• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

POS Chuck Schumer sneaks gun legislation into Cybersecurity bill

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Dumbocrats are amazing at stimulating at least one industry since 2008. And they did it without any stimulus money.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Is there any evidence that reducing the capacity to 10rds for law abiding citizens has had ANY affect on gun violence in California? THey should start there. If they can show that there is a benefit . . . MAYBE we could go along with it. I doubt any exists. Heck even after Congress allowed the AWB to sunset in 2004 there was no spike in crime nationwide . . .
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28
actually the opposite occurred.
handguns are basically illegal to have in both Chicago and New York. How many people die there of gun related deaths? At the hand of whom?
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,658
1
81
The amendment ... 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.
This is limited to large capacity magazines. Note that .22 caliber ammo is excepted from this law so there's no limit to the number of .22 caliber cartridges that the magazine can hold. Seems reasonable to me.

404 - Outrage not found.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were fewer available."[2] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.[3]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[4] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[5]

from wikipedia on the 1994-2004 AWB article
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
This is limited to large capacity magazines. Note that .22 caliber ammo is excepted from this law so there's no limit to the number of .22 caliber cartridges that the magazine can hold. Seems reasonable to me.

404 - Outrage not found.
and please note that it did specify rimfire. . . . .
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,658
1
81
...yes. Attaching gun control into unrelated laws is bullshit.
It's called a "rider." It happens all the time. That's how a majority of laws get passed. Without this concept our legislature would almost grind to a halt.
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,658
1
81
and please note that it did specify rimfire. . . . .
Unless you're James "the Joker" Holmes, why would any civilian need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds at a time? What purpose could that possibly have other than murdering people?
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Unless you're James "the Joker" Holmes, why would any civilian need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds at a time? What purpose could that possibly have other than murdering people?
Since when have our rights needed a reason for their existence? Why would anyone need liquor to drink? It has no practical use for private citizens other than entertainment. Let's re-instate the 18th amendment.
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,658
1
81
Since when have our rights needed a reason for their existence? Why would anyone need liquor to drink? It has no practical use for private citizens other than entertainment. Let's re-instate the 18th amendment.
Sure it has a legitimate use. That's how we get the ladies to go home with us. :D j/k

Seriously. When is the last time someone purchased a six pack for the sole purpose of hurling the bottles at another human being with the intent to kill or "stop" them. The example you used is an apples to oranges comparison.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
Unless you're James "the Joker" Holmes, why would any civilian need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds at a time? What purpose could that possibly have other than murdering people?

That's quite an assumption to make. Why 10? Because it's a round number? (no pun intended) If i'm going to single someone out for murder i probably don't even need 10. At the same time, If i were going to shoot up a mall and go down for 45 counts of murder one, what would i care if they slapped another charge on me for having a 30rd mag? I would find a way to get it. Most gun manufactuers have around a 15rd standard capacity. why not start there?
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
That's quite an assumption to make. Why 10? Because it's a round number? (no pun intended) If i'm going to single someone out for murder i probably don't even need 10. At the same time, If i were going to shoot up a mall and go down for 45 counts of murder one, what would i care if they slapped another charge on me for having a 30rd mag? I would find a way to get it. Most gun manufactuers have around a 15rd standard capacity. why not start there?
Because that would not allow the government to send your local police to your house to take your guns.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
It's called a "rider." It happens all the time. That's how a majority of laws get passed. Without this concept our legislature would almost grind to a halt.
And then once halted we would implement a working system. Riders are crap. It should NEVER be allowed in any form.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
And then once halted we would implement a working system. Riders are crap. It should NEVER be allowed in any form.
Agreed, it is part of the reason that despite being in a "free" country, our laws are like our military....more numerous than the next 25 countries combined. Plus, it allows bullshit laws to pass through unnoticed, such as the law they passed that let them establish concentration camps within our borders.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Unless you're James "the Joker" Holmes, why would any civilian need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds at a time? What purpose could that possibly have other than murdering people?
And of course, everyone knows that the proper purpose of government is to decide what we need and then make sure we don't get one iota more.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
OMG I will have to swap out clips after only 10 shots when I go on a mass killing spree?
That's unconstitutional.
Youre right, the only reason people buy guns is to kill people. Or maybe thats just you, sorry to here about your inconvenience, though I will have to notify the authorities about how you plan to go on a killing spree.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY