2011-05-06T14:05:45Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/67393 2011-05-06T14:05:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-06:/comment/232300 SignOfTheDollar McCarthy is the post child for the phrase, "Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants". 2011-11-14T18:34:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-14:/comment/238042 visera01 "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." this is a second amendment issue you can not make common sense a law this 2nd amendment was put in place for LAW ABIDING citizen to have and keep arms that were on par with the military has we are the best defense for this country congress has no right to say how much ammo we can have in our weapons at one time 2011-01-19T22:20:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-19:/comment/225477 Altereggo BTW, here is a gun that would be banned by this legislation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/NavyHenry1860.jpg Not the gun specifically, but the 16rnd magazine permanently attached to it. Think they'd raid the Smithsonian to get rid of them? 2011-01-23T11:42:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-23:/comment/225731 Crusader33 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. 2011-01-23T14:15:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-23:/comment/225746 DCW 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! 2011-01-20T18:18:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-20:/comment/225577 Patriot16 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. 2011-01-27T03:35:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-27:/comment/226076 Crusader33 Thankyou for your sevice in protecting the public in your defense of the Constitution. I know that some of the rights may have been an inconvenient to your task. The reason that this issue has become so heated is due to the lack of credibility of the politicians that seek every excuse to infringe on the 2nd Amendment to the point of discracfully using tragedies for political game. This trick may have worked back in the 90's, but not today. As for the mag issue, you know that criminals will always have them. It is easy to even make your your oun by cutting up smaller mags and connecting them together. All HR 308 would do is infringe on civilians with no benefit to public safety. I encourage you to read this artical http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=269&issue=005 This bill is just another attempt to attack the constitution. 2011-01-27T12:22:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-27:/comment/226132 MayorofAngryTown Everyone is falling in love with their own passion for a fight they feel is legitimate. We are concentrating on the passion and not the means (if they exist) to fix the problem. I understand it's a slippery slope once the government starts limiting (not eliminating) freedoms and people get very protective. I feel our passion can be better used on a topic that has more promise for substantial change. 2011-01-27T12:15:42Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-27:/comment/226131 MayorofAngryTown This does not violate your right to keep and bear arms. You still have every opportunity to protect yourself with smaller cap mags. I've heard the analogy that this bill would be similar to making smaller gas tanks to curb DUI's. It does seem fruitless but the point I'm trying to convey is to shed light on the real reason people are in such a fever over this. In my opinion liberals truly want to limit guns only to law enforcement and had a reactive opinion on what happened in Arizona. Conservatives had a reactive opinion when liberals attempted to place a reasonable constraint on an existing freedom. Cooler heads prevail. A person's safety doesn't hinge on their weapons capacity to have 3x as many rounds. My duty weapon only had the capacity for 8 rounds in a magazine and yet , with that, I was entrusted with the safety of a community. If this bill is law it wont do much to stop senseless murder....but these soapboxes we have are hollow. 2011-01-27T14:50:55Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-27:/comment/226140 Patriot16 Cooler heads will prevail in this case and the bill will die out. Just look at the current support for the bill on this websight. People are not willing to let their constitutional rights get erroded with so called "common sense restrictions" when there is not a real benefit. Most people know that its foolish and a disingenuous politician is pushing the issue. Therefore most will not even entertain the merit of such a proposal. Most politicans know that support for such a foolish bill will mean that they will be replaced in 2012. That is why Rep McArthy will only have about 67 co-sponsors, with is about the same that supported H.R. 1022 (so called Assault weapon ban re-instatement back in 2007). These 67 co-sponsors are from liberal enough areas to get away with this foolishness. Any politician that values their job will not support such a measure. Notice that President Obama knew to avoid the subject in the State of the Union speach? 2011-01-30T21:02:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-30:/comment/226446 JermG85 6: Unjustifiably shooting someone is already illegal and punishable by death. so a couple of years extra for using a "high capacity magazine" is going to stop someone... 7: A person with a semi proficient training on the Glock 19 as used in the shooting can be reloaded and back on target in under 2 seconds. Is firearms training next on the "ban list"? 8: Heroin and knives are illegal in jails and they still get in all the time. What makes people think that if someone on the street wants a "high capacity magazine" if they were illegal cant get them? 9: 100s of times more people are killed by drunk drivers. I don't see Psyche evals being demanded to get a drivers license or MADD calling for the ban of car engine size alcohol sales limits. 2011-01-31T06:41:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-31:/comment/226481 Mikel1 With all the hoopla about the Tucson "Massacre", I've noticed that no one has seemed to consider that it could have been SO VERY MUCH worse. If for instance the perpatrator had not had a firearm and had instead chosen to use a car bomb. Would we then seek to outlaw cars? No law in the land can stop a relatively intelligent and determined killer. Only persistant vigilance by EVERYONE and a will to act by those closest to the situation can have even a chance of protecting ourselves and those around us. As for the 30rnd mgazine(aka mag), a "clip" is what you put on a chip bag or in your hair, it is but a part of a tool. If he had used a car, would you seek to outlaw tires? And the same holds true for the ammo he used, would you outlaw gasoline? . 2011-02-03T16:04:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226930 MayorofAngryTown "People like you with your "common sense" approach to Gun Control fool no one." I am not advocating gun control. Why are you so angry with my position when I've ,rather calmly, didnt disagree that this bill is fruitless. Certain measures are put in place by the government to stem the tide of death. The 2nd amendment does not state your right to 30 round magazines but it also does not state the right for the Government to limit them. I've used many words to attempt to prove my point now if you would be so kind, give me a legitimate reason why you NEED extended magazines. I dont wanna hear that its eroding away our 2nd amendment rights when that is downright false. You have the same right to the same arms with or without this bill as law. 2011-01-31T16:17:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-31:/comment/226537 Patriot16 What a stupid bill!! 2011-01-30T20:50:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-30:/comment/226444 JermG85 1: It bans the production and sale of something that is so widely owned that makes it impossible to enforce. 2: It bans the production of something that is largely made in the USA, sold all over the world, and in one of the few industries that amazingly is one of the few that is actually growing (job killing). 3: Since the end of the AWB ban, shootings have dramatically decreased not increased.... not my facts but the FBI's and the CDC's (more likely to be killed by your doctor). 4: Magazines do not have a "made on" date. and this bill and its cohort S:32 takes away from the burden of proof from the government and puts it on the individual to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the magazine was purchased and made before this bill would be enacted. This in turn makes you guilty until proven innocent which goes against every principle of law in our country. 5: It's being sold based on a shooting where the one used was legally purchased during the AWB. 2011-02-03T15:02:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226917 MayorofAngryTown The day a law enforcement officer carries 8 rounds in a magazine is now. Many officers choose to carry a weapon with that capacity. I'm assuming your last sentence was supposed to read" I've spent over 10 years as one". If you chose to read or understand my posts even a simple person would understand that I was pointing out the anger of each sides words rather than the foundation of wisdom in them. I'm not trying to fool people, you assume I am, rather than trying to be objective. Your ability to defend your family DOES NOT hinge on your weapons ammunition capacity of more than 10 rounds. How dare you manufacture fear to try and prove your point. "Silence the talk of ignorant men"....thanks to you sir...I will always keep coming. In the good book it says "Men's hearts failing them for fear" and you good sir are behind it's megaphone. 2011-02-16T18:46:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-16:/comment/228353 MayorofAngryTown I said officers can carry 8 rounds in a magazine, in this case, the officer will undoubtedly carry a minimum of 5 magazines. It seems that your argument is to give less skilled shooters the capacity to shoot 30 rounds without reloading because this would give them a better chance to fend off an attacker? It seems amazing to me that everyones ability to justifiably defend themselves relies on 30 rounds in a single magazine. Its completely unfounded and illogical when most people are aware that these extended magazines contribute to murder by handgun. I made the argument earlier that you are 45x more likely to be murdered by a handgun than use one justifiably resulting in death. (FBI crime stats 2009) 2011-05-10T14:02:01Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-10:/comment/232430 adrianazagreb1 Guns have put the United States in constant danger and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are regularly used. In my opinion, H.R. 308 is needed. I am currently residing in the Middle East and it is a shame that the streets here in Jordan are safer than those in California, my home state. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices have gotten out of hand and are used too frequently. However, this act is an opportunity to prevent the growing number of fatalities that occur daily throughout the United States. I completely support it! 2011-05-23T10:42:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-23:/comment/233098 faheem2774 Since they would need to reload after ten bullets the process of reloading would require two hands so the moment in this action the armed individual cannot fire. 2011-03-01T07:28:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-03-01:/comment/229231 therebeunicorns Heh. I'd better start stalking up soon as I can. Our government is headed towards tyranny. They have no right to say how big my clips can be or how many rounds I need. I'm not saying everyone needs to load up, but we should be able to buy what or as much as we need in case of a war on home turf and citizens need to become warriors. Heck, if the government goes to tyranny, they're the ones I'll be unloading my clips on. On the other hand, I agree that I don't see how you need a bazillion rounds for defense from criminals. If you are a good shot, you only need a few. All citizens should attend gun training, or some sort of self defense training. :D