• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What will this accomplish?

Cracker06

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
30
Location
Joplin
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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."
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
Any ban should apply to Police and Military, too.
I've already started adding to my Magazines and Drums...
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

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..
 

celticredneck

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
168
Location
Amelia County, virginia
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.
 

Cavalryman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
296
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
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?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:dude:



--Please see my Moderator comment on post #11--
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
...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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
This was definitely a case of necroposting by a troll. His post was deleted and he was banned. Good on the management.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.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.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:
Top