Here we go again: Democratic senators go after “High Capacity” Magazines once more.

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill – The Hill’s Video.

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 Usual Suspects against the Second Amendment do not let a shooting go to waste. Those of us old enough to have lived through the AWB are pretty stocked with mags and other devices, but the new generations might not and the point is to stop all kinds of interferences to our rights.

Time to contact both your Congress-person and your Senator and telling them we will not accept any restrictions to our Second Amendment Rights no matter how “sensible” they appear or appeal.

One last thing. Have you joined the NRA? If so, are you sure you are still a current member? I am still amazed at the amount of people who swear they are members but then realize they haven’t renewed their membership in years. Our strength is in the number of voters that the NRA leadership represents. So if you are not a member or let your status expire, JOIN HERE.

If you are a member, you may want to consider donating directly to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Monies for the NRA-ILA go straight to fight for our rights in Congress. Any amount will do and will be greatly appreciated. That cheap box of practice ammo for your 9mm that cost around $10 to $12? Donate that money to make sure every “round” will be used against any further attacks on the Second Amendment.

 

8 Replies to “Here we go again: Democratic senators go after “High Capacity” Magazines once more.”

  1. So basically Schumer is saying, “We openly supported taking your guns in the 80s and 90s, but boy did that not work. Now, we’ll just say we’re for ‘reasonable’ gun control and take them piecemeal.”




    0



    0
  2. Make sure your pro-gun friends are Registered to VOTE. Too many people talk about Glock verse 1911 BUT do not VOTE!!! 🙂




    0



    0
  3. so now the shooters will use .22s instead of .223s, until they take those away then they will go to explosives and fire bombs, once the materials for those are illegal they will run into a crowd with a chainsaw or a weedeater with a chain blade. or maybe they will just drive a large 4×4 into a crowd of people at an event. None of this bullshit will stop crazy people from doing crazy things.




    0



    0
  4. Let me ask a stupid question. Why does the bill exclude retired LEOs?

    “(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or”

    Does one US citizen have some kind of magical legal status superior to other US citizens, simply by virtue of retiring from law enforcement? And why would *former* LEOs need access to high cap mags, but average citizens would not?

    Actually, one more stupid question. Has anyone suggested to these politicians that all this will do is inspire the American inventive spirit to figure out an even faster way to expel empty mags and insert spares?

    Argh. TGIF!




    0



    0
    1. Simply? So LEOs would back the bill. I give you this crumb if you support my legislation. The other crumb will be “This will not affect traditional hunting rifles” so the Fudds will stay away from the fight.




      0



      0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .