer was that it didn't but the anti-online gambling lobbies fabricated a connection. (They said you can't trace where online casino money comes from which means online gambling could be used to launder terrorist funds.)

    And given that, everything passed, right under our noses. People had a lot of money in these accounts that they couldn't withdraw. I'm talking 5+ figures per account in many cases, belonging to "average" people like you and me.

    The point is that politicians find loopholes to serve their purposes. And if people don't pay careful attention, they'll pass almost any law they want.

    You say it should be outlawed. I agree. But you forget one key factor: who do you think writes, proposes, amends and votes upon the laws to outlaw loopholes. (It's like asking politicians to enact laws to cut their own salaries.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  8. Kmurray96

    Kmurray96 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Thanks for the heads-up. Being from Lousenberg's state I posted this info on my FB page which has a lot of LEOs reading it and requested it to be shared.

    You get an "E" for Excellence for this one, kiddo.
     
  9. And smarmy tactics like this is precisely why the American People does not trust Washington D.C.
     
  10. G22GEN4

    G22GEN4 New Member

    637
    1
    They say a picture says a thousand words. Well, here's 8 of those words.

    ForumRunner_20120807_122227.jpg
     
  11. Yep, they keep pushing one way(more gun control, less firearms in the hands of law biding citizens) when they should be going the other way with less gun control and more guns in the hands of privite law biding citizens.
    If you want to stop or at least limit the damage from these nut jobs that want to shoot a bunch of people then put some guns in the hands of privite citizens and see if making things more even won't stop stuff like this in short order.;)
     
  12. wrpNYFL

    wrpNYFL Premium Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    NY would do well to learn from Kennesaw, GA. We need more gun-mandatory towns an cities...
     
  13. It IS kind of sad though that folks need to be "forced" into following what is there Constitutional Rights. :(
     
  14. G22GEN4

    G22GEN4 New Member

    637
    1
    Wooooow! That's the best truth I've read in a while bro. If u don't mind, I'd love to repost ur statement on my 2nd Amendment Facebook page.
     
  15. KeenansGarage

    KeenansGarage Hiding in plain sight....

    Well, the Cyber Security bill didn't pass the Senate...thankfully!
    BUT, it didn't pass by only 8 votes, and 8 votes out of 100 is not much of a difference. When they bring this back up to vote (should they do), then we need to be ready to fight it.
    Luckily, they are all on break right now...so we have a little bit of time.
     
  16. Fine by me but I think it's something that a lot of us around here already know.
    For so long we've all been "conditioned" to do things only when we're told to do them. You can't drive a car, go to work, get out of work or anything else without an alarm, light, or person telling you too.
    It's funny to see folks around here hit a 4 Way Stop all at once, no one has a clue as to what to do since there's not a light or traffic cop there to tell em' what they're suppose to do.
    I've always felt that Rights are something that we either use or we lose them. If you won't speak up then you'll lose your Right to Free Speech. If you won't carry a firearm in order to protect yourself and others and you pass that Responsibility on to other folks then you soon will lose your Right to bear arms.
    You'd think that everyone in a Free Society would want to do their fair share to keep the peace and provide for the common defense by exercising their Right under the 2nd Amendment but too many folks would rather pass the buck for defending themselves onto someone else because they're either afraid of getting into trouble for "taking matters into their own hands" or they just don't have the spirit(i.e. guts) to defend themselves anymore. They'd rather roll over and let a criminal walk all over them then stand up for themselves and fight back.
     
  17. G22GEN4

    G22GEN4 New Member

    637
    1
    Well said bro! My wife was 200% anti-gun & it broke my heart to hear her say she would hide & let an intruder do what he wants in our home. I said baby, what about the kids? She froze up with no answer. I then drilled it in her head about personal & home safety. She the type that sees the news everyday & still feel nothing can ever happen to her. I let her have it. Showed her the light, & she's now a proud gun owner. As well as our 9 year old daughter & 11 year old son.
     
  18. My wife wasn't so much "anti-gun" as she was just afraid of them because of her stupid ex-husband. I had to take her shooting a few times and teach her that a firearm was simply a tool. Just like a chain saw or power drill, you can use it for good or bad but either way it's not the tool's fault, it's totally up to the hands of the user if it's used to do good or bad with.
    Every time I hear about some nut case shooting a bunch of people my heart breaks, not only because of the loss of life at the hands of the nut case but also because I know our Freedom as firearms owners dies a little bit as well.
    We've see over the last couple months firearms being used for bad but also Fox News has reported on firearms being used to save lives as well. What the left wing media fails to understand is that it's not the firearms that are at fault anymore then the car/truck is at fault when a drunk driver takes the lives of innocent folks. It's all about being responsible and understanding that the things we do have consequences. If I use my gun or truck or a chain saw in an irresponsible way and someone gets hurt or killed it's not on the object, it's all on me for not being careful and thinking things through.
    A firearm in the hands of the right person can save countless lives but the same firearm in the hands of a nut case can take countless lives. In the end the only way to balance things out is to make sure that when the nut case comes a gunnin' for us we can shoot right back and take away his advantage.
     
  19. Burrito

    Burrito New Member

    Well put frank well put