Posted on 07/26/2012 5:46:43 PM PDT by jazusamo
Democratic senators included an amendment in 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 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 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 for 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 amendments to the Cybersecurity bill.
Now that's pretty slick. It's akin to being able to use secure cryptography over the Internet. Once the technology exists, it never ceases to exist and the technology has the potential to frustrate government meddlers.
Page 5402, 1/2 way down...
‘‘(2) COMPLIANCE WITH OR VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS WHILE UNDER EMERGENCY ORDER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If an order issued under this subsection may result in a conflict with a requirement of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation, the Commission shall ensure that the order—
‘‘(i) requires generation, delivery, interchange, or transmission of electric energy only during hours necessary to meet the emergency and serve the public interest; and
‘‘(ii) to the maximum extent practicable, is consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse environmental impacts.
People better think about these words too...WHILE UNDER EMERGENCY ORDER.
Title 10 › Chapter II › Subchapter A › Part 205 › Subpart W › Section 205.371
Snakes!
Take a flyin’ f**k, Chuck.
Exactly.
One of the first priorities of the new Congress should be to prohibit these unrelated amendments and make it so every bill must stand alone.
So the Democrat idea of “common ground” is not to repeal a Constitutional amendment, just pretend it doesn’t exist.
What a compromise!
Page 16-17 – explains why this bill has to exist
Mass casualty event
Mass evacuations
CSA 2012 EXPLANATION - WILL BE VOTED ON VERY SOON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR7L9uAsR9Q&feature=plcp
Page 119 (education and workforce)
Teach Kindergartener – 9th grade
Recruit Hackers
Page 126 – Internship
Scholarship – sign self to gov
Note: Cybersecurity bill: Recruit federal employees using 9th grade talent competition
11 min in the video
Page 161 - mentions TREATIES
Page 167 -169 – UNITED NATIONS
Considering....whose troops is he rooting for? Ours don’t normally carry AKs, and I’d rather our enemies went without.
Wonder if Feinstein still has her CCW.
Was just looking at that on gizmag site....... amazing.
http://www.gizmag.com/first-3d-printed-firearm/23473/
“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.).”
Every one of these so-called Senators should be expelled from the Senate, and then tried for treason.
America’s next Lexington & Concord moment is just around the corner.
Why do Liberals never want to discuss common sense press control? I mean, the First Amendment clearly applies only to the manual printing press, right? Today’s instant electronic communications like Facebook and AttackWatch and DailyPsyKosis were never meant to operate without government control. Who can argue otherwise except for those people who want to continue the national orgy of press-related personal assassinations, career destruction, persecution of opponents’ families and children, making fun of conservatives’ illnesses, urging fellow Liberals to commit violence, and concealing damning information about the president? Common sense press control is something who’s time is past due.
Oh, THIS crew is WELL NOTED for their reasonableness when it comes to guns.
They take the position that the reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is the removal of all firearms, knives, and metal objects from the population.
You don't want to know their more unreasonable views.
“To Schmuckie Chuckie, repealing the Second Amendment would be a reasonable gun control measure.”
If you have a copy of “Unintended Consequences” pull it off the bookshelf and check out the “Carl Schaumberg” character. I looked up dates, and Schumer was in the House of Representatives at the copyright date of U.C. just like the Schaumberg character.
It seems likely Schaumberg is a thinly-disguised Schumer, though Schaumberg met a messy end (or should I say “ends”?) in the novel.
In other news, the department of homeland security has purchased 450 MILLION, that is MILLION hollow point bullets. These bullets are ILLEGAL in military operations, yet our government buys these things. Even law enforcement cannot use them. So, WHY PRAY TELL, do they need them??? TO USE ON AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO REFUSE TO BUCKLE UNDER TO THEIR COMING COMMUNIST EMPIRE!!! That is why.
Either that or "You give up something substantive, and I'll give up some of my hot air."
I was thinking what these Einstein's of the media would say if the shoe was on the other foot and there was talk of limiting the 1st Amendment, not only would we be up in arms (maybe literally) but the enemedia would also be going ape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.