PDA

View Full Version : Lautenberg & McCarthy on Huffpo RE: H.R. 308


ADH
04-07-2011, 9:47 AM
More specious disinformation from a familiar source;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html


Sorry if this is a dupe. I didn't it posted anywhere.

CalBear
04-07-2011, 9:52 AM
The National Rifle Association has called high-capacity magazines "standard equipment for self-defense handguns," but let's not kid ourselves: the only reason to supersize a handgun to two or three times its original bullet capacity is because you want to kill a lot of people very quickly.
What a golden nugget. So now 10 rounds = original capacity?!?!? Oh and go talk to the cops about mag capacity. Everybody knows that 1 bullet = 1 death. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:puke:

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 9:55 AM
More specious disinformation from a familiar source;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html


Sorry if this is a dupe. I didn't it posted anywhere.

It's time to end the bloodshed and restore common sense to our gun laws -- beginning with a permanent ban on high-capacity gun magazines.

This is the part that I find the most troubling. The Bradys seem to have a multi-step plan in mind, and have just admitted that this is "just the beginning".

I doubt that they have enough votes in Congress to push their entire scheme through, but this seems to be pretty good evidence that they have no intention to stop here.

CalBear
04-07-2011, 9:58 AM
It's time to end the bloodshed and restore common sense to our gun laws -- beginning with a permanent ban on high-capacity gun magazines.

This is the part that I find the most troubling. The Bradys seem to have a multi-step plan in mind, and have just admitted that this is "just the beginning".

I doubt that they have enough votes in Congress to push their entire scheme through, but this seems to be pretty good evidence that they have no intention to stop here.
At *bare* minimum, they want microstamping, nationwide may-issue (or no issue) CCW, a complete ban on all "scary" assault weapons, a ban on 10+ round magazines, extremely long mandatory waiting periods, weapon bans for people on the do not fly list or some other government watch list, expansion of the DROS system, registration of all ammunition at point of purchase w/ fingerprinting, a permit system to even acquire a gun, long gun registration, and a ban on all "non-sporting" shotguns.

And I'm sure their lofty aspirations extend well beyond these "initial" goals.

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 10:00 AM
The National Rifle Association has called high-capacity magazines "standard equipment for self-defense handguns," but let's not kid ourselves: the only reason to supersize a handgun to two or three times its original bullet capacity is because you want to kill a lot of people very quickly.

I purchased a Beretta 92FS in the early 1990s. The STANDARD capacity magazines that came with the handgun, and the four additional STANDARD capacity Beretta magazines that I purchased with it were 17 round capacity.

How is this suddenly and magically "two or three times" the "original bullet capacity" when it is the legislation that is arbitrarily setting the magazine limit as ten rounds?

I'd say that there is quite a bit of disinformation and wordsmithing going on here.

CalBear
04-07-2011, 10:05 AM
The National Rifle Association has called high-capacity magazines "standard equipment for self-defense handguns," but let's not kid ourselves: the only reason to supersize a handgun to two or three times its original bullet capacity is because you want to kill a lot of people very quickly.

I purchased a Beretta 92FS in the early 1990s. The STANDARD capacity magazines that came with the handgun, and the four additional STANDARD capacity Beretta magazines that I purchased with it were 17 round capacity.

How is this suddenly and magically "two or three times" the "original bullet capacity" when it is the legislation that is arbitrarily setting the magazine limit as ten rounds?

I'd say that there is quite a bit of disinformation and wordsmithing going on here.
These guys are extremely manipulative, and they're very good ad spreading FUD. From assault weapons being dangerous killing machines to 10+ mags being "extended capacity," they've spread lies to the media, and the uneducated public soaks it up like a sponge.

FourTenJaeger
04-07-2011, 11:45 AM
Notice MOST OF Huffington ''Super posters'' Are decidely anti-gun. Scary that these people have to exist.

Snaps
04-07-2011, 12:49 PM
"This new legislation's goal is not to eliminate gun ownership in responsible hands; we simply want to restore a sensible safeguard that protects our families and children."

Baconator
04-07-2011, 12:51 PM
Oh the children.

SupportGeek
04-07-2011, 12:58 PM
"This new legislation's goal is not to eliminate gun ownership in responsible hands; we simply want to restore a sensible safeguard that protects our families and children."

That statement is decidedly at odds with the fact that the right to bear arms is already for protecting our families and children. I think I'll side with the constitution on this one.

ADH
04-07-2011, 1:09 PM
At *bare* minimum, they want microstamping, nationwide may-issue (or no issue) CCW, a complete ban on all "scary" assault weapons, a ban on 10+ round magazines, extremely long mandatory waiting periods, weapon bans for people on the do not fly list or some other government watch list, expansion of the DROS system, registration of all ammunition at point of purchase w/ fingerprinting, a permit system to even acquire a gun, long gun registration, and a ban on all "non-sporting" shotguns.

And I'm sure their lofty aspirations extend well beyond these "initial" goals.

De facto prohibition in lieu of repealing 2A outright. Disgraceful.

Connor P Price
04-07-2011, 1:24 PM
So when 3 armed men break into my house intent on harming my family (they'll have normal capacity mags, they don't care about the law) who is this law protecting? I'll only have 10 rounds because I obey the law.

The criminals will be protected, our families will be in danger. Thanks antis!

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Baconator
04-07-2011, 1:25 PM
So when 3 armed men break into my house intent on harming my family (they'll have normal capacity mags, they don't care about the law) who is this law protecting? I'll only have 10 rounds because I obey the law.

The criminals will be protected, our families will be in danger. Thanks antis!

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Same goes for most all gun laws. Laws only affect people who follow the laws, people who don't follow the law don't care about breaking gun laws.

johnny_22
04-07-2011, 1:42 PM
One of the frequent posters gave a link to KQED for a statistic (Kellerman, of course):

http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/guns/index.html

Guess my next request contribution will include a printout of this page and a note saying no more money until it is made more balance or simply removed!

lomalinda
04-07-2011, 2:04 PM
"A, the police might come at you at any moment. If they start shooting at you, some people will shoot back. Especially if they got three strikes."

Why the **** such people would be allowed three strikes is clear: it feeds into the perpetual cycle of violence involving people like this ****bag that the antis require to inflict their will upon law-abiding Americans.

What this actually calls into question is not why are firearms available, but why are the law makers not penalized for allowing repeat offenders back into the world with the rest of us?

cdtx2001
04-07-2011, 2:07 PM
Another reason added to my list of why I don't read the HuffPo.

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 3:44 PM
Oh the children.

Originally Posted by boberama
Second of all, Lady Gaga has no connection with the Hindenburg, and that was completely random. I'm sure that the guy who posted that Hindenburg poster with Lady Gaga falling to her death is the same sort of guy who laughs at pictures of Holocaust victims.




Laughing at pictures of the holocaust would be particularly inappropriate, but watching Lady Gaga falling from height from an exploding vehicle wouldn't exactly ruin my day. That is, with the caveat that it would be the LAST time that I EVER had to watch ANYTHING involving Lady Gaga.