Proposed Mag Ban: "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act"

I'm editing this as an information point. Remember we don't do politics and liberal vs. conservative ranting is useless.

We discuss pro and antigun views. Political discussions can find other venues.

GEM
 
Tom Servo posted:
My point? People love to use public shootings as examples of how armed citizens might have made a difference. This isn't one of those.
Click to expand...

I agree. While armed citizens increase the odds that they can defend themselves or someone else, there are no gaurantees. On the flip side, many anti gun people claim that an armed citizen wouldn't have a chance to even draw their weapon because the criminal always has the element of surprise. Other anti gun folks claim that carrying is dangerous because the criminal is more likely to take the armed citizen's gun and use it against the armed citizen. We know that neither of those latter two scenarios are true on their face. I'd rather have at least a fighting chance against an armed bad guy, rather than just hoping he doesn't target me for whatever reason.
 
The one guarntee my friend is that if you are forbidden to be armed you are effectively unarmed and history as proven over and over again what happens in these situations. Whoever remains with arms takes control at one point or another (as a historical truth.)

Its seriously not funny how history repeats itsself and people who should know better never learn and are always convinced they have the gunless solution that will bring world peace and all that stuff.

In the end the result has been anything but world peace...

The constitution promises the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed the fact is however its been paved over and burried in regards to the idea of not being infringed. Law speak is somehow so different from common english that it defies logic, at least to me is clear on what "shall not be infringed" means.

The fact is anything the govenrment can prove to the court it has some "need" to limit usually ends up limited and we have a system burried in laws and rules so deep it stifles the mind.

The road to you know what is paved with good intentions and we are not as free as we use to be. If I want a 200 round magazine and someone makes one I should be able to have it as I am a law abiding citizen. We cannot legislate an absolutely safe country where no harm can come to you unless we loose all our freedoms and have to act as robots as big brother defines the rules.

For my part I am (and have been) inviting the uninitiated to go shooting at the range with me and hopefully opening some minds along the way.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting the link to the proposed bill.
Now that I've read it, I feel much better. This bill will NEVER pass. Why? The wording is such that business' could be caught with an illeagal product that could not be sold and that they could not be compensated for. Even for individuals this would be true.
Thus, this bill amounts to a "taking" by the government. The government may not take from you without compensation. I don't think this congress is in any mood to fund a giant buy back program. If the wording is changed to allow sale of pre-2011 mags, then it has little effect. The old ban didn't stop the sale of hi-cap mags, it only made it a little more expensive.
Now, we need to keep our eyes open for a bill that could pass.
 
Just to do what I can do, I contacted my congressman, who is a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee (which HR 308 - The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, must get through first) to oppose this legislation and not to vote to allow it to leave the committee.

Given the republican make up of that committee its unlikely to matter much but I felt I should at least let him know how I felt.
 
Gun violence deaths per year ~8,000
Suicides per year ~30,000 (about half used guns)
Traffic deaths per year ~32,000
Obesity related deaths per year ~300,000
Heart related deaths per year ~450,000
Cancer deaths per year ~500,000
I know this isn't very PC, but 9 dead in Tucson doesn't seem significant in the overall picture. It just got everyones attention.
These are just approximate numbers to illistrate the point. We would probably do better to outlaw junk food, cigarettes and mandate safer cars.
Just an observation.
( It really hurts to say this, I'm a smoker and would really miss my cigarettes. )
 
WildAlaska said:
I don't have to write to...
Click to expand...

You know, that very thing has bothered me every time I see these "Write to your Senator/Representative..." type things.


I'm thinking, Ok, yeah, if you've got to write to them THIS time, fine. When the next election comes around, hows about we get somebody in there that doesn't have to be TOLD to do the right thing?!
 
Hopefully, your members of Congress do not need to be prodded. But it does not hurt to give them evidence of their constituents' position, so that when a Schumer or McCarthy says "I got 5K emails in favor of a magazine ban" your member of Congress can say "I got 10K emails against a ban."
 
"I got 5K emails in favor of a magazine ban" your member of Congress can say "I got 10K emails against a ban."
Click to expand...

Exactly! It doesn't matter if they already know what the right thing to do is, our calls, letters, and emails give our guys ammo against the other side. Something the other side cannot ignore, or ignore only at their peril.

They always claim that what they are doing is what the people want. Having numbers of "the people" expressing their views against them is important.

We just changed the make up of Congress this last election, because of so many of the Congressmen NOT following the will of the people. The die hards, entrenched in districts where they cannot be put at risk won't change their minds. But the rest of them, know that we can, and will replace them, if need be. We have proven we can, and will do it. We did it in 94, and we did it in 2010. Now this bunch knows we will, and therefore, there's just a chance they will act as we desire. But without proof of our intentions, they are handicapped. Polls are BS. Polls can be slanted in any direction desired. And asking 1,000 people loaded questions, then believing that is what the other 300 some million of us want? Get real. OF course, politics today has little to do with real, until you get to the results of the laws. And then, its all too real! The only poll that really matters is held in November every two years.

Even though our representatives may know the right thing to do, our input is important. Because they also know that for every one of us who takes the time to write, or bothers to call, or send email, there are dozens, if not hundreds who feel the same way, but don't write in to tell them.
 
The speaker of the US house says that he will not bring H.R. 308 to the floor for a vote: Take that to the bank. The proponents of H.R. 308 will not be able to collect the signatures of 218 representatives necessary to over-ride the speakers ruling.

H.R. 308 is dead.
 
44 AMP said:
Exactly! It doesn't matter if they already know what the right thing to do is, our calls, letters, and emails give our guys ammo against the other side. Something the other side cannot ignore, or ignore only at their peril.
Click to expand...

I should clarify my meaning....

I don't have a problem with writing to my representative and thanking them for taking the right position or encouraging them....

It's when I have to say "You better (or better not) or else I won't vote for you!"...

If I have to TELL them, I need someone else in there who KNOWS already.

Reinforcement and encouragement is one thing. Directing them like they're in kindergarten, quite another.
 
And now barbara Boxer wants a federal law to force ALL 50 states to have CCW laws that give LE the right to arbitrarily deny permits, or so I have headr - anyone else caught this one?
 
peetza, understood, and agreed. Support is key, but if we need to lead them by the hand, we put the wrong people in office.
 
Slippery Slope?

I just thought I would comment on the "Slippery Slope" argument. It is indeed widely recognized that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

The problem many people have is that they believe such a statement invalidates the argument completely. Of course, this is not so; we have much historical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary in many such situations.

The key with RKBA is to understand that the erosion of rights is most often accomplished through emotion, not logic. Several people in this thread have already hit upon this fact.

People in favor of restricting or eliminating firearms ownership almost always use emotional arguments, presented instead as logical arguments. They frequently use carefully selected facts, instead of presenting the whole truth. They then claim that people in favor of RKBA use a "logical fallacy" to defend their own viewpoint, acting as if that eliminates viable opposition. The absurdity of the whole process is plain once you step back from the argument itself.

Probably the best thing we can do to defend our rights is to present people with the whole truth. We should present logical arguments where appropriate, and help people to understand the emotional arguments made by the other side.

Ultimately, all citizens of our country (and of all countries) should stick to the principle that more individual liberties are for the best.

Edit:

Wiki "slippery slope" and there is an excellent link to a .pdf I was looking for when typing my post earlier. It is directly related to RKBA.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf
 
Last edited:
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy Thank you to the US Conference of (1,209!) Mayors for formally backing my bill to ban high-capacity magazines. PDF: http://bit.ly/igQmzl
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Congresswoman-Carolyn-McCarthy/128261203867188?ref=ts

Feedback:
Typically, mayors are not concerned with the inalienable right of a citizen to defend themselves. Like most elected representatives, they enjoy the law enforcement protection provided by taxpayers. Anti-gun legislation from McCarthy is a self-serving effort based on her own personal tragedy. I'm not trying to belittle that tragedy, just to show that the personal agenda of a few representatives should never negate or infringe upon the rights guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Those core ideas give us the freedoms we enjoy to make choices in our own lives, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Legislation like this only subverts those core rights, while increasing the size and scope of the federal government to slowly chip away at our personal rights and freedoms.

You don't have to be a firearms enthusiast, but what happens when rights that are important to you become the target? To defend the rights of the few, you must strive to protect and defend the rights of all.

Should someone from New York really have the right to change the way people live in a place like Texas?
Click to expand...
 
Can we be a touch more mature? A person from NY has the right to propose whatever they want. Being from NY doesn't give them the magic power to impose a law.

What right does a person from TX have to propose legislation? The same as a person from NY.

Illogical rants do nothing to promote rights.
 
Rpger28 said:
I just thought I would comment on the "Slippery Slope" argument. It is indeed widely recognized that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

The problem many people have is that they believe such a statement invalidates the argument completely. Of course, this is not so; we have much historical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary in many such situations.

The key with RKBA is to understand that the erosion of rights is most often accomplished through emotion, not logic. Several people in this thread have already hit upon this fact.
Click to expand...


Tell me, friend, what exactly would be the difference between an "erosion of rights" and a "slippery slope"?

I'll answer that for you.... there is none.

The only way the "slippery slope" phenomenon can be denied is to either change the definition to something it isn't or deny reality.

Every person in the real world KNOWS by experience and instinct that the slippery slope phenomenon is not just real but common place and unavoidable.

Why do you think we resist "minor" changes in gun laws? Because they lead to more minor changes, that lead to more, until the original goal that could not have been reached in one fell swoop, is reached incrementally, down the slippery slope.

It's the same reason that abortion advocates resist ANY restriction to abortion, even those restrictions (partial-birth!) supported by VAST majorities of both parties and the American people.... they rightly know that those restrictions can and will be used to FURTHER restrict.

The slippery slope is at work throughout society. It is seen in every thing from drug use, to gun rights, to abortion, to pornography addiction... the list is endless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top