Not sure if this is a repost or belongs in the "general" section but here it is:
http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-slip-gun-control-into-cybersecurity-bill
Senate Democrats slipped in a gun control amendment to a cybersecurity bill Friday, claiming that it is time to impose "reasonable gun control measures," according to The Hill.
The cybersecurity bill has advanced to the stage in the process when amendments can be attached. Amendments to bills often have nothing to do with the issue being addressed in the bill itself.
Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., sponsored bill S.A. 2575 which would make it illegal to possess or transfer large capacity magazines, belts, feed stripes, or drums holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Schumer has been one of the most ardent proponents of gun control in the U.S. Senate, along with Lautenberg and Feinstein.
Anticipating the heated opposition the amendment will encounter from Republicans and gun rights activists, Schumer claimed that both sides can find "common ground." Said Schumer,
The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that thats not true at all.
But gun rights activists have not suggested that Senate Democrats proposed the repeal of the Second Amendment. The problem, say pro-gun groups, is that politicians such as Schumer gradually render the Second Amendment null and void not by repealing it but by passing a series of laws over a period of time that have the effect of violating the specific wording of the Amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the NRA have stated that each time politicians pass gun control laws, they infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- a direct violation of the Second Amendment.
For example, why should citizens who have never committed a crime be deprived of using magazines that fire more than 10 rounds? If criminals can get their hands on such devices, which they do each day on the streets illegally, then preventing average citizens from purchasing them legally only strengthens the hand of dangerous persons who intend to do harm to others.
Thus, the Second Amendment can be rendered useless by loading it up with various restrictions and limitations passed by Congress that have the effect of nullifying the Amendment without repealing it.
Despite their claims that they would not do so, Democrats have jumped at the chance to implement more gun control in the wake of the Colorado shooting last Friday.
President Obama also waded into the waters of the controversial issue when he stated Wednesday in a campaign speech that only soldiers need to have semi-automatic high capacity firearms rather than criminals.
But the overwhelming majority of persons who own semi-automatic weapons are not criminals but average citizens who bought them legally and use them responsibly. The laws that are already on the books prevent criminals from purchasing these and other weapons, meaning that they get them from the black market on the street.
Thus, why would an American president wish to punish average citizens by banning them from owning such guns, when criminals are going to get them anyway through illegal means?
Although the Senate will more than likely pass the gun ban amendment to the cybersecurity bill next week, the measure will be dead on arrival in the House where Republicans hold the majority.
Most House Republicans strongly oppose gun control measures, and most are fully aware that citizens are in no mood for more gun control, given that firearms and ammo sales have skyrocketed in recent years, especially after the Colorado shooting.
Democrats still hold a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate.
http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-slip-gun-control-into-cybersecurity-bill
Senate Democrats slipped in a gun control amendment to a cybersecurity bill Friday, claiming that it is time to impose "reasonable gun control measures," according to The Hill.
The cybersecurity bill has advanced to the stage in the process when amendments can be attached. Amendments to bills often have nothing to do with the issue being addressed in the bill itself.
Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., sponsored bill S.A. 2575 which would make it illegal to possess or transfer large capacity magazines, belts, feed stripes, or drums holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Schumer has been one of the most ardent proponents of gun control in the U.S. Senate, along with Lautenberg and Feinstein.
Anticipating the heated opposition the amendment will encounter from Republicans and gun rights activists, Schumer claimed that both sides can find "common ground." Said Schumer,
The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that thats not true at all.
But gun rights activists have not suggested that Senate Democrats proposed the repeal of the Second Amendment. The problem, say pro-gun groups, is that politicians such as Schumer gradually render the Second Amendment null and void not by repealing it but by passing a series of laws over a period of time that have the effect of violating the specific wording of the Amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the NRA have stated that each time politicians pass gun control laws, they infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- a direct violation of the Second Amendment.
For example, why should citizens who have never committed a crime be deprived of using magazines that fire more than 10 rounds? If criminals can get their hands on such devices, which they do each day on the streets illegally, then preventing average citizens from purchasing them legally only strengthens the hand of dangerous persons who intend to do harm to others.
Thus, the Second Amendment can be rendered useless by loading it up with various restrictions and limitations passed by Congress that have the effect of nullifying the Amendment without repealing it.
Despite their claims that they would not do so, Democrats have jumped at the chance to implement more gun control in the wake of the Colorado shooting last Friday.
President Obama also waded into the waters of the controversial issue when he stated Wednesday in a campaign speech that only soldiers need to have semi-automatic high capacity firearms rather than criminals.
But the overwhelming majority of persons who own semi-automatic weapons are not criminals but average citizens who bought them legally and use them responsibly. The laws that are already on the books prevent criminals from purchasing these and other weapons, meaning that they get them from the black market on the street.
Thus, why would an American president wish to punish average citizens by banning them from owning such guns, when criminals are going to get them anyway through illegal means?
Although the Senate will more than likely pass the gun ban amendment to the cybersecurity bill next week, the measure will be dead on arrival in the House where Republicans hold the majority.
Most House Republicans strongly oppose gun control measures, and most are fully aware that citizens are in no mood for more gun control, given that firearms and ammo sales have skyrocketed in recent years, especially after the Colorado shooting.
Democrats still hold a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate.
