Democrates Propose Nationwide 10+ Round Magazine Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
3,506
Location
Lincoln Co. NC
I copy and pasted the article to eliminate the comments at the end but you can find the whole article by searching GunsAmerica Digest.


"Democrats in the U.S. Congress have re-introduced legislation that would ban Americans from importing, selling, manufacturing, transferring, or possessing all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The "Keep Americans Safe Act" would allow those who already own standard capacity magazines to keep them, and it would not apply to tubular, .22-caliber magazines.

But it would ban the transfer of outlawed magazines and, over time, eliminate most standard-capacity mags for mid-and-full-sized semi-automatic handguns as well as the most popular mags for semi-automatic rifles.

The bill's lead sponsors, Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, held a press conference on Tuesday announcing the legislation. The anti-gun lobby and their supporters in the media were, as usual, firing strange and misleading comments vis a vis fully semi-automatic.

"Guns become doubly and triply deadly in these massacres because of these high-capacity magazines," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, another of the bill's sponsors. "And so if we take one simple step in approving this prohibition, we can literally save lives. There is no more simple, straightforward way to save lives from gun violence than to ban these high-capacity magazines."

"The fact is that these high-capacity magazines allow someone to fire off more than 10 rounds in a row," Rep. Ted Deutch added, helpfully. "You don't need that if you're a hunter, you don't need that for any purpose. You don't need that for sporting purposes."

Manny Oliver, who tragically lost his son in the Parkland massacre, couldn't provide much clarification.

"Have you realized how simple this is to approve? We're just reducing the amount of ammunition on a gun that you can still carry with less ammunition inside. Is that so hard to understand?" he said.

"We're not asking, we're not begging," Oliver said. "We demand."

The legislation has yet to receive support from a single Republican lawmaker in the House or Senate. The National Rifle Association also voiced their opposition to the bill.

"This legislation would effectively ban the most commonly owned firearms for self-defense," said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker. "It is an arbitrary limit pulled out of thin air with no evidence that the limits would improve public safety. In fact the after report from the deadliest school shooting in American history states that magazine limits would have had no impact. This is just more nonsense from anti-gun zealots who are looking to score political points by proposing legislation that would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to self-defense while doing nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes."

While the legislation is unlikely to be considered in the Senate, it has secured endorsements from at least five Democratic presidential candidates, including Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York."
 
Register to hide this ad
I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .
 
Last edited:
When people say this, I always recall the last lines of the famous post Holocaust lectures by Martin Niemoller: : "Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me . . . "

I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .
 
I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .

We have met the enemy...

Can you say Fudd?
 
You guys are correct in that if you let those that rule get away with something that violate your neighbors rights you have no moral leg to stand on when they violate yours .So I change my mind i now am against magazine bans whether nationally or local .Thanks Muss for talking some sense into me.I honestly do believe that and expressed that exact sentiment in a recent post about another subject but one that should be dear to every gun owner and freedom loving Americans heart but alas it was deleted for being "political" .I feel anything that steps on one Americans right steps all of our rights .
 
You guys are correct in that if you let those that rule get away with something that violate your neighbors rights you have no moral leg to stand on when they violate yours .So I change my mind i now am against magazine bans whether nationally or local .Thanks Muss for talking some sense into me.I honestly do believe that and expressed that exact sentiment in a recent post about another subject but one that should be dear to every gun owner and freedom loving Americans heart but alas it was deleted for being "political" .I feel anything that steps on one Americans right steps all of our rights .

Thank you! Remember appeasement NEVER works. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that turned out for Britain. ;)
 
Yeah, 10 rounds mags will solve all the problems!! Until they decide that 10 round are too much then 7 round mags will solve the problem.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Confiscation is what they want. All this is is their realization that they can't get that in one bite, so they'll take a lot of smaller bites instead.

Rep. Swalwell let the cat out of the bag. While I don't agree with him, at least he was honest about their goals.
 
I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should eliminate people's ability to post personal opinions on the internet - social media, discussion forums etc...because The First Amendment was written at a time when people wrote letters with quill pens and scrolls...and printing presses and newspapers were few and far between. The Founding Fathers could not have fathomed the www and Twitter and facebook...so...
 
Last edited:
I guess they can "demand" all they want. It was tried once, and had zero determinable effect on crime. Not gonna happen again.

John

These proposals have nothing to do with reducing crime and everything to do with concentrating power.

"Reducing crime" is just a rhetorical device to cover true intentions.
 
Using your reasoning, perhaps we should eliminate people's ability to post personal opinions on the internet - social media, discussion forums etc...because The First Amendment was written at a time when people wrote letters with quill pens and scrolls...and printing presses and newspapers were few and far between. The Founding Fathers could not have fathomed the www and Twitter and facebook...so...

Read post 5 .
 
I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .

Ladies and gentlemen...the problem ↑

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to affirm the ability of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government, if necessary. Zero to do with hunting or "sporting purposes" unless you figure hunting traitors is part of that.

EDIT: Read post #5 --- looks like we talked some sense into you :)
 
Last edited:
I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn't effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .
Ralph Northam, governor of Virginia, thinks 3 rounds is enough for anyone, given the fact that Virginia law restricts hunting shotguns to 3 rounds. Would a 3 round restriction affect you? How about a 1 round restriction, and the ammo or powder must be held in a guarded arsenal?

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
 
The magazine banners owe a great debt to Bill ruger for blazing the trail. In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Bill Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to
outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms
(which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to
prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete,
and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of
defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The
large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes
the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could
prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these
objectives."

In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by
"The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview
with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by
saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and, "I
never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

Ol' Billeh has passed on to his eternal reward. He is gone, but never forgotten. His legacy of banning magazines continues.
 
I thought all elected or appointed officials, military, law enforcement, judicial swear an oath to uphold and to defend the constitution. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Supposed to? Yes.
But if told by their supervisors or elected officials to do something that violates the constitution, will they? That is the question. They certainly did in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Do not expect rank and file LEO's or service members to be constitutional scholars. They do as they are told, that is their job.
 
With this new breed of politicians, if that's what you call them, the only thing to do is fight every possible new law, rule , change, language, with any means NRA, state politicians, money , but the biggest is to get out and vote-in people that stand for our beliefs. These newby politicians want to outlaw cows that fart, Heck I could be next.
If Ruger had made his statements during the cell phone/computer era,Im sure he would have ate his words (or letters) or suffered with his business .
 
Last edited:
Many of our elected officials believe that the Constitution is a "living" document that can now be interpreted according to the prevailing winds of public opinion and a shifting culture. So, they can swear to uphold it, and then proceed to shred it while believing that they are honoring their oaths.

Pernicious, despicable, and treasonous. There is a reason why the oath that I swore (and from which I have never been relieved) mentioned "enemies, foreign and domestic".
 
Get ready! This is only the beginning and what happens in 2020 could be a total disaster for the 2A.

While it certainly would not help...I seriously doubt any radical firearms related legislation would get past the Supreme Court in its present incarnation. The primary threat to the Second Amendment has always been one of interpretation of its text and meaning. Who gets to be the interpreter is the sticking point. There is a tendency, as we have seen elsewhere, to reinterpret and even re-invent or rewrite other historical writings to keep them relevant in light of progress and scientific/technological advances. Luckily, the current lineup of justices will have a tendency to uphold an individual Citizen's Right To Keep and Bear Arms. My own interpretation of the 2nd is the following: "Because it is necessary for the nation and/or government to maintain a standing army...an Armed Citizenry is necessary to counteract that force and maintain a balance of power."
 
Last edited:
While it certainly would not help...I seriously doubt any radical firearms related legislation would get past the Supreme Court in its present incarnation. The primary threat to the Second Amendment has always been one of interpretation of its text and meaning. Who gets to be the interpreter is the sticking point. There is a tendency, as we have seen elsewhere, to reinterpret and even re-invent or rewrite other historical writings to keep them relevant in light of progress and scientific/technological advances. Luckily, the current lineup of justices will have a tendency to uphold an individual Citizen's Right To Keep and Bear Arms. My own interpretation of the 2nd is the following: "Because it is necessary for the nation and/or government to maintain a standing army...an Armed Citizenry is necessary to counteract that force and maintain a balance of power."

Should be the case, but the Supreme Court don't mean squat when states are attempting and passing more and more draconian firearm restrictions and for the most part getting away with it right now.
The grabbers have recognized that individual state laws are where the advances are to be made, not the federal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top