Schumer attachs magazine ban to cyber security bill

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Heads up, debate on the magazine ban bill that Chuck Schumer attached to a cyber security bill is scheduled for sometime next week....

 

http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

[BlueLineFish 615]

How the hell would you know if you bought the magazine before or after the ban

[RS1200XL 4]

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.).

 

 

Why am I not surprised?

[Nikos 31]

 

 

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

Because they're the dream team of stupidity and useless feel-good laws.

[Anselmo 87]

How the hell would you they know if you bought the magazine before or after the ban

 

I would know but how would the police know?

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

I would know but how would the police know?

 

Exactly

[bulpup 98]

I'm just gonna snipe/rant here.

 

When they talk about magazines, point to mental health.

 

Guns and magazines don't kill people, people kill people; redirect the conversation - Mental health has traction - it is people.

and the thought benefits from being true.

 

The PEOPLE that kill people are MENTALLY ILL or criminals.

The fact is, prisons are funded but mental health care is not.

 

It is what we have been saying all along. People kill people.

 

I have no problem repeating myself - as a son of two mental health care professionals, I want my CCW because I KNOW the State and Federal government isn't doing enough about the mentally ill.

 

As gun owners we need to see that the high profile masacres are not done by criminals but by psychotic individuals that have not been treated.

 

Massacres aren't commited by career criminals, they are done by psychotics. - and the psychotics cause all of the politicians to posture with new laws. Criminals, - and you know it's true - ...not so much.

[BigHayden 77]

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.).

 

I guess it's pointless to call our Senaturds to urge them to vote against this bill.

[db1775 4]

I could accept being limited to 10 rd mags, if they included their protection details within the scope of the law too. I'd really respect him if he limited his security to only carrying six-shooters, but like all of these people they lack the courage of their convictions.

[bulpup 98]

I could accept being limited to 10 rd mags, if they included their protection details within the scope of the law too. I'd really respect him if he limited his security to only carrying six-shooters, but like all of these people they lack the courage of their convictions.

 

f- that Shite, I moved out of NY to NJ and jumped for joy about a 15 round magazine.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

How the hell would you know if you bought the magazine before or after the ban

 

They'd dumped the burden on you to prove in a court of law.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

And yes, it affects lever guns.....

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/foghorn/democrats-tack-high-cap-magazine-ban-onto-cybersecurity-bill/

[RubberBullets 65]

I know this practice is nothing new but it still boggles my mind that the legislature can attach amendments to bills that have NOTHING to do with the bills original intention. Same goes with their earmarks tacked onto random other bills to funnel taxpayer money under the veil of a bill completely unrelated to the bill on the floor. Thats political shady dealings and it needs to come to an end.

[fumanchu182 23]

This is friggin ridiculous. I work as a software engineer and thought the RIAA backed bill was bs before but now it is completely going to fugg everyone. This bill needs to be dead on arrival. Its horrible how they can add a amendment that has nothing to do with the original bill.

[LorenzoS 100]

How the hell would you know if you bought the magazine before or after the ban

 

The bill include a requirement to mark every magazine, including a serial number. There is zero chance of this passing, its just a sad gesture by pathetic people. As always I blame our citizenry for electing these assholes.

[fumanchu182 23]

The bill include a requirement to mark every magazine, including a serial number. There is zero chance of this passing, its just a sad gesture by pathetic people. As always I blame our citizenry for electing these assholes.

 

It's not a sad chance of passing that's what's friggin scary. Republicans have been looking to pass this bill because the RIAA has been lining their coffers with money.

[BlueLineFish 615]

[njJoniGuy 2,133]

The Tree of Liberty is dying from thirst ...

[fumanchu182 23]

Also it is worth noting that this is a proposed amendment. It has not been put in the official bill itself. The proposed amendments are going to be voted upon next week. Then they make their way into the bill then the bill goes up for votes. So somehow even if the amendments pass, the final bill may not pass. Since our senators don't give a shit about us I wonder if it is even worth telling them not to vote for it.

[voyager9 3,443]

I know this practice is nothing new but it still boggles my mind that the legislature can attach amendments to bills that have NOTHING to do with the bills original intention. Same goes with their earmarks tacked onto random other bills to funnel taxpayer money under the veil of a bill completely unrelated to the bill on the floor. Thats political shady dealings and it needs to come to an end.

^^^^ This.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I'm gonna send an email telling the crypt keeper he's a scumbag.

[TK421 2]

I think this is a good thing; this might just be the tipping point to getting the cyber security bill killed. Most of the libtards are already against the bill and this will spark up the conservatives to kill it. I bet Shmucky did this as a poison pill. I'm actually cool with that, the cyber security bill is even more BS from our friends in the federal government.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

http://thehill.com/v...control-measure

 

Overwhelming majority of comments under the article are pro-2A. Very refreshing for my blood pressure not to rise after reading a comments section.

 

I bet Shmucky did this as a poison pill.

 

I think you're right. But I don't think it will get far enough to get added so that it can contribute to killing that bill.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

I bet Shmucky did this as a poison pill.

 

It's a very calculated move. This is how Bloomberg wants to kill the lobby power of the NRA, and gun owners. Repubs tend to listen to gun owners more than Dems, so what do they do? Attach anti gun amendments to bills Repubs are hot for. Just like this cyber security bill, Repubs want it. Who are the gonna listen to?

[mipafox 438]

I'm just gonna snipe/rant here.

 

When they talk about magazines, point to mental health.

 

Guns and magazines don't kill people, people kill people; redirect the conversation - Mental health has traction - it is people.

and the thought benefits from being true.

 

The PEOPLE that kill people are MENTALLY ILL or criminals.

The fact is, prisons are funded but mental health care is not.

 

It is what we have been saying all along. People kill people.

 

I have no problem repeating myself - as a son of two mental health care professionals, I want my CCW because I KNOW the State and Federal government isn't doing enough about the mentally ill.

 

As gun owners we need to see that the high profile masacres are not done by criminals but by psychotic individuals that have not been treated.

 

Massacres aren't commited by career criminals, they are done by psychotics. - and the psychotics cause all of the politicians to posture with new laws. Criminals, - and you know it's true - ...not so much.

 

Spoken like a true Soviet. Very few people that disagreed with them were accused of treason. Most were simply a matter of mental health issues. And sent away.

 

Soon everybody will have to pass a mental health exam to own a gun. And you know who will be training those doctors. People that think that wanting to own a gun without an employment need is likely a sign of instability. As is criticizing The Party.

 

 

[bulpup 98]

 

Spoken like a true Soviet. Very few people that disagreed with them were accused of treason. Most were simply a matter of mental health issues. And sent away.

 

Soon everybody will have to pass a mental health exam to own a gun. And you know who will be training those doctors. People that think that wanting to own a gun without an employment need is likely a sign of instability. As is criticizing The Party.

 

 

 

You read worse than Ray Ray.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JSF01 13]

I guess it's pointless to call our Senaturds to urge them to vote against this bill.

Yea probably pointless. On the other hand maybe everyone should call to urge to vote against it. The population of NJ has always generally gone along with whatever gun control is being proposed, so anti gun laws are considered a safe bet. If these very anti gun senators start getting inundated with opposition to this bill in a state that this use to be considered a safe bet, they may propose such bills less often. At least for this state I would call that a win, granted a very minor one. The less gun control bills proposed, the less possible gun control laws can be passed.

 

While it is a long shot, it's not like it costs any more than a couple of minuets of time at most, and it could only have possible benefits.

[Kaiser7 33]

Yea probably pointless. On the other hand maybe everyone should call to urge to vote against it. The population of NJ has always generally gone along with whatever gun control is being proposed, so anti gun laws are considered a safe bet. If these very anti gun senators start getting inundated with opposition to this bill in a state that this use to be considered a safe bet, they may propose such bills less often. At least for this state I would call that a win, granted a very minor one. The less gun control bills proposed, the less possible gun control laws can be passed.

 

While it is a long shot, it's not like it costs any more than a couple of minuets of time at most, and it could only have possible benefits.

 

My sentiments exactly.