They're trying for the magazine ban again

They could tack the magazine ban onto the background check bill as an amendment.
Click to expand...

Will they ban standard capacity from their protection teams? Maybe they should do that first like the awb as like a trial for 10 years....then if it reduces crime, maybe it has merit?
 
I currently have 17 for my M&P .40 and 23 for my 1911. Although the latter technically hold less. So the question becomes, what about existing firearm magazines and those designed for higher capacity? Other than a magazine redesign. Best of luck to them if they think I'll turn them over.
 
"There's no reason why anyone, other than military, needs a gun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds," DeGette said.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about the people who say this kind of thing, and then go on to try and ban whatever it is under discussion.

Seriously, if there is no reason one needs something then why the hell are they trying to ban it???

The same logic, applied to just about everything else in the world would be considered ludicrous.
 
Tom Servo said:
It was introduced in the House last session, and it never even got assigned to committee.

It's worth keeping an eye on, but they'll probably only get one chance to ramrod something through. HR 8 (the background-check bill) seems to have the most cosponsors, so that's the one that most concerns me.
Click to expand...

What do you think the chances are that some Federal assault weapons ban will pass like the one in the nineties but without a sunset clause? Wouldn't that be a good place to tuck some more anti gun nonsense like a universal background check?
 
For a lot of it, I think the chances are pretty slim.

Consider for a moment the obvious response, that we tried bans and restrictions for TEN YEARS, and here we are nearly 20 years later, still arguing over whether or not that TEN YEARS of increased regulations had any noticeable effect....

Not did they have a significant effect, which is obvious they did not, but did ten years of restrictions and out right bans on purchase and ownership have an effect of any kind big enough to even see?? No clear answer has been forthcoming from the people studying it, many say there was no effect enough to measure.

SO if you try something for a decade, and it does NOTHING you can even notice about the problem you are concerned with, what kind of barking idiot thinks doing it again will be any different???

Apparently the kind of idiot who can get elected to Congress....:rolleyes:
When you get enough of those kind of people in Congress at the same time, then you get barking stupid things like the 94 AWB.

The rest of the time, there are enough people in Congress with a firm enough grip of reality to prevent that....usually...
 
What do you think the chances are that some Federal assault weapons ban will pass like the one in the nineties but without a sunset clause?
Click to expand...

Very, very unlikely. Republicans will pretend to grow a spine on the issue, and they'll be universal in opposing it. Some Democrats have been around long enough to remember how unpopular the last one was. Sure, they'll crow and make speeches about how they want another one, but when it comes down to the wire, they'll kill it in committee.

What's likely is an attempt at something more innocent-sounding and sneaky. They've been pushing us to believe 99.94% of the public supports their background check initiative, so that's probably what they'll push.
 
My fear is new regulations on the sale of gun parts or ammo on the internet. It sounds more moderate, but would likely kill a lot of competition in the industry and raise prices a lot. Not to mention the build your own AR from a legally transferred receiver will grow more complicated.
 
Tom Servo said:
Very, very unlikely. Republicans will pretend to grow a spine on the issue, and they'll be universal in opposing it. Some Democrats have been around long enough to remember how unpopular the last one was. Sure, they'll crow and make speeches about how they want another one, but when it comes down to the wire, they'll kill it in committee.

What's likely is an attempt at something more innocent-sounding and sneaky. They've been pushing us to believe 99.94% of the public supports their background check initiative, so that's probably what they'll push.
Click to expand...

A universal background check will only have a practical effect on guns sold after it passage. What worries me even more are laws aimed at the existing pool of guns sold prior to its passage.
 
It was the Law for 10 long years ... They did it once and they keep trying to bring it back and they are not going to stop untill it's the Law again ... they never stop ...they never give up and they never give in .
I wish our side was so dogged and determined .
Gary
 
I think we are lucky with the SCOTUS we have right now, and IF mag capacity limits or new auto-loader ban laws are passed (unlikely), I think there is almost no chance they'll pass Supreme Court scrutiny.

I am more worried about local new gun restrictions, specially in my state of Colorado.
 
A universal background check will only have a practical effect on guns sold after it passage. What worries me even more are laws aimed at the existing pool of guns sold prior to its passage.
Click to expand...

That is the reason that they'll next push for national gun registration. Without it, background checks are useless to track firearms bought and sold. How would they know if I sold a firearm to a friend without going through the "universal background check", unless they had a gun registry which showed that I owned the gun prior to my friend owning it? That is one of their long term goals. UBC's are a stepping stone toward that goal.
 
That is the reason that they'll next push for national gun registration. Without it, background checks are useless to track firearms bought and sold.
Click to expand...

While this is the truth, its not the "truth" being sold to the public about background checks. What they tell the public about the purpose of background checks has NOTHING to do with being able to track guns.

One can, and should do background checks with no mention of the firearm at all. After all, you are SUPPOSED to be checking the PERSON's background.

This COULD be done. One could, even, check every single (legal) person in the country, and put a code on their ID/driver's license/passport/smart ID, or whatever. And, only do it once. NOT every freakin time you buy/transfer a firearm. People don't become prohibited persons overnight, it takes a CONVICTION in court, and that same court could order the old ID surrendered and new one issued. Forgery is still an issue, but that's a CRIME by gosh...Point being such a system would work, would be non-invasive to gun owners, and wouldn't require trips to FFL dealers to have the check run.

BUT, that is not what we are being offered and so far everything proposed that is not what the other side is offering (which includes a built in need for registration & tracking the GUN) is totally unacceptable to them. They won't even discuss alternatives to their pipe dreams.

Also remember to consider the source when they spout lies about how 98% of Americans favor background checks (or what ever their pet project it). First of you can't get 98% of people to agree on what color the sky is or if the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Second, its not 98% (or whatever percent they claim) of Americans, ever. Its a percentage of the people they ASKED, and then, on top of that, it depends on what question is asked, and what the possible (and allowed) choices are.

Every time I hear of poll results, I remember a political cartoon from the early 70s where a (door to door) poll taker asks, "if the election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
A) Richard Nixon
B) Santa Claus
C) Easter Bunney

Am also reminded of a fellow I knew, who got on some poll list back during the Clinton years. Every 2-3 months they would call him and ask how he felt about the President, and the job he was doing.

The fellow was about as political as a rock, didn't care, and so just to be nice, told them he was fine with the Pres and the job he was doing. After a couple years of that, he decided to tell them something different and see what happened. The next time they called, he told them he was very unhappy with the Pres and he was doing a terrible job.

They never called him again.....

Just because they tell us something is so does not it is actually so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top