Dem's attach high-cap magazine ban to cybersecurity bill

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.

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.

Link

That didnt take long at all.

Of course the grandfather clause makes this all a useless masturbatory exercise even if it passes.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I wonder if these geniuses realize the only reason the deaths weren't HIGHER in Colorado, is because his jerry-rigged 100-rd drum jammed up and caused his assault rifle to misfire. The high capacity magazine was his problem! It didn't help him a single bit!

On the flipside, if he had more experience, and he had a belt full of high-quality 10 round magazines, he probably could have fired with the AR the whole time, and every shot would likely have been a kill shot. 70 dead instead of 12.

The high capacity magazine was a hindrance to his rampage. Banning it, would have made him use the appropriate magazines, and would have actually made him far more effective in his goals.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

The high capacity magazine was a hindrance to his rampage. Banning it, would have made him use the appropriate magazines, and would have actually made him far more effective in his goals.

Reason never factors into prohibitionary legislation.

So instead of using ridiculous novelty equipment spree killers will have to rely on proven, functional equipment.

Charles Whitman used a bolt action. Worked out well enough for him.

I will not regard this legislation as legal and will completely ignore it if it passes. Why is it ok to ban gun features in a freakin cyber security bill? Im sick of this crap and will not stand for it.

Also i never saw a picture of the 100 round drum holmes supposedly had.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Of course they did.
And just think, I thought every Dem supporter said that they were not going to come after firearms and rights and such.

Traitors, each and every one of them.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


True.

Why look at the whole story, and the intricate dynamics of the situation, when it is much easier to grab a headline and feign some concern, while also garnering a little bit more control over your rowdy populace.

It shouldn't matter to them that part of the problem was 300 people were unarmed, and only 1 was armed.

0.33% of the population of that theatre was armed. How much different might it have been if 1% were armed, or 10%? Assuming the armed folks were daily carriers, and proficient in the use of their weapon, compared to the shooter being a relative novice with guns recently purchased and novelty accessories he couldn't operate.

Why even consider the fact that part of the problem might have been the unsecured back door, the non-lethal and highly touted pepper spray canisters, or the fact that the populace is conditioned to be victim-like instead of being conditioned for responsibility to fight back. Why look at all those dynamics, lets just ban the one thing that actually got in the shooter's way and slowed him down a little bit.

FTR:

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.).

emphasis=mine


The bold above are up for re election this year. Too bad Chuck isn't on the list..


The article mentions that

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

We shall see if this goes forward, or is just another of Shumer's "look at me!" moments..

[ adds watch CSPAN senate coverage to next week's "to do list" ]

Thanks for the heads up tgrh

Leave it to a Democrat to grandstand on the deaths of others.
Way to go Chuckie boy!
We need jobs, financial stability a growing economy and he has to try to pass a meaningless gun control measure that would do nothing to prevent another mass shooting.
Some people....

I bet there's a lot of overlap with folks on ATS of those who are both pro-gun control measures yet vehemently opposed to this cybersecurity nonsense.

Is the promise to regulate magazine capacity enough to bring people into the support group for this security bill?

Cybersecurity Act gains broad support

“The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. While lacking some of the key provisions of earlier bills, the revised legislation will provide important tools to strengthen the Nation's response to cybersecurity risks.”

Security (or at least the illusion of) comes with loss of liberty. Here we have a security measure that has nothing to do with the liberty that will be lost due to this amendment. Bizarre.

Is the computer nerd okay with government spying if it means the redneck next door cant have a 20 round magazine?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I bet there's a lot of overlap with folks on ATS of those who are both pro-gun control measures yet vehemently opposed to this cybersecurity nonsense.

Well, maybe that's a good thing?

The Reps support the internet security, but they won't support the gun control, while the Dems support the gun control, but won't support the internet security. Maybe the bill will die?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Well, maybe that's a good thing?

The Reps support the internet security, but they won't support the gun control, while the Dems support the gun control, but won't support the internet security. Maybe the bill will die?

That's optimistic outcome. The pessimistic outcome is them coming together in "bipartisan" support and passing it.

There are a ton of RINO's who are on the gun ban wagon and just waiting for a relatively politically opportune time to screw the people.

After all the amendment doesnt go after "assault weapons" just magazines. Isnt that "common sense" enough?

It will only decrease the probability that a jam will occur in the weapon. One can carry the same number of rounds in more short mags and have a lesser chance of jamming, short mags also rechamber easier. Just slap it in. They are only as smart as the dumbest, loudest voice.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I bet there's a lot of overlap with folks on ATS of those who are both pro-gun control measures yet vehemently opposed to this cybersecurity nonsense.

Agreed. And I bet there are a lot of ATS members, like myself, who have a moderate opinion on "gun control" and the Second Amendment, but are unwilling to get into the discussion because of the drama and insults involved. I'd love to get into this discussion, but most people who debate "gun control" have extreme ("extremist"?) opinions, on both sides, and for me, it's just not worth jumping in to express my specific opinion.

The government is going to use the CO shootings to pass some legislation because they are being nudged by their constituents (however uneducated they are about such things). For those of you ragging on Democrats for making use of a tragedy, don't forget that we're involved in two wars because the GOP used 9/11 the same way.

I really wish we could have an open discussion about this, but I've seen the threads... So, I'll bow out now.

The AR-15's standard magazine was 20 rounds, at least in the older model.

Is there a 10 round mag?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH, it is a hot topic, and many member get heated about it, but it is also an important topic, and you never know who your views might touch. It is a frustrating argument that is for sure, but I think it is worth having. Its probably frustrating for both sides, but I know it is frustrating from my side...... because....... my side has the FACTS behind it!

Seriously, Canada's Violent Crime rate is more than 3x the US's violent crime rate. Good sources there, not wikipedia, but real crime data sources like the FBI. The homicide rate in the US is double that of Canada, but the overall violent crime is only 1/3rd of Canada's. So, we kill each other more often, but we rape and assault each other a lot less, and I think it is because we are ARMED.

My bushmaster xm15 (aka ar15) came with a 30 round. I also have five 30 round magazines.

Ar15s are great coyote guns. Have to use a 10 round mag in mich for that. 10 round mags cost more. But yeah they exist

Originally posted by phroziac
My bushmaster xm15 (aka ar15) came with a 30 round. I also have five 30 round magazines.

Ar15s are great coyote guns. Have to use a 10 round mag in mich for that. 10 round mags cost more. But yeah they exist

Are they actually designed so that they can only hold 10, or is it some limiting device added that can be easily removed. Seems like some 15s mags had that but is it simple to remove it and go to 20;

reply to post by roadgravel


My Saiga AK47 came with 10 round mags, I bought 30 round mags and some worked perfectly, some had to be filed down a little to fit right, and they often misfed. They also had 40 round mags that didn't fit quite right. I threw away the mags that would misfeed more than a time or two, just not worth the trouble.

I almost always used the small mags, because they worked flawlessly, and they saved me some money on ammo. I only put the 30 round clips in (the good ones), to show off every now and then for some novice that had never seen an AK. Bump firing 30 rounds in 5 or 6 seconds is pretty fun for a novice, but also expensive on rounds!

What I am sort of pointing out is if the mags are truly limited by design or can they be made into a higher capacity.

Guess you two are saying they cannot. On older ARs the 20 mag fits almost all the way into the receiver so one would hope a 10 round would be about the same size but physically, permanently limited to 10 rounds.

Having a shorter mag up inside seems risky. I just ask because I am familiar with those models, not the newest or other manufacturers.

reply to post by roadgravel


I've seen the mags you are talking about, but mine came with real 10 round capacity. I have seen 40 round clips shunted off at 30 from during the last ban, but they do make regular 10 round mags as well.