The scumbag murderer solely responsible for the Aurora, Colorado theater shootings and murderers started his rampage somewhere around 0100 on 20JUL12.
Some time before 1930 on 26JUL12, Senators Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Bob Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Dianne Feinstein decided it would be a great idea to punish all Americans for the actions of one murderous whackjob:
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.
[…] 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.
Honestly, it took them a bit longer than I was expecting – you and I both know bottom-feeders like Chucky have drafts of these kinds of bills just sitting in their My Documents folders, waiting for the right tragedy to exploit.
So let us take this from the top… First, why does Chucky think barring American citizens from lawfully purchasing magazines of a certain size or larger has anything to do with “cybersecurity”? Oh. Right. It does not. But Chucky and the rest of his merry band of blood-dancers know there is no way in hell of their idiotic little amendment making it through the Senate, much less the House, on its own merits, so they know they have to attach it, like the leech it is, to a bill that probably will get approved. I mean, who wants to vote against cybersecurity?
It rather speaks to how far the “gun control” movement has fallen in the past two decades. In 1994, the misnamed “Assault Weapon” Ban passed the House by a voice vote and passed the Senate 95-4. In 2004, it was not renewed despite “gun control” extremists shrieking about how “gun violence” would spiral out of control if the bill was not resurrected (note: it did nothing of the sort). And now, in 2012, the petty totalitarians in Congress acknowledge the futility of the gesture and do not even bother to try to put their “gun control” wet dreams up for vote as an actual bill, and instead limpet-mine it to an already existing and fairly popular bill.
From “voice vote” to “irrelevant” in 18 short years; must suck to be them.
Second, dispense with this “reasonable” crap; it is a misappropriation of the English language, and a standing United States Senator should know better than to sink to that level. It is not “reasonable” to punish millions of American citizens simply because one jackass finally came unhinged; it is not “reasonable” to blame objects rather than the jackass in question; it is not “reasonable” to think that if the jackass in question only had access to 10-round magazines (and, given the number of normal-capacity magazines out there, he could easily shop the black market) that less people would have been shot; it is not “reasonable” to think that “10 rounds” is the magic number, and not 11, or not 9.
Hell, regarding that second-to-last point, the murderer’s 100-round drum magazine jammed, which might just have saved a few people’s lives right there. Why do you want to make it easier for deranged mass murderers to kill more people, Chucky?
Third, that “illegal to… possess” line is not exactly correct, per the text of the bill:
“(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
(d) Identification Markings.–Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: “A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.”.
It is, however, worth noting that this ban would not target exclusively “assault weapons”; in fact, something like this would be expressly illegal should this amendment and the bill it is attached to get approved. After all, it is an “attached tubular device” that does not only work with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition and is capable of handling more than 10 rounds at a time. So, yeah, apparently lever-action, wood-furnitured rifles originally designed in 1892 are now ban-worthy items. Go figure. (Also, want.)
Fourth, this quote evinced a hearty laugh from me:
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.
Screw you mate; we have “given some”, and we are in the “common ground”.
Consider the two extremes. On the one hand, you have pro-rights activists like me, who honestly do believe you should be able to walk into your neighborhood Wal-Mart and walk out ten minutes later with a fully-automatic M4 and a crate of ammunition, with the only thing changing hands between you and the cashier being cash. On the other hand, we have anti-rights cultists who are firmly convinced that no non-LEO, non-military citizen should be permitted to have so much as a single-shot shotgun in their homes. We have already given some. We have given some for damned near a century now. Your turn.
Finally, you do not get to tell us, as law-abiding, responsible, mature American citizens, what we do or do not “need”:
He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
Especially since you would be dead wrong.
Look, Chuck, I get it – you do not like guns, and especially you do not like guns that carry lots of rounds. And that is fine; you are more than welcome to like or not like whatever you want. In fact, that is the whole point of America – that you get to not like the things you do not like, and I get to like the things I do. But if you do not like guns so much, simply do not buy guns, do not be around them, and do not associate with folks who do either. It really is that simple. The very second, however, you start using your own personal, baseless preferences and predilections to unjustly limit the rights and actions of other people, though? In that very action, you are violating the implicit and explicit social contract of America, and undermining damned near everything this country stands for. This blatant violation of your oath as a Senator is only further compounded by your irrational, idiotic belief that all people should be punished for the actions of the few… or, in this case, the one.
Hell with that, and hell with you. In fact, I might just make that magazine-and-ammunition order I had been contemplating, in your specific honor, Chucky. Why? Because f*ck you. I would suggest everyone else do the same, but I shudder to think of what magazine prices are doing right now.
And while, unlike Chucky here, I am not one to tell people what to do any more, I would strongly suggest you get in touch with your duly-elected representatives and remind them that their continued employment by the United States Government would be very dubious indeed should they decide to support this amendment and the eventual bill if it gets successfully attached. They serve at our pleasure, and I would not be pleased to see my rep supporting something like this.