H.R.308 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 104 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:36pm

    Have to conserve fresh water, you get two trips to the restroom.

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:34am

    gunamok, you’re, Slates article on the matter is as distorted and dimwitted as your post.

  • Comm_reply
    jasonlsprague 02/06/2013 11:58am

    Really, and I’ll bet the presence of a knife increases your chances of being stabbed. Didn’t need a bunch of research to figure out the obvious.
    As for the wild shootouts, tucson was not even close. An armed citizen made the right decision. anti gun zealots keep pointing to that story because they can’t find one where the wrong decision was made by a law abiding citizen.
    Then there is the high cap mag. Who decided that standard capacity was high capacity. Anything over 10, or is it 7. Soon anything that is not single shot will be high capacity.

  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 01/21/2011 3:10pm

    How I am I supposed to defend my community, my county, my state, my country if I can not be armed with nothing more than a rifle with 10 rounds?

    The citizens of this county are the defenders of this country. Without weapons we would be completely defenseless.

    As for the wild shootouts, taking a bullet, that is a risk you take for defending you fellow Americans. I’d rather accidentally be shot saving others than be defenseless watching people getting killed or running like a coward.

    Research shows if you own a knife you more likely to be stabbed — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.

    Research shows if you live in a tall building you more likely to fall to your death — by accident, by suicide or by homicide.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/26/2011 4:12am

    This is the truth. The gov’t was established for the sole purpose of enforcing the laws that the PEOPLE decided on. Somewhere along the line, the gov’t became the law makers and we lost our control and freedom. There is nothing free about this country. We are under the gov’t thumb on every issue you can think of. More people need to open their eyes and realize, we didn’t start having these problems until the gov’t gained control.

  • Comm_reply
    DCW 01/23/2011 2:30pm

    Your an idiot if you believe what the the NY Times prints. An armed society is a polite society. Why dont you do some real research and see how much the crime has risen in the countries that have gun control and while your at it take a good look at Mexifornia (california), D.C. and Chicago. Some of the strictest in the nation yet some of the highest crime rates. Our 2nd amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure we have measures in place to protect our country from tyrants.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:51am

    A few points. Crime in these areas are higher because the amout of people living there are so much more than other places. Second, I know if I were a criminal, I am not, I would be much more likely to go somewhere I know there won’t be guns if I want to break the law. I would feel safer.

  • Comm_reply
    piket99 01/25/2011 11:45am

    There is no credible research that shows that a gun in a home makes you more likely to commit suicide. It takes a certain kind of person to end their own life. Why is it the governments job to make sure people don’t accident;y shoot them self’s in the foot? There are over 2 million reported cases each year in which a gun is used in self defense.

    Its your right to be a victim if you choose to be, but don’t pull the rest of us down with you. move to a different country if you hate guns so much, and you will find even if you move to a country like Britain were most guns are illegal to own, not only are you more likely to get mugged than you are in south central LA but you are more likely to get shot buy a GUN as well.

    BTW: these mass shootings never happened until some retard Progressive like your self thought it would be a great idea to create GUN FREE ZONES.

  • Comm_reply
    xj0hnx 01/27/2011 6:17am

    Those are fools statements.

    “Think: Wild shootouts”

    Why? They didn’t happen when the Assault Weapons Ban sunset, they didn’t happen with the expansion of conceal carry. Just more liberal fear mongering, good thing the public at large can see it for what it is.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/31/2011 6:47am

    There really is no such thing as a “credible” research. Research is always bias even though they claim not to.

  • Comm_reply
    Stravonski 04/17/2012 9:03pm

    I have my weapons for the reasons our Founders gave us the right to have them, to protect us from a tyrannical government, just like the one they had just finished fighting a war of independence against. A gun is a tool, nothing more. People died before guns were invented. If you want to live in a country without guns, pack your bags and move because there are a lot of them. In this country, we consider freedom and liberty something that God gave us that no President can take away. You want to disarm Americans, Molon Labe!

  • Comm_reply
    md123180 02/05/2013 1:09am

    False, gunamok. In cases where a person is being brutally attacked, there are many occasions where possessing a magazine of more than ten rounds can be very beneficial. Judging by your comment, you have never seen a squad of Taliban on any street, and have never been in a combat situation. Let me enlighten you. Your fine motor skills go to crap. Your bullets don’t work like they do in movies. Your aim isn’t auto-corrected like in HALO. You fire to get yourself and innocent bystanders out of harm’s way. This is even more the case when attacked by a drug-addled perpetrator. Have you ever TRULY seen a man take more than a dozen bullets and stand? It happens. It truly happens.

    Finally, gunamok, your “credible research” (which you obviously failed to read/properly analyze) has widely varied control measures, or I would say a lack thereof, which inaccurately represent the data. You see, when you hear the word “statistics”, it is often followed by crafted variables, not truths.

  • Comm_reply
    mhicaoidh 02/08/2013 3:22pm

    Ask the Korean shop owners during the LA riots if they “needed” the high capacity magazines they used to successfully defend their shops from getting burned to the ground. When all was said and done, the Korean shops were the only ones left standing.

    In the aftermath of Katrina, there were gangs of looters roaming the streets breaking into houses and assaulting people. In such cases you would need more than 7 ~ 10 bullets per magazine to effectively defend yourself.

    Violent confrontations are not always one-on-one.

  • LucasFoxx 01/20/2011 3:29pm
    The text and references exempt historic weapons and individuals “retired from service.”
  • Comm_reply
    kevinmcc 01/21/2011 3:14pm

    Where does this exempt historic weapons? I read this test again, nothing mentioned about historic weapons.

  • Patriot16 01/20/2011 6:18pm

    I think that it is disgracefull that she used the tragedy in Arizona to push her anti-2nd Amendment agenda, an agenda that she has pushed her entire career. No class at all.

    Also, it is a good thing that MSNBC aka “the gun control network” has very low ratings and no credibility.

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:35am

    She’s a typical tragedy-pimp.

  • Patriot16 01/21/2011 3:54pm

    This article articulates the falicy of this anti- 2nd Amendment bill really well.

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=269&issue=005

  • ionnews 01/23/2011 6:01am

    If the time comes when Americans have no choice but to take up a violent resistance against their government, I will have already left. I believe however bad it gets, we shouldn’t have to rely on a 33 round magazine to solve our problems.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/23/2011 8:52am

    ionnews, when the zombies attack, don’t ask me for a 33 round magazine to solve your “problems”….. ;P (couldn’t resist)

  • Comm_reply
    sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:36am

    Left for where?

  • Crusader33 01/23/2011 11:42am

    If Congresswoman Giffords had securty, they could have prevented the whole tragedy. The look in that mad man’s eyes would have alerted any law enforcement officer.

    The progressives’ answer to the tragedy is to ban high-cap mags from law abidding citizens. Obviously they are just using this event as an excuse to attack the 2nd Amendment by all means available. I don’t think that even Congresswoman MacArthy believes her own lies. She has spent her entire career attacking the 2nd Amendment, just read H.R. 1022. The real arrogence is that she believes that she can use the tragedy in Arizona to advance her progressive agenda. How ignorant does she think the American people are?

    As for high cap mags, it is not about need. Rather it is a right! The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd bill of rights that re-enforces the 1st Amendment. When they place enough “resonable restrictions” to make the 2nd Amendment ineffective, the next right to fall is the 1st Amendment. Then we truely have nothing.

  • DCW 01/23/2011 2:15pm

    This is just another example of a representatives reaction to a tradgedy instead of doing something proactive. The representatives in this country need to take a lesson on our constitution and bill of rights since they obviously fail to recognize they took an oath to uphold. 2012 is on it’s way with more change!

  • Comm_reply
    Patriot16 01/24/2011 3:15pm

    Not an example of a representative’s reaction, rather a representative using every excuse to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. McArthy just waits for a tragedy so that she can quickly hop on her anti-American soap box. If she hates this country that is her right, but she has no buisness forcing her anti-American views or lifestyle on the rest of us. Shame on her.

  • JackCox 01/25/2011 1:29am

    Please tell me Where in the constitution does it specify a right to bullets? You may have the right to bear arms but you have no right to bear bullets.

  • Comm_reply
    DFulleborn 01/25/2011 10:16am

    Jack, where in the Constitution does it state that something must be in the Constitution in order to be protected?

    No where. That’s not how the Constitution works.

  • Comm_reply
    MayorofAngryTown 01/27/2011 12:30pm

    Where in the Constitution does it state the reader can manufacture his own implications? Your argument is as invalid as his.

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government” -James Madison

    I’m not agreeing with either side but this mag debate is relative to our time and should not be diluted in historical context.

  • Comm_reply
    DMiller2911 01/25/2011 5:48pm

    Jack, the bill will die in committee because it is a waste of time. People have been killing each other since after Adam and Eve were kick out of Eden. If it is with their own hand, stones, stick, a knife, sword, scissors, pencils, fire arms, cars…etc. It will make no difference outlawing high capacity magazines. They will just reload a few more times or just carry more weapons or find some other method of doing the crime they want to do. Hell, why don’t we just outlaw everything and have people just sit at home and do nothing because they might hurt themselves or others! Remember the law only impacts the people who obey it of which criminals do not obey the law or they would not be criminals.

  • Comm_reply
    Mophatt 01/31/2011 7:28am

    That is rediculous. Well then, we have the freedom of press but we’re not allowed to have paper. That is no statement to start an intelligent debate with.

  • Comm_reply
    bdg333 02/11/2011 11:13am

    The right to bear arms is useless without the right to bullets. If we do not have the right to bullets, then the right to bear arms would be useless and not serve the purpose the founders intended. Without the right to bullets, we do not truly have the right to bear arms. Therefore, by the fact we have the right to bear arms and logic, we have the right to bullets.

    Freedom of speech would be void if we could not speak or freedom of the press.

    Freedom of the press is pointless without paper (etc) or the freedom of speech.

    A lot rights could be undone by saying “Oh, well, this idea isn’t included in the constitution and therefore is not a right, even though it makes certain ideas and rights in the constitution pointless and ineffective”

    We have the right to life, but who said we had the right to exist, eat, drink, breath, etc? It is implied due to its neccessity to allow the rights to actually be rights.


Vote on This Bill

17% Users Support Bill

164 in favor / 778 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments