categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

the best they have to offer

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.

See here for another take on the same concept.

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.

8 comments to the best they have to offer

  • Formynder

    To add further insult, Lautenburg wants to restrict the ability to purchase ammo online: http://njtoday.net/2012/07/30/lautenberg-to-sponsor-bill-restricting-online-ammunition-sales/

    The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through four components:

    It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
    It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
    It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
    It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

    “regular civilians”? What the heck other kind are there? You’re either a civilian, or in the military, it’s a rather binary label.

    There are many more outrageous statements in there from people who want to make the rest of America suck like New Jersey, but I couldn’t be bothered to refute every inane statement they made.

  • He [Senator Chuckwit Schumer] also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

    I have a few thoughts on this sentence:

    1. I’m supposed to take Chuckwit’s opinion on what I “need” seriously, um, why?

    2. With the passage of Arizona House of Representatives Bill 2640, should I choose to take up hunting, I will (as of 01 August 2012) be able to have normal-capacity magazines on my person while carrying Ophelia (my recently-built AR, chambered in 300 BLK).

    3. As best I can tell, a major factor in HB 2640′s passing was the fact that the Federal part of .gov has steadfastly refused to maintain effective control of our southern border, thus creating a hazard for hunters hobbled by a five-round magazine capacity limit.

    Do I think I would require 30 rounds without reloading to harvest a single game animal? Emphatically no; if I thought it would take me that many rounds per animal, I would spend some time on the range before even thinking about getting a hunting license.

    Can I imagine encountering, OTOH, while hunting within a day’s walk from the border with Mexico, a situation that might require me to defend myself? Well, yeah, because hello, human-and-drug smuggling corridor, with smugglers potentially armed by BATFE (& Really Big Fires) (see thought #3 above)….

    All that being said, I cordially invite Senators Chuckwit Schumer et al to autofornicate.

  • I wonder if we could get traction on a Constitutional amendment prohibiting legislative amendments unrelated to the primary subject matter of the bill? That’s certainly one of the things my dream Constitution includes…

  • @ Formynder:
    I was impressed by NJToday.net’s nuanced and balanced attempt to discuss the “reasonable” measure to register every sale of ammunition. The supportive quotes from Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox were especially reassuring.

    Sincerely,

    Marie of Roumania ;-)

  • Rolf

    Um, no, you are NOT at the extreme position on the scale. Your position allows for choice.

    An extreme position would *require* taking and passing training in school in order to gain voting rights, *require* ownership, proper maintenance, and regular practice with several basic classes of arms (long arm, handgun, full auto, revolver/pump for example), require all competent adults carry for self defense at all practicable times (eg, folks swimming laps at the pool can check it in a locker), and keep a reasonable supply of ammo on hand (say, 1k rounds per gun). Failure to do these things will result in fines, loss of voting rights, or prison, depending on the severity of and reason for the infraction.

    Now THAT would be an extreme position on the 2nd Amendment.

  • @ Formynder: Hit that topic with a post yesterday, but I largely agree.

    And by ‘regular civilians’, dumbass might have been trying to differentiate cops from ‘regulars’, since the term ‘civilian’ actually encompasses them as well. Probably not, though.

    @ AuricTech: Stupid question – while hunting (and before the passage of this law), were you allowed to have normal-capacity magazines on your person and not in the gun, or were they strictly no-go for any and all hunting-related activities?

    Also, *snerk*.

    @ John Hardin: I wish… that and a required verbal reading of the entire bill by the lead sponsor, with the caveat that if you are not present for the entire verbal reading, you do not get to vote on it. If enough people leave to fail a quorum check, well, damn.

    @ Rolf: Point. I guess I cannot bring myself to think like an authoritarian even if I try to ;).

  • @ Linoge:

    As best I can tell, had I gone hunting prior to HB 2640 becoming law, under the provisions of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 17-231 (the section amended by HB 2640), the power granted by this section to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, as expressed in Rule 12-4-303 (Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition), would have indeed made it unlawful to have normal-capacity magazines on my person.

    Paragraph A of Rule 12-4-303 (2010-2011 edition) read as follows:

    A. In addition to the prohibitions prescribed in A.R.S. §§
    17-301 and 17-309, the following devices, methods, and
    ammunition are unlawful for taking any wildlife in this
    state. An individual shall not use or possess [emphasis added] any of the
    following while taking wildlife:

    Subparagraph 4, Paragraph A, Rule 12-4-303 read as follows:

    4. Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a magazine
    capacity of more than five cartridges, unless the
    magazine is modified with a filler or stop that cannot
    be removed without disassembling the magazine;

    As such, I conclude that I likely would have been in violation of A.R.S. § 17-231, had I carried any normal-capacity magazines prior to 01 August 2012.

    In other good news, with the signing into law of HB 2728, I can also use a sound-suppressed firearm while hunting here in Arizona. While we await NFA repeal, I plan to get the ball rolling on an NFA trust…. ;-)

  • Yeah, I would be inclined to agree with you. I guess it makes sense, from a legislative / enforcement standpoint – after all, the cop would have a hard time proving that you did not just swap out the 30-rounder for the 5 when he came over the hill.

    In any case, sounds like you all are making some pretty significant strides down there!