Legislative Alert – H.R. 308

Posted by Jack

In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, anti-gun groups and politicians have been falling all over themselves to “cash in” with radical new gun control schemes. And without your action today, I’m afraid their assault WILL SUCCEED.

If passed, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban Bill would outlaw the sale or transfer of firearm magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Already own a handgun, rifle or shotgun with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds? You’re “legal” for now (unless you live in California and purchased it after 2000. Then you are already a felon!) But, you can’t ever sell it, give it away or pass it down to your kids. In fact, Congresswoman McCarthy’s bill would turn widows into instant FELONS if their late husbands possessed a 12-round magazine! Of course, all this is bad enough. But it’s not even close to the end of it.

News reports are that President Obama recently met with House Republicans where he likely made whatever promises he had to in order to pass H.R. 308 with as little publicity as possible. His goal is simply to “get the camel’s nose under the tent.” Then, once H.R. 308 goes to the Senate, the White House is preparing to launch an all-out WAR on our Second Amendment freedoms!

Contact your representative (Wally Herger) and let him know how you feel. Better yet, call a democrat representative and let them know!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Legislative Alert – H.R. 308

  1. Libby says:

    “cash in” ?????

    “Congresswoman McCarthy’s bill would turn widows into instant FELONS if their late husbands possessed a 12-round magazine!”

    Only if they try and sell ’em. Such alarmist silliness. What the widows will have to do is take them into the cop house for destruction. I have no objection.

    Jack, yer just gonna have to get yerself another hobby … one not quite so inimical to civilization.

  2. Post Scripts says:

    Libby, not to be nit picky, but it’s actually not just my “hobby”. I spent most of my adult life using such weapons to save lives and protect property. So I hold the “tools of my trade” in a somewhat different point of view than you gun-grabbers. But, law abiding, responsible gun enthusiast probably do share my concerns for those who take them away, leaving only the criminals with the guns. T

    That has never seemed like a good plan to any rational, well informed adult.

  3. Harold Ey says:

    Was it plows or guns that made this nation free today, and gave freedom to all during 1860’s, was it America’s ability to arm itself thru 2nd Amendment rights that help keep Japan off our soil in 1940. People forget or just overlook there are needs to be armed, if they need a refresher course, I propose they live a month (if you make it that long) in any middle eastern 3rd world country. Freedom comes at a price, that price is only paid by few brave people with guns, however the rest of Americans enjoy all our benefits of freedom. I sometimes wish Anti this and Anti that ‘thoughts of gun control’ were required to be registered like guns, after all freedom of speech it is only a right won by being armed.

  4. Libby says:

    What’s a little regulation?

    We’re just trying to make it difficult for the crazies.

    You “gun enthusiasts” can, just, for that reason, comply with the regulations … can’t you?

  5. Post Scripts says:

    Libby I can appreciate trying to make it difficult for the crazies, I really can.

    I’m okay with fair regulations that strike a balance between my rights, equal protection under the law and against those who would undermine said things that I value. You should too because when my rights get undermined so do yours. We’re sharing the same Constitution sweety and us A-meri-cans gots to stick together to protect it.

  6. Libby says:

    Yes, well, you haven’t really got any “right” to be able to fire off 30 rounds in 30 seconds. You can reload. It won’t kill you.

  7. Post Scripts says:

    Libs, it’s absolutely not about firing 30 shots in 30 seconds. Its about fairness, like is it fair to be subject to arrest for a felony if you have 11 rounds in your gun instead of the legally allowed number of 10?

    You can have a million drunk drivers, but nobody demands more regulation for driving cars or owning one, but if just one crazy shoots a politician, its a call for more gun regulation on 100 million gun owners. Why is that?

  8. Harold Ey says:

    What is a ‘Little Regulation’? Each and every time government gets involved and it creates new regulations, they create a new deficit budget along with it. Carters newly developed Energy commission of 1973 as a example, simple enough at the time the original goal of waning us off foreign oil. This agency of regulation has grown to 26 plus billion $$$$$ and counting and has it worked?, NaDa. All it did was create more expansive and useless government. Why do some people feel the need require control of their thoughts and actions? That has only become a liability to those who won’t or cannot function in life without perpetual government aid, but not every one needs a nanny. We do not need regulation for the average citizen in this country, we need more freedom of choice, less government and the ability to function as free people. We should force regulate us all because of a few crazies.

  9. Libby says:

    “Libs, it’s absolutely not about firing 30 shots in 30 seconds.”

    Of course it is. If the Giffords crazy had been obliged to reload after six shots, two people would never have been hit.

  10. Post Scripts says:

    Libby, I’m sure you see it that way, but if he was limited to 10 rounds he could easily toss in another clip of 10. So it’s not the number of bullets in the clip its keeping mentally defective people away from ALL guns and sharp objects. As it turns out in this case this individual was known to have dangerous mental problems and the system failed us. That is no reason to punish 100 million gun owners because one crazy man .

  11. Post Scripts says:

    Libs how many lives would be saved if we lowered the national speed limit to 45 mph? I don’t know either, but its safe to say it would be a lot more than if we restriced guns to no more than ten rounds! So following your liberal logic we should all be tooting down the road at 45 mph because we’re much safer and we get better mileage. Think people will go for that? Life has its risks and so does freedom, you can’t regulate everything under the pretext of security or safety or gas mileage. We must not have this zero tolerance attitude for every possible misfortune that might befall us – we need to live free and take some chances, it’s not that hard!

  12. Post Scripts says:

    Libby, one last thought on this thread and I hope you will hear me out:

    You have a right to feel secure and government has a duty to protect you, as best they can. Nobody wants a crazy person to own a gun – no matter what kind or capacity, he/she shouldn’t own it…period!

    However, reasonable gun owners are not about to give up our rights to keep that one nutcase from getting his hands on a firearm somehow. Its a calculated risk every reasonable American should be willing to take. The right to keep and bare arms is a good sign that were still free.

    This is why we’re not going to give up this fighting government and the liberals behind them who are constantly trying to impose more and more restrictions on gun ownership. Why? As said, we see it as a constant undermining of our 2nd amendment right (a freedom) by the gun grabbers. This is another case of the “camel’s nose under the tent” kind of thing and we don’t want encroachment and so we resist.

    We have conceded that a background check and a waiting period are reasonable for gun purchase. We conceded that it is reasonable to pay a fee (tax) to buy, sell or transfer weapons. We conceded that we can no longer sell a gun to another person, that we need to go through the legal transfer process and thus all our guns become registered. We didn’t like that much because we know that was the first thing the Nazi Party did, then afte the registration was over they started picking them up.

    We don’t have zero tolerance for all gun laws, we’ve given in a lot and thats why we ask please don’t try to punish millions of law abiding legal gun owners the next time one crazy person does one insane act. Were being reasonable and you should be too.

    What is needed and would help a great deal is for law enforcement, courts and mental health facilities to work together and apply the existing laws to protect all of us, including you, from the crazies or criminals with guns. If they (representing our system) had done their job right the Arizona shooting would never had happened. There were several opportunities to have that man committed.

    Its also a fact that if a few people in Gabby Giffords group had been carrying a weapon, the shooter could have been stopped early – will you acknowledge this?

    But in the wake of that shooting the liberals would rather pass a new law to further inhibit that lawful gun owner from carrying or even owning a gun. I think if it was a republican gathering chances are four or five voters would have been well armed and well trained to use what they carry.

    I know the world is shrinking and we have to find ways to peacefully coexist. We need to cooperate on these problems and respect each others opinions in order find real solutions that do not always result in the erosion of one sides Constitutional right. It’s not the easiest way to go, but I think its the right way. Whatta ya say? Will you give some pause and not just support every new gun law that democrats throw at us?

  13. Tina says:

    Jack: “following your liberal logic we should all be tooting down the road at 45 mph because we’re much safer and we get better mileage.”

    Whoa…but it wouldn’t stop there…soon it would be 35 mph…then 25…and after that we might as well walk. Which was the aim all along…to get us out of our cars.

    They don’t want your clip Jack..THEY WANT YOUR GUNS…all of them! (We both know that)

    This is why liberal progressives everywhere must be defeated. They are not reasonable people. They don’t compromise and they never quit. They seek absolute CONTROL. We know it as totalitarianism and it’s their bottom line whether those, like Libby, who back these incremental efforts think so or not.

  14. Libby says:

    “Libby, I’m sure you see it that way, but if he was limited to 10 rounds he could easily toss in another clip of 10.”

    If bystanders hadn’t had him on the ground already. You just refuse to be pragmatic about this.

    Nobody wants your gun. We will, however, do what we can to limit the carnage you’re capable of on the day you go off your head.

    “Jack: “following your liberal logic we should all be tooting down the road at 45 mph because we’re much safer and we get better mileage.

    Whoa…but it wouldn’t stop there…soon it would be 35 mph…then 25…and after that we might as well walk. Which was the aim all along…to get us out of our cars.”

    Now here, the collective paranoia is entirely justified. I mean we’re already there. No you, yet, of course … the still affluent … but there are already people in this country taking it back to 55. You can get another fifty miles out of the tank, if you do that, and some of us can’t be plunking down for a tank just whenever.

  15. pooka rabbit says:

    And who are you to decide my rights? FYI, my ultra liberal friends were the first to call and ask to ‘borrow’ a gun during several of the civil disorders in California.

    The Japanese were considering invading California just after Peal Harbor. Their research concluded many Americans owned weapons for hunting and sport. One army officer said it very succulent, ‘We were not about to step into that swamp.’

    No one wants to step up to the plate and openly say we are living in very tense times, both internally and globally.

    I feel for Ms. McCarthy’s loss of her husband due to the actions of an insane man with a gun. So we are back to the rule of society, we punish the majority for the actions of a very, very few.

    I say no and be glad there might be someone in your neighborhood who has the capability to deal with violence; remember, the bad guys are very well prepared, so please do not strip us of the ability to defend ourselves, and possibly you.

  16. Chris says:

    Jack: “You can have a million drunk drivers, but nobody demands more regulation for driving cars or owning one,”

    “Nobody” in what country, Jack? Several new regulations for driving have been passed in California over the last few years. You can’t possibly not know this, did you just decide to gloss over this fact to in order to make a political point?

  17. Post Scripts says:

    Chris, the point I was trying to make is just because we have a tragedy with a drunk driver, there isn’t this nation-wide crusade to impose harsher aznd more restrictive laws on people who drive cars, if you missed this point its Y-O-U glossing over the point of the reply and refusing to see what is right in front of your face because it doesn’t fit with what you wanted to see.

  18. Tina says:

    Libby: ” No you, yet, of course … the still affluent … but there are already people in this country taking it back to 55.”

    Shows what you know…the “affluent” didn’t get that way being frivolous and stupid.

    I think I told you before Libby…I’m soooo affluent I still drive a 1989 Honda civic..woo hoo!

  19. Tina says:

    Chris: “Several new regulations for driving have been passed in California over the last few years.”

    Let’s see…we have to turn on our lights when the windshield wipers are going and cell phones are (supposed to be) a no no…I don’t recall any others, particularly having to do with drunk drivers or restricting or preventing ownership.

    Clue us in Chris.

Comments are closed.