Another Attempt at Lautenberg Style Ban

Redbaron007 said:

this is just the tip

Click to expand...

Griz said:

It's the point that counts

Click to expand...

JmE said:

take one for the team.

Click to expand...

:uhoh:

davidmcbeth said:

Ahhhh, facts facts facts facts .... gotta love 'em.

Click to expand...

I do. Dems don't.

By the way, I posted at length to this, here.

I didn't see your thread when I started my own Grapeshot. Please merge the threads. Thanks.

And this one. Duplicate threads are a hindrance to forum members.

When the amendment says "shall not be infringed," there is no room for middle ground. In fact, there's no room for any infringement whatsoever.

That's not an extreme pro-gun stance. That's the Second Amendment's stance: "the right to keep [own] and bear [carry] arms shall not be infringed."

We need to call the antis bluffs. When they start speaking of middle ground, we need to reiterate the second amendment as is, often enough so that somehow, it finally gets through their ears, or at the very least, the ears of the idiots who vote these idiots into office.

since9 said:

We need to call the antis bluffs. When they start speaking of middle ground, we need to reiterate the second amendment as is, often enough

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

since9 said:

so that somehow, it finally gets through their ears, or at the very least, the ears of the idiots who vote these idiots into office.

Click to expand...

I think getting through to the voters has more potential than trying to get through to the hardcore antis. I don't think that the most stanch of the anti-RKBA politicians are honestly motivated by what they publicly proclaim when espousing the most outrageous of what the spew forth. Rather, I believe it is the power that they truly crave. They don't fear what will happen to Joe or Jane Smith. They fear that their grasp on power is tenuous as long as the people retain the means to overthrow them. Much as a sociopath might lie without remorse and may even believe their own lies when it suits them; so it's the same with the most rabid and public gun grabbers. The rank and file anti, however, are the "true believers." They operate from, perhaps, a more noble fear than that of their anti-rights puppeteers. Still, it's all fear based to some degree. At the upper-most tier, they fear losing power and at the lowest of tiers they fear losing their false sense of security; i.e. their delusion of power.

Even amongst gun owners, there are fear based beliefs, albeit more honest about motivations than antis, as to how far an individual's right to keep and bear arms can be restricted. It appears sometimes arbitrary to me (one person's acceptable restriction is another's infringement). But, I'll leave that contentious line of thought hanging right there... We don't need even more division in the ranks of gun owners.

We ought try to get through to the gun owners that might support the more damaging infringements first. Then, we should attempt to get through to the lowest tier of antis and work our way up. At some point along the line, we'll experience no return on our investment of energy. That is where it's no longer about delusions of safety but about power and retaining it by any means necessary. With people from that point on up, we aren't going to have any real success getting through as they, deep down, know that their fight isn't motivated by what they claim. These people aren't mistaken... they are plainly malevolent and nonredeemable.

And Jack... remember... pics or it didn't happen!

I hate it when they sneak stuff like that in. I didn't like it in the credit card act (while I liked the amendment, just not the sneakiness) either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21cards.html?_r=1

JmE said:

And Jack... remember... pics or it didn't happen!

Click to expand...

So true!! :banana:

JmE said:

And Jack... remember... pics or it didn't happen!

Click to expand...

large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes [sic] and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition

Click to expand...

Whoever gave the anti's the idea that 10 rounds is 'normal'?
Most pistols I've seen (at least, the full-sized ones in 9mm or .40) have at least 12 as their factory-standard provided-with-a-new-gun magazine. A couple that I have start at 17 rounds, & no, they're not .22.

That's only one of the language games they play, & we need to reformat what's being said.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but these are reduced capacity magazines.
What other G or PG terms can we come up with for them?

well,,,

"Infringed" capacity....
"Reduced" capacity....
"Politicly correct" capacity....

MKEgal said:

Whoever gave the anti's the idea that 10 rounds is 'normal'?
Most pistols I've seen (at least, the full-sized ones in 9mm or .40) have at least 12 as their factory-standard provided-with-a-new-gun magazine. A couple that I have start at 17 rounds, & no, they're not .22.

That's only one of the language games they play, & we need to reformat what's being said.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but these are reduced capacity magazines.
What other G or PG terms can we come up with for them?

Click to expand...

That's the argument I had with my friend. Most guns use more than 10 because that's what they have space for. If you reduce them to 10rds, they're going to be bastardized magazines that just waste space.

Jack House said:

That's the argument I had with my friend. Most guns use more than 10 because that's what they have space for. If you reduce them to 10rds, they're going to be bastardized magazines that just waste space.

Click to expand...

I would think my Liberal friends would be down with a magazine capacity that wastes no space. Call my Beretta 92FS 15+1 (I can squeeze 16) a Green Gun.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I would think my Liberal friends would be down with a magazine capacity that wastes no space. Call my Beretta 92FS 15+1 (I can squeeze 16) a Green Gun.

Click to expand...

That, Mrs. Lady, is an excellent idea! Re-brand these guns as green guns and space wasters as environmentally damaging. Afterall, there is quite a bit of truth to it. It takes more magazines to carry the same amount of ammo. Which means you're going to be buying more magazines, which means manufacturers are going to be polluting the air more as they produce three times as many mags.

"Standard capacity" has been at least 13+1 since 1935.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Call my Beretta 92FS 15+1 (I can squeeze 16) a Green Gun.

Click to expand...

I'm 16+1. Greener! Let's make it greener still and end any and all limits to magazine capacity. As it is, I have to carry four magazines to carry my normal complement of 63 bullets (year I was born). Thankfully, four magazines gives me two extra. :banana:

since9 said:

I'm 16+1. Greener! Let's make it greener still and end any and all limits to magazine capacity. As it is, I have to carry four magazines to carry my normal complement of 63 bullets (year I was born). Thankfully, four magazines gives me two extra. :banana:

Click to expand...

I carry 15+1, and two spare 15 rd. magazines. I was telling my wife this evening that if I am ever in a situation where I need to use three magazines worth, when I get home--if I get home--she better give me a b*tch-out session like no other. So, my count is 46...and no, I'm not 46, I'm 34.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I carry 15+1, and two spare 15 rd. magazines. I was telling my wife this evening that if I am ever in a situation where I need to use three magazines worth, when I get home--if I get home--she better give me a b*tch-out session like no other. So, my count is 46...and no, I'm not 46, I'm 34.

Click to expand...

I recall several instances over the last two years where an individual was severely beaten by a rather large crowd, including one incident outside a theater immediately following the presentation, where a gent merely asked some chatty cathy's to be quiet. I can easily imagine a scenario where 65 rounds would not be enough. My tactics in that situation, however, aren't to stay and fight, but to always be aware, avoid trouble if at all possible, minimize damage if I can't, and get the hell out of there.

If a crowd storms me, however, and I'm cornered, I'm not going down without a fight. I will NOT surrender a loaded weapon to a crazed group of people! No telling what they might do with it.

I'll simply have to unload it, first... :shocker:

Please contact your senators!!!

Folks PLEASE contact your Senators and tell them you do not support the Cybersecurity Act, and that you certainly don't support S.A. 2575. This legislation and this amendment are destroyers of freedom, and we need to stand up and make our voices heard. Tell them NO to both before this gains any traction!! If WE don't tell our representatives what we want, then we allow them to decide for us! Tell them we like our Second Amendment and want less restrictions, not more!

I have always believed that bills being introduced should strictly remain ON TOPIC. If your introducing a cyberbully bill, it should only contain legislation that is in exact alignment with the title, topic and intent of the bill.

- Other side of that coin, we should introduce our own bills, something simple that all common people will love (like making it illegal to put needles in candy during manufacture) and sneak in a repeal of the 1934 NFA and GTA of 1968.....

- I'd prefer the first, and just make it illegal to include off topic add-ons in to a bill.

MKEgal said:

That's only one of the language games they play, & we need to reformat what's being said.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but these are reduced capacity magazines.
What other G or PG terms can we come up with for them?

Click to expand...

Leaflets?