DEMS TRY SLIPPING GUN-CONTROL MEASURE INTO 'CYBERSECURITY' BILL

[middlefinger]

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
By Ramsey Cox - 07/26/12 07:29 PM ET

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

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 amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.



The proposed amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.

Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight with Republicans and gun rights activists.

Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on proposed amendments to the cybersecurity bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure

[RandomTask]

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment, but just to heavily infringe upon it.

The "journalist" left this part out.

[animalmother85]

Typical. I think it's going to take more than the recent Colorado incident to bring another "assault rifle" ban. It's become a pretty big industry and most Americans know that the laws that we already have are sufficient as long as they are enforced.

I didn't need my R1, my four wheeler, my camaro, all of my dirtbikes, all I really need is my truck. I own(ed) them because I want(ed) them. When legislators start throwing the "you don't need..." statements around, that's when I question their patriotism and their ability to lead Americans as an American themselves. Leave the "You don't need" crap to Europe and other countries that have citizens that are perfectly content to let their government think for them. If I want to have 10,000 rounds of ammunition and one gigantic magazine that will hold that capacity, so be it. Most users on here with a little practice can reload a magazine in about 1 second, so outlawing high capacity magazines is the one little cut(death by a thousand cuts), which will be lumped up. With great power comes great responsibility.


Had the law abiding citizens of Aurora Colorado been allowed to carry in the movie theater, maybe the situation would be different (for better or worse). We'll never know and had it been better, it wouldn't have been publicized because the media never wants to make firearms or armed citizens the hero.



As long as we enforce the laws we have, we don't need to give an inch. Also, the fidelity of these legislators needs to be looked at real long and hard when ever they bring this crap up. They probably don't own dogs, either (never trust anyone who doesn't own a gun or a dog).

A mix between political gain and fear are to blame for such measures.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
~Sigmund Freud

[mudlust]

And just exactly how does limiting the capacity of magazines relate to cyber security? Is there some new technology that enables bullets to travel across the internet and exit the would-be victims moniter?

[dunno]

And just exactly how does limiting the capacity of magazines relate to cyber security? Is there some new technology that enables bullets to travel across the internet and exit the would-be victims moniter?

Gotta love the embedded pork barrel!

[G19]

And just exactly how does limiting the capacity of magazines relate to cyber security?

A few years from now when they come to your house to arrest you for posting on a gun board, they will feel more secure.

[MrBear13]

CSPAN 2 is covering this cybersecurity bill at 2:00 (now).

[steelerfan]

Just one more way the libs are trying to run my life & make my head explode

[panopticonisi]

Is there some new technology that enables bullets to travel across the internet and exit the would-be victims moniter?

we need to get our best and brightest minds working on this immediately.