Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: What will this accomplish?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Joplin
    Posts
    30

    What will this accomplish?

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=6139

    Friday, January 21, 2011

    On Tuesday, Jan. 18, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 308, the "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act." The bill would ban the manufacture and importation of new magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Unlike the magazine ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, her new bill would also make it illegal for the tens of millions of Americans who already own these magazines to sell or otherwise transfer them, even through inheritance.

    In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed, "The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible." Yet her bill would allow the continued acquisition and possession of these magazines by law enforcement officers, who carry firearms to defend themselves and the public. It would even allow these magazines to be transferred to law enforcement officers upon retirement, even though a retired officer's right to use firearms for self-defense is the same as any other private citizen's right.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    It will serve to put honest, law-abiding citizens yet even further in harm's way.

    Idiot.

    (Congresswoman McCarthy, not the OP).
    Last edited by since9; 01-26-2011 at 11:07 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    It will serve to put honest, law-abiding citizens yet even further in harm's way.

    Idiot.

    (Congresswoman McCarthy, not the OP).
    I do not see this going anywhere but dumber things have happened(obomacare)
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    So it is ok according to their opinion for Police to have the ability to kill as much people as possible?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    So it is ok according to their opinion for Police to have the ability to kill as much people as possible?
    Yes because they can control the police, they cant control an armed public.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  6. #6
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    And, of course, none of us mundanes would ever be faced with more than one attacker... Just like in the Kung Fu movies, they'll politely wait their turn.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Yes because they can control the police, they cant control an armed public.
    And that my friend is what scares them the most, me thinks.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    And that my friend is what scares them the most, me thinks.
    +1

    The "shocker," if you will, is that they can "control" a law-abiding citizenry, through the law, but that goes two ways for we, as law-abiding citizens, will vote them out of office for making law into what it should not be.

    The corallary is that no about of legislation will ever prevent law-breakers from breaking the law. It will, however, help allow law-abiding citizens to continue to protect themselves and their community, but that law is already on the books: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Any ban should apply to Police and Military, too.
    I've already started adding to my Magazines and Drums...
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by mstealth View Post
    A very good looking magazine and I am pleased to read it. I have gained some knowledge from this magazine.
    welcome to the forum.
    thank you for necro posting a 5 month old thread, just to tell us, it was interesting!
    youve been here since january and just today you make your only 4 posts,
    all to say you liked it or read it or learned something...
    study the forum, study the threads, look at the dates.
    please dont reply to old, dug up threads, just so youll have somewhere to write!
    thanks for playing..
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Amelia County, virginia
    Posts
    169
    Everyone misses the point. Laws do not prevent anything. They only give the authorities something with which they can charge and punish people who violate said laws.
    You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    welcome to the forum.
    thank you for necro posting a 5 month old thread, just to tell us, it was interesting!
    youve been here since january and just today you make your only 4 posts,
    all to say you liked it or read it or learned something...
    study the forum, study the threads, look at the dates.
    please dont reply to old, dug up threads, just so youll have somewhere to write!
    thanks for playing..
    Who put you in charge?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    welcome to the forum.
    thank you for necro posting a 5 month old thread, just to tell us, it was interesting!
    youve been here since january and just today you make your only 4 posts,
    all to say you liked it or read it or learned something...
    study the forum, study the threads, look at the dates.
    please dont reply to old, dug up threads, just so youll have somewhere to write!
    thanks for playing..
    I thought there was some unspoken rule where we are 'nice' or 'sweet' to newcomers until they are around for a bit. I have said before that I wait until they hit about a hundred posts -then I go crazy on them. You're jumping the gun here...you're jumping the gun



    --Please see my Moderator comment on post #11--
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    ...please dont reply to old, dug up threads...
    Since when did a six month old OP with a five month maximum interval between two posts become an "old, dug up thread?" Some of the subsections on this forum sport six month old threads on page 1.

    I've been either a mod or admin on message forums since 1986. Back then we called them eBBSes i.e. Electronic Bulletin Board Systems. Dial-up.

    This is not a case of thread necromancy. Three years? Yes. One year? Maybe. Six months? No way.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,

    i checked his post history,
    all in old threads, just to say, interesting, thanks, i didnt know that...
    never had anything of value to add,
    some kind of troll,
    he has been banned.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This was definitely a case of necroposting by a troll. His post was deleted and he was banned. Good on the management.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracker06 View Post
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=6139

    Friday, January 21, 2011

    On Tuesday, Jan. 18, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 308, the "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act." The bill would ban the manufacture and importation of new magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Unlike the magazine ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, her new bill would also make it illegal for the tens of millions of Americans who already own these magazines to sell or otherwise transfer them, even through inheritance.

    In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed, "The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible." Yet her bill would allow the continued acquisition and possession of these magazines by law enforcement officers, who carry firearms to defend themselves and the public. It would even allow these magazines to be transferred to law enforcement officers upon retirement, even though a retired officer's right to use firearms for self-defense is the same as any other private citizen's right.

    People like this don't pay attention that a good revolver shooter can load quite fast or that someone who counts their rounds can reload on the last chambered round which means they never go to slid-lock. Carry enough 10 round mags and it's no different than carrying a 15 round mag.

  18. #18
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    And, of course, none of us mundanes would ever be faced with more than one attacker... Just like in the Kung Fu movies, they'll politely wait their turn.
    That's where my thinking goes. We have these Flash Mobs of twenty plus going into stores and just taking what they want and walking out. I'll get a little extreme here and go out on a limb. A Flash Mob breaks into my home, HELL YEH I want to shoot as many people as I can as quickly as I can. But maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm a bad person.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Yes because they can control the police
    But letting the cops run wild is exactly what they want. There are too many examples of this already.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracker06 View Post
    In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed, "The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible."
    What can I say? She's an anti-gun Dem from NY sputtering typical Brady Bunch rhetoric. In fact, it sounds like it was lifted directly off their site... Were we expecting anything different? Regardless, she's obviously incorrect. The only reason for the existence of these devices is to avoid running out of ammo while protecting life and limb of self and others.
    Last edited by since9; 07-01-2011 at 04:02 AM. Reason: more closely reflect quoted material
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    What can I say? She's an anti-gun Dem from NY sputtering typical Brady Bunch rhetoric. In fact, it sounds like it was lifted directly off their site... Were we expecting anything different? Regardless, she's obviously incorrect. The only reason is to avoid running out of ammo while protecting life and limb of self and others.
    And where has her bill gone? Exactly nowhere. It will never get voted out of committee seeing as how Slave State pieces of **** like her are in a small minority in the House. She is one worthless bitch, but coming from the Gulag of ny, hardly surprising.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •