Possible New High Cap Ban

[Blackdeek2006]

Ok, i know it's been discussed after the recent elections, but i just read on another forum, that one of the members heard "directly from a gun shop worker" that high caps will be banned immediately when congress convenes.

and something else about a 1 round limit (this could totally just be a pun about how ridiculous the ban is since it doesnt help).

What are your opinions about a new ban happening ASAP? and what's in store for gun owners?

I know they will, but how can they actually think these bans make things safer after all the facts state the exact opposite?

 

[JonJ]

If it happens, they'll pull numbers from some "study group" or other gathering of academic. medical, and LEO banana heads that no one has ever heard of to support their actions.

 

[crak]

If I heard it on the internet secondhand from a gun store employee...

it must be true.

 

[M1911]

Ok, i know it's been discussed after the recent elections, but i just read on another forum, that one of the members heard "directly from a gun shop worker" that high caps will be banned immediately when congress convenes.

You know, sometimes I wonder if our education system is still teaching civics these days. If they are, they aren't doing it effectively.

Do a little critical thinking.

The Democrats have a very, very slim majority in the federal house and senate. Many of the new Democrats elected are actually pro-gun. Even if the Democrats could get all of their party to line up behind such a ban, they don't have the votes. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to end debate on a bill (i.e., end a filibuster). The Democrats don't have 60 senators and could not get 9 Republicans to join them. Further more, Bush would veto it and the Dems certainly don't have the 2/3 majority required in each house to override his veto.

Finally, Speaker Pelosi is trying to keep the Democrats away from partisan issues. I don't think she's going to let them go for such distractions.

As drgrant points out below, what the state legislature will do is an open question. They could push that through easily if they want to.

I know they will, but how can they actually think these bans make things safer after all the facts state the exact opposite?

There's an old saying that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place. They got to their position via emotion, not logic. They want to stop violence (a laudable goal) and believe that guns are bad.

 

[drgrant]

Ok, i know it's been discussed after the recent elections, but i just read on another forum, that one of the members heard "directly from a gun shop worker" that high caps will be banned immediately when congress convenes.

and something else about a 1 round limit (this could totally just be a pun about how ridiculous the ban is since it doesnt help).

When what congress convenes? You certainly don't mean the US
congress- at this point there aren't enough votes to support such
an initiative. There wasn't anywhere near enough to even make
serious noises about AWB renewal, let alone a standalone magazine
ban. Even with all the new dems there still isn't enough throw to
pass the legislation.

If you're talking MA legislature, (edit: which I don't believe is ever really
called "congress", but some are guilty of using the terms interchangeably)
than anything "bad" is possible, given that both sides and the governors
seat are owned by mostly middle to far left democrats.

IMO I think speculation is unwise without actually seeing a draft of a
bill. While I think hoarding mags or whatnot is always a good idea, I
think some people start these rumors just for the sake of being able to
move product.

-Mike

 

[Jose]

You know, sometimes I wonder if our education system is still teaching civics these days. If they are, they aren't doing it effectively.

Do a little critical thinking.

+1

 

[Blackdeek2006]

hey guys,

i'll be totally honest, i'm very much not into politics, though i am progressing and very new to firearms and that community as well. i was simply asking a question about something i read and wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

Your responses are exactly what i was looking for (even if they went the other way to say we're doomed). The responses are backed by facts and are not just rumors etc.
Thanks

 

[dwarven1]

First thing you need to learn, Blackdeek, is that rumors are the only thing so far discovered that can move faster than the speed of light.

Second thing is to demand (unlike Democrats) to see proof of anything - rumor, opinion on a law, the claim that gun control will end crime in the streets, etc.

Anyway, welcome to the freedom-loving community of the American gun owner! (even though you've been a member here since August)

 

[Emoto]

I would suspect that said gun store was sitting on a bunch of hi-cap mags and was using the old "better get 'em now before they're illegal" trick...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I would suspect that said gun store was sitting on a bunch of hi-cap mags and was using the old "better get 'em now before they're illegal" trick...

This smells very much like the OP paid a visit to a well-known shop in Shrewsbury! According to that "expert", they were going to ban the purchase of more than 50 rds of ammo at a time . . . this was probably ~6-7 yrs ago when I was in there and heard him spout off this "fact". I don't suppose that the many cases of ammo on the floor in his shop had anything to do with the "facts" that he was spouting!!!

To the OP: Please learn quickly that you do NOT go to cops or gun shop employees for advice on gun laws! You are certain to be mislead, either by their lack of knowledge or their desire to mislead intentionally, if you ask them for this sort of advice.

Neither Congress or the State Legislature has been sworn in yet for the new terms. No new bills have been filed yet either, so we have some breathing room . . . not a lot in MA, but some. And if someone's crystal ball was that good to tell you what's going to happen in the future, they would use it to score on the lottery, take the money and screw from this state!

 

[EddieCoyle]

If I heard it on the internet secondhand from a gun store employee...

it must be true.

If Bush signs it I won't vote for him again.

 

[crak]

That'll teach him.

 

[Scrivener]

If Bush signs it I won't vote for him again.

Yeah, that'll come as quite the blow to a lame-duck incompetent.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Yeah, that'll come as quite the blow to a lame-duck incompetent.

Hey Scrivvy:

sar·casm /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Pronunciation [sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

It's fun! Try it sometime.

EDIT: Dink.

 

[Scrivener]

Hey Scrivvy:


It's fun! Try it sometime.

EDIT: Dink.

The problem with trying to be sarcastic in writing is that there is the total lack of inflection required to communicate the necessary tone.

Note that the post immediately preceding mine seemed to take your attempt at written sarcasm the same way.

Best re-read that chapter in your Famous Writers' School text....

 

[K-DUB]

 

[EddieCoyle]

The problem with trying to be sarcastic in writing is that there is the total lack of inflection required to communicate the necessary tone.

So true. That's why I went over the top with my comment, figuring that almost everyone would pick up the sarcasm. As an additional hint, I also quoted the most obviously sarcastic post in the thread.

I figured that anybody with half a brain would pick up on it. I stand corrected.

Note that the post immediately preceding mine seemed to take your attempt at written sarcasm the same way.

See, I noted that post #12 was from the same guy that wrote the original sarcastic post that I quoted. I assumed that he did pick up my sarcasm, and was being sarcastic right back. I don't know, maybe I was reading too carefully or paying too much attention to detail.

Perhaps if crak stops back by, he (or she) can settle this argument.

 

[Executive]

If Bush signs it I won't vote for him again.

I got it.

Why it is funny: Well, you see, the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." The current President of the United States, George W. Bush, has already been elected twice, thereby rendering him ineligible to run for the office again. By stating that one "won't vote for him again", a facetious, sarcastic tone is implied, particularly given the history and character of the writer in question.

 

[Garys]

I got it.

Why it is funny: Well, you see, the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,

Speaking of which, I saw a funny bumper sticker (okay I thought it was funny) the other day. "Bush/Cheney '08 Repeal the 22nd Amendment".

Gary

 

[Garys]

So true. That's why I went over the top with my comment, figuring that almost everyone would pick up the sarcasm.

I think that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that you put text tags on sarcastic comments for the irony impaired. {/sarcasm} would work, I think.

Gary

 

[FalArAk]

Let me guess,the gun shop owner just happened to have some high caps for sale.

 

[bazfoo]

If Bush signs it I won't vote for him again.

That was funny. Even without the <sarcasm> tags

 

[bazfoo]

Moved to a new Off Topic thread

 

[Nickle]

Well, I also got it.

Scriv, you need to lighten up a little, dude.

I think that shop wouldn't be on my list of places to buy from, for sure. They are either extremely stupid, or downright crooked, both are reasons for going elsewhere.