Cyber bill has gun control amendment [Video at link]

The Hill ^ | July 26, 2012 | Ramsey Cox

[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.

[jazusamo]

Chuckie lies as usual, this is an amendment to the Cybersecurity bill instead of a free standing bill. Let him and his gun grabbers come up with a bill and see if it passes on its own.

[Red Steel]

Yawn Chuckie. DOA in the House, but keep on pushing for it though since you’ll end up assuring losing more ground in November if not more seats.

[JPG]

If the word Schumer is used then ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ do not belong in the same sentence.

[Principled]

Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on amendments to the Cybersecurity bill.

How about a budget?

[a fool in paradise]

Chuck the Schmuck sponsors. Big surprise.

This is the same a$$hole who acknowledged he didn’t care that government officials lied to Congress about what sort of weapons were used in the final stand against those in the Davidian compound.

Chuck is the worst sort of Big Government thug.

[philman_36]

He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
Then Republicans better damn well make it clear that this would still be an infringement of Constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights which are not supposed to be infringed upon!

[Dead Corpse]

We’ve given all we are going to give.

Not one step further...

[jazusamo]

BTTT

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[Vendome]

Won’t survive Congress.

[jz638]

The bizarre irony of this kneejerk reaction to the Aurora shooting is that his high capacity ammo drum jamming was one reason that more people didn’t die. If he would have used multiple conventional mags, he probably would have killed more people.

[JamesA]

Molon Labe Chuckie!

[umgud]

I’m guessing there may be enough weak knee’d pubies in the senate to pass a 10 round mag cap bill. I don’t know if these amendments have to then go to the house, where it would surely get killed.

[BigpapaBo]

I bet CTG and The Sportsmans Guide are selling out of AR and AK type mags now that this is out. Scare them, then sell them....

[Red Steel]

I don’t know if these amendments have to then go to the house, where it would surely get killed.

Yes, and DOA in the House.

[Bobalu]

We are very, very close to the age where you can use a 3D printer to print up an actual firearm. It is possible to print very strong objects now, like wrenches. Think of a 3D printer building up an object layer by layer using an epoxy as strong as JB-Weld. What will gun grabers do then? Outlaw digital descriptions of guns?

I saw an article just today over on HackADay.com about a guy printing a new lower receiver for his AR-15. He used equipment that is far from the current state of the art. In a few years we will be able to print incredible things.

Link to HackADay post

[jazusamo]

Yep, the House will kill the amendment for sure, at least I'm pretty sure. If they don't they'll be some RINOs voted out soon.

[Still Thinking]

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

Uh, Senator Schemer, sir? When Democrats say they're willing to compromise, it means the good guys (conservatives) give up something they already have, while the leftards "give up" gaining as much collectivist tyranny as they were shooting for, but the change relative to statist quo is always in only one direction. This does NOT meet a sane person's definition of "compromise" (I understand why you wouldn't have known that, don't feel bad)

So, um......no. When "compromise" means you we get to repeal 3 existing collectivist infringements on our freedom, and we call it a "compromise" cause we really wanted to repeal 5, we can talk.

[jazusamo]

These kinda things just blow my mind. I'm getting up in years and didn't get my first computer until about 8 years ago. My adult kids and even grand kids amaze me on their knowledge of puters and how to use them.

[philman_36]

What snakes!

@ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Page 5402, right column

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following
SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
‘‘(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.

It continues on Page 5403.

How does imposing this "prohibition" in any way "enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States"?