JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
2,946
Reactions
5,009
No real shock when you see who did it.

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill - The Hill's Video

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.
 
Aaand that's how the Rs won the Senate back. Doctrinaire idiots. What's with the Ds trying to gin up only the base? Nobody but Romney is courting the Independents.

Craziness. Unless....... the Ds think they have a trump card.
 
Aaand that's how the Rs won the Senate back. Doctrinaire idiots. What's with the Ds trying to gin up only the base? Nobody but Romney is courting the Independents.

Craziness. Unless....... the Ds think they have a trump card.

Either they're doing it to appease their constituents, knowing the amendment won't make it out of committee or they have a level of delusion that this is an astute political move for their (and the President's) career. If it's the former, ok, I get it. If the latter? Bad strategy. Schumer wasn't in Senate after the faux pas of 94, but he's smart enough to know his history of the time.

I really wish the adult filter wasn't on this site, or there were adult-assigned subforums. Why? Because sometimes the most appropriate descriptions of Boxer and Feinstein just can't be captured in a series of bubblegums. And not because of this action, just in general - because the descriptions fit.
 
I hate, hate, hate this earmark crap. How is it even possible to pack up bills with subjects that do not pertain to the original intent?? This crap pisses me off and is a major reason why nothing ever passes in congress. There are just so many of these things packed into legislation that nobody know which way to vote. Disgusting.
 
I agree FarmerTed!!

I am still trying to understand how we got to the point that people can just tack on earmarks to a bill that have nothing to do with the root of the bill? We hear about it all the time, when a group does not want something passed they just throw a random earmark on that they know nobody wants, or they try to sneak some adgenda item on without anyone noticing.. How is it even possible and allowed to happen?
 
I think that those are called rider, not ear marks, but I'm not sure....

Anyway...it's because we let politicians make their own rules for running the house and senate. It was written into the Constitution, and we (the employers) haven't gotten around to fixing that little mistake yet.
 
That would mean that many people would all of a sudden find themselves with legally non-functional firearms, as a lot by default are delivered with >10 round magazines and I guess there'd be a heavy demand for legal mags in case such a bill would settle.

Being not particularly familiar with the legal processes and frameworks, but how will a court decide whether such a law is too much of an invasion on state matters by the federal government?
 
Just spent the better part of 30 minutes Emailing my senators and all the OR Congressmen and letting them know I do not support this amendment and if they want my Independent vote they should not support it either. It may not do anything by it's self but at least I am expressing my opinion to them in a positive way.
If everyone on NWFA took the time to do this it might make a slight impact. One thing is clear, doing nothing will result in the same, nothing..
My .02
Doc
 
I still a few no name "pre-ban" 17 round glock mags I bought in 2001. In all honesty though I did buy them at a gun show, so if the ban is reimplemented, they will need to close the gun show high capacity magazine loophole too. :s0114:
 
Schumer... also said average Americans don't need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. It IS about protecting ourselves from a despotic regime's military and having the weaponry to successfully oppose them. The intent of the framers was, first of all that a standing military should not exist, but that if one should be raised by the government and used to threaten the people, the people would have the means to respond successfully to the threat. They would have argued that the citizens should have a right to possess any weapon used by the military.
 
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. It IS about protecting ourselves from a despotic regime's military and having the weaponry to successfully oppose them. The intent of the framers was, first of all that a standing military should not exist, but that if one should be raised by the government and used to threaten the people, the people would have the means to respond successfully to the threat. They would have argued that the citizens should have a right to possess any weapon used by the military.

Schumer is a tool.
 
Little Chucky Schumer, what a tool.

Is this the same Sen Schumer that's trying to block China National Offshore Oil Corp from acquiring Canadas Nexon Oil Corp on the grounds of US energy security? Yes it is.

The same Sen Schumer who voted against the Keystone pipeline which directly caused Canada to make deals with China instead? Yep.

WTG Schumer!! Where do we find these so called "leaders?"
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top