Rep. McCarthy Intros Bill to Ban High-Capacity Ammo Clips

[onehandle]

Source: ABC News

In the aftermath of the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this month, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have proposed a cluster of gun control measures ranging from a ban to knowingly carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials to a proposal to allow members of Congress to carry firearms in the U.S. Capitol.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy formally introduced her own bill on the House floor Tuesday that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one Jared Loughner used to gun down 19 individuals in the Tucson shooting Jan. 8.

McCarthy, who is regarded as one of the toughest gun-control proponents on Capitol Hill, has dedicated her congressional service to reducing gun violence after a tragic incident in 1993 in which gunman Colin Ferguson unleashed a hail of bullets aboard a packed Long Island Railroad commuter train, and used 15-round magazines to kill six people, including McCarthy’s husband, and injured 19 more, including her son.

“I know what it’s like to have tragedy brought to your life in a split second by a madman with high-capacity ammunition magazines,” McCarthy said. “I’m working to stop it from happening again. We need comprehensive reform to reduce the number of people hurt or killed by gunfire in America, but one simple way we can do that is by keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from the general public. This nation has come together before to support this simple, commonsense measure, and it is the law in several states right now. It is a small sacrifice that law-abiding gun owners can make once again in order to increase everyone’s safety.”

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/rep-mccarthy-i...

[derby378]

1. 10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad

There's no intellectual way I know of to justify such legislation, nor any Constitutional justification for it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I thought Loughner's gun had 31 rounds?

[derby378]

5. From McCarthy's press release

The bill brings the nation to the same 10-round-maximum standard used in four other states today, as well as nationwide for a decade while the previous federal assault weapons ban was in effect. It closes a gaping loophole in the previous ban in which magazines manufactured before the law went into effect could still be sold or transferred.

That's why I made the earlier statement of 11 rounds vs. 10. Until I see otherwise in the bill's text, I see no differentiation between pistol magazines and rifle magazines being made.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Well I don't think anyone needs 31 rounds

or 30.

[derby378]

9. Well, uh...

...I have a 30-round rifle magazine. Hopefully, I will never need all 30 rounds. If I do, well, I've got even bigger problems.

[AlbertCat]

19. If I do, well, I've got even bigger problems

Then why do you have it?

Do you sleep with it against your body?
Hang it on the door at Christmas?
Take it for a ride to the park?
Talk to it when you're lonely?



And you're worried about 11 rounds being unjustified.

Like 17 is too young to drink but 18 isn't?

One must make concrete limits.


When St Gun enters the room, logic always seems to leave.

[FarLeftFist]

35. The thing is....

Is that if someone we're in public and needed more than 10 rounds for self defense I'm not sure they should be carrying a gun, chances are those stray bullets are hitting someone or something. It is a fact that Jared Loughner was subdued during a moment of reloading, it may lessen a massacre effect in this way. While still much harm can be done with 10 rounds it at least forces the shooter to pause and reload. In a hostage situation this could be helpful for Police snipers to take a clear shot. Seems like a good step while still keeping our Constitution in focus. We will never fully end gun violence but we can start at least saving more lives. If this saves even one more 9yr old girls life it will have been well worth it.

Edit: Also it wouldn't hurt to force gun owners to wait 4-6 weeks and take a mandatory safety class once a year for renewal.

[X_Digger]

37. Tell that to the guy..

.. facing the third home invasion assailant barreling at him..

or the GLBT man facing a bunch of homophobes with tire irons and baseball bats..

or the african american man surrounded by a pack of rednecks with a rope..

[FarLeftFist]

44. True but...

If the person pulled out a gun and shot one of those said homophobes, hopefully the assailants will feel extremely threatened enough to run away from the threat to their life. The presence of the gun alone is very psychological for many. Alot of store robberies occur without a single shot being fired, but the guns presence is enough for the store owner to hand over all of his cash and pretty much meet any other demands i.e lay down on stomach and not look at the suspect etc.

[FreakinDJ]

49. Your argument is the BEST way to dismatle the Constitution

"If this saves even one more 9yr old girls life it will have been well worth it."

The Constitution is all about "When the RIGHTs of the 1 outweigh the WANTs of the many"

Every time I hear variations of that otherwise compassionate plea "If this saves even one more ____________ (fill in blank) it will have been well worth it." it just makes me shiver. You are advocating diminishing or outright demolishing our 2nd amendment rights. What happens when only bad people have guns. When the bad guys can hold that same little girl hostage and do as they wish with her - what then

[StarsInHerHair]

95. why are you using the exact argument as the right?

nt

[FreakinDJ]

96. Oh - very intelligent rebuttal there

I wouldn't consider their position or talking points Left or Right. They are the talking points presented most often by NOW and we all know NOW plays both sides of the fence

[X_Digger]

72. And it may just piss them off..

We can theorize what it would do to you or me- we're not criminals, a pack of drunks bent on wailing on someone, etc.

The point being that the rare crime committed with a magazine over 10 rounds is likely overshadowed by the less rare self-defense using a magazine over 10 rounds.

There are plenty of stories of multiple-attacker home invasions-

http://articles.philly.com/2010-09-03/news/24973005_1_w...
http://www.kens5.com/news/Police-hunt-for-three-men-beh...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/08/connecticut.home.in...

And many hate crimes with multiple attackers-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/10/17/200...
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id...
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/gay-man-beaten-by-gang...
http://www.wftv.com/news/25018898/detail.html

[Riftaxe]

77. It appears you are more then willing

to bet the victim's life on it...that's some compassion ya got there sparky.

[defendandprotect]

91. Another great argument for getting rid of guns entirely -- !!

[The Doctor.]

45. This is apparently an emotional issue for you. I understand.

No one who owns guns does so absent an adverse psychological condition. Right?

Everyone who owns or otherwise appreciates guns is psychotic... right?

Well, I'm sure you're right. Problem is, I can't rightly see why. So... if you would be kind enough to explain this adverse condition I'd really appreciate it.

You seem to know so much about gun owners.

[sellitman]

58. When St Gun enters the room, logic always seems to leave.

Bravo!!!!!!

[derby378]

81. Concrete limits based on what?

The minimum drinking age of 18 is based on scientific observations of human development. The average corpus callosum doesn't fully mature until the age of 18, and the corpus callosum is what connects the two hemispheres of your brain and plays a huge role in facilitating judgement and critical thinking. At least we have science on our side - and the fact that there is no Constitutional right to consume alcohol, especially if you are not yet mature enough physically and mentally to do so.

As for why I have a 30-round magazine, I do not have to justify my reason for owning one to you or anyone else. Isn't the Constitution wonderful?

[defendandprotect]

90. Forgetting bullets for a moment, what about concerns for life?

Are you saying that GOP/NRA concerns about "rounds" should predominate over gun violence

bringing death to America and officials?

[onehandle]

3. Oh, so we are 'Strict Constitutionalists' now?

Where have I heard that before?

[demosincebirth]

4. "Intellectual?" no, common sense yes

[Tejas]

8. So, your "common sense" tells you criminals will give a $%#t about this law?

Really?

[defendandprotect]

12. It's a start .... and given the rising right wing violence, it's a necessity ....

[The Doctor.]

46. And there we strike upon a serious problem.

Any significant response to this tragedy will play into the wrong hands.

Have we forgotten the millions of people who have been told that Obama is going to take their guns away?
Have we forgotten that these millions of people are too plug stupid to understand how government works?
Have we forgotten the trebling of gun sales that followed Obama's election?

They WANT this. Red. Fucking. Meat.

Personally, I'd love to see the great experiment of those with the desire to ban guns or abortion play out. Not because I love suffering, but because we could see either of these carte blanche philosophies destroyed the same way prohibition was.

But the real problem right now is the millions of people the RW noise machine will stoke with fears, replete with delusional paranoia of barricaded gun-battles, of having their guns taken by the Feds.

This will factor up Tea-bagging by at least 20%. We're on the path now, best check your shoes.

[customerserviceguy]

55. Exactly

The Rethugs running to take full control of all the Congress, and the White House, too, want this debate. They'd love to bait the President into saying something else like his 'clinging to guns and religion' comment. I think he's too smart for that.

Carolyn Maloney is a one-issue candidate, whose entire life is defined by one tragedy, I expect her to do something like this.

[derby378]

82. McCarthy, not Maloney

Maloney tends to cosponsor or vote for any anti-gun bill that McCarthy introduces, don't get me wrong, but it's McCarthy who's doing the heavy lifting here.

[AlbertCat]

21. So, your "common sense" tells you criminals will give a $%#t about this law?

Y'know, murderers don't give a fuck about laws against murder, so let's just not bother with them either.
Thieves still steal things, so why have laws against stealing? They don't care.
And folks violate traffic laws all the time! Best not to have any.



See...Whoooooosh.... all logic just flies away in the presence of the Holy Gun.

[demosincebirth]

102. I know a couple of "intellectuals" who have a hard time tying their shoe laces

[defendandprotect]

11. ...but "intellectually" the Supremes could justify W and guns for everyone?

After 60 years+ of holding that 2nd amendment meant nothing but rationale

for "militia" --

[derby378]

15. How long was the precedent for PLESSY V. FERGUSON?

Some precedents, like the recent Citizens United ruling, just need to die.

[defendandprotect]

17. Was there an opening clause which cited a "well-regulated militia" in Plessy?

This latest decision is about one thing -- a right wing win pushing more

GOP/NRA propaganda and gun sales -- to create a more violent American society.

And they are certainly succeeding!

[davepc]

56. Crime, voilent and otherwise are at historic lows down about half from the early 1970's.

So if "they" are seeking to create a more violent society, per capita the numbers are going the wrong way.

[defendandprotect]

76. GOPs/NRA will continue to push for selling more guns --

and clone more Laughner's to combat that downturn --

Right wing has been working since the 1970's to create a violent American society --

Drug War was certainly one way of doing it -- that also works well for the gun lobby

and gun manufacturers profits.

[harmonicon]

22. lines have to be drawn somewhere

Consider voting age; 18, not 17. Why not 19? If 17 is too young, why is 18 not also too young? That could lead to noone being able to vote, because no one would be old enough. Alternately, you could run it into newborns being given the vote. We just have to make choices as a society. Do you think people should legally be allowed to own nuclear-equipped ICBMs? Lines just have to be drawn somewhere, and this is a suggestion about where to draw them. For those reasons I can intellectually justify it, and the constitutional justification couldn't be more simple: congress makes the laws. What is hard to understand about that?

[gejohnston]

36. ICBM?

Kind of a straw man. Even if you could own one, how would you pay for it and where would you put it? Machine guns were unregulated in the US until 1934 and Canada until 1969 (although they had to be registered since 1955) but few if any individuals bought them. When St Gun or Darth Gun (depending on your point of view) logic goes out of the window either way. Anytime anyone says "common sense solution" I tune out because of the lack of logic or forethought.

[harmonicon]

41. It's not a straw man, but the end of a logical progression.

In this case, the start of that progression is the size of clips that would be legally available. Lines are drawn somewhere, and it is congress that draws those lines. People may disagree with this proposed bill, but I don't see arguing the logic behind the process.

[derby378]

83. And who decides the criteria by which Congress draws those lines?

I swear, my wife would tear you a new one if you dared to use this logic to restrict women's access to health services, especially abortion.

It is, after all, the old argument by NARAL: Who Decides? The answer is simple: Each of us decides for ourselves.

[defendandprotect]

92. Criteria should certainly not be what's good for GOPs/NRA but what's good for America ....

and that's not a Wild West America -- !!

[harmonicon]

99. simple answer again: we do.

This is how representational democracy works.

[aikoaiko]

6. I've seen this before......

[defendandprotect]

10. Good for her -- Canada has 7 million guns in 10 million homes and only 200 deaths by gun

every year --

no clips like the Giffords rally killer used --

28 day waiting period for a gun AFTER you take the mandated training --

You have to be registered and licensed --

And, if you have a spouse or ex-spouse, they have to say it's OK for you to

have a gun!

[derby378]

13. Personally, I tend to favor mandated training...

...although this puts me at odds with other pro-RKBA folks who say I've got good intentions, but I can't justify mandating training on Constitutional grounds. I just want everyone who owns a gun, regardless of the type, to be conscientious in handling, storing, and using it.

As for the whole permit thing - well, I don't need a permit for freedom of speech, so I have to take a pass on that one.

[defendandprotect]

18. You don't need a permit for "freedom of speech" -- you need permits to protest now ....

and we have special "zones" for protests --

unless of course you're a right wing T-BAGGER, then you can bring a rifle to a

Democratic Town Hall Meeting!

That's what happens with the rise of the right wing --

I just want everyone who owns a gun, regardless of the type, to be conscientious in handling, storing, and using it.

And since we don't have mandated training -- !!??

[derby378]

80. Are you saying "free-speech zones" are a good thing?

I'm not. America is my free-speech zone. And you don't need a permit to protest, but you do need a permit to close off traffic in certain areas of town. Big difference.

Time to recalibrate. Too many Democrats are straying away from the freedoms they are due - it's time to stand on our hind legs and reclaim them.

[defendandprotect]

85. I'm saying that free speech is now based on $$ if you read the latest right wing

Supreme Court decision --

And that the public's right to free assembly has certainly been attacked --

and undermined. If you want to protest you need to have a permit - you need

to inform the police departments and get permission.

Granted you can probably stand on a shoe box somewhere and talk with the public --

but don't try it in a shopping mall -- and don't try it in a lot of other places.

And, as I recall it, the interference with the Right to Free Assembly is what

finally triggered the Revolution. We've had not only interference with the Right

to Free Assembly for decades now, we've had demonstrators abused -- if not tortured.

I think forcing someone's eyes open to shoot in pepper spray would fit that category.

[gejohnston]

40. however

that has only been in the last 15 years. What was the crime rate before that? Were Canadians machine gunning each other before 1969, when they became regulated (banned in 1977)? It has to do with history, culture, and inequality of wealth. There are also due process and fourth amendment issues if we were to adopt it here. it also lowered the age to buy rifle ammunition from 16 to 12 (with minors permit)which, again, seems to work for them but I think even Charlton Heston would agree would be asinine here.

[defendandprotect]

86. Presented it as an example of sanity ...which we could use here --

and Charlton Heston is dead --

[gejohnston]

42. post script

Ummmm I think it is a lot more than seven million in ten million homes, that means that three million homes have and do not have guns at the same time and assuming there would be only one per home. But given the cost, refusal of most provinces to enforce the long gun registry part of it, court challenges, and has it reduced crime or reduced the black market for guns in the past 15 years or are Canadians just pissing money trust in their government for security theater?

[defendandprotect]

87. Canada is generally sane -- America is not -- that's the comparison....

What are the numbers of deaths now by shooting every year here -- ?

Among how many shootings -- ?

It's close to 100,000 shootings, as I recall --


But given the cost, refusal of most provinces to enforce the long gun registry part of it, court challenges, and has it reduced crime or reduced the black market for guns in the past 15 years or are Canadians just pissing money trust in their government for security theater?


Who said any of that?

How much does 100,000 shootings and the thousands of deaths every year benefit us?

What are the costs of that -- and why shouldn't the guy lobby and the gun manufacturing

industry pay for those woundings/deaths --

In fact, why don't we force gun owners to be insured in case of injury to another party.

[pipoman]

48. Annnnnd....

no bill of rights enumerating right to keep and bear arms as a civil liberty. Don't like it? It is up to you to amend the bill of rights.....good luck with that..until then a liberal interpretation of all civil liberties is the duty of liberals.

[bossy22]

64. why should your ex-spouse have that much of a say?

i mean i can understand your spouse- you live with him/her and they are an integral part of your life, but your ex-spouse? To me its as silly as saying that they have to go ask your elementary school crush if its okay for you to have a gun.

[defendandprotect]

88. Evidently, you're unaware of domestic violence and men shooting women after

the break up -- or committing other acts of violence upon them?

That's why women have to resort to seeking shelter -- to be protected from

that violence.

[naaman fletcher]

14. if she doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine

then she has no business legislating on the subject.

[defendandprotect]

16. McCarthy knows the difference between a dead husband and a wounded son.. by gunman ...

you do recall the LIRR shootings, right?

[naaman fletcher]

24. Sure,

but I had a wife and son get killed by something I would at least think that would prompt me to gain the most basic knowledge of the subject that I was going to legislate.

And besides, it is just as irrational to legislate on this one event as it is to legislate based on the testimony of one guy who used a handgun for self defense.

[defendandprotect]

26. Re-read your message ....

think you're saying something you didn't intend to say ....

but I had a wife and son get killed by something ...

Your criticism of McCarthy is invalid on every point --

Basically you could care less about any of this -- except that you have a gun.

[naaman fletcher]

29. meant to say "if"

you can say my criticism is invalid, that is your opinion. I can say as a matter of fact that neither you nor her know the basics about firearms.

[defendandprotect]

34. So you made a mistake which made a huge difference in meaning of your post ...

but someone on TV -- someone shocked at the recent killings couldn't

make a mistake -- ?

Also happen to know that she's dyslectic -- a handicap she was able to overcome

sufficiently to become a nurse and member of Congress.


McCarthy knows what she needs to know -- that Americans don't want guns to have

the capability of killing and wounding 19 people at a time!

And, think we all know that we're sick and tired of the aggression of the gun and

the gun supporters -- of GOP/NRA business as usual!

Shameless!

[naaman fletcher]

43. i made a typo..

left out the word "if". she is willfully ignorant.

[defendandprotect]

59. I know what you did - I brought it to your attention ... McCarthy has dyslexia...

[TheWraith]

47. Which doesn't give her or anyone the right to define public policy.

Personal tragedy does not make you an expert in what is right. Invoking the shooting of a family member to justify a crusade against guns and gun owners is nothing but writ small of the principle behind invoking 9/11 to justify endless wars. Public policy has to be based on SCIENTIFIC understanding, not irrational emotional hyperbole. In this case, we tried magazine capacity limits before, 1994 to 2004, and the Department of Justice tells us that there is absolutely no evidence that it reduced crime in any way.

Remember Virginia Tech? The shooter there used 10-round magazines which would be legal under this bill, and he managed to kill far more people than Jared Loughner did.

[defendandprotect]

60. A "Crusade" against guns and gun owners .... ?

Evidently, you don't get the connection between "wars" and guns/weapons?

And violence?

McCarthy has every right -- as a citizen, a human being, and a legislator to set

public policy.

There should be no capacity to kill 10 or wound 19 with any clip --

Couldn't be clearer that America needs Gun Control --

Americans and our police officers understand that --

GOPs/NRA is heavily financed by the right wing wealthy -- and like all other faked

issues by the right wing that's the only reason it prevails.

And it has also obviously played a large role in dismantling democracy and our people's

government -- moving America to fascism.


That even after this monstrous killing spree in Arizona the GOP/NRA lobby continues its

aggressiveness on guns/weapons is shameless -- and clearly shows the connections and

parallels with the Palin's and Glenn Beck's of the right wing who continue their aggressivness

in calling for more aggression -- with Beck calling for "shootings" of liberals.

[pipoman]

50. If she was half as anxious to

legislate for mental health/addiction availability for anyone, maybe she could actually make a difference. The Democratic congress didn't renew the last failed "ban" because it was a political nightmare and it was completely ineffectual.

[Ter]

94. They weren't armed

n/t

[AlbertCat]

23. then she has no business legislating on the subject.

Oh please!

Like they know anything about

Health Insurance
Science
Marijuana
Oil production
Working in a mine
Teaching school


and the myriad of other things they write laws about.

That's why they have investigative hearings and briefings.


And once again:

Guns in.... logic out.

[naaman fletcher]

25. She has had endless hearings over her career,

and still doesn't know the basics on the parts or mechanics of firearms.

[defendandprotect]

27. Or you have an GOP/NRA interpretation of what she is saying ... ?

And what she has said in hearings --

This is an emotional time, I'm sure, for Rep. McCarthy -- a shocking reminder

of her own family's losses --

Better to understand that than to continue with the aggressive GOP/NRA guns for everyone

campaign!

[naaman fletcher]

28. nope.

I have a basic knowledge of firearms. Glad you just admitted this is an emotional time for her. I would prefer that our government officials not legislate based on emotion.

[defendandprotect]

30. You mean like the Patriot Act ... ?

Or maybe you mean taking the lives of 1 million + Muslims because some phantom

hijackers allegedly killed 2,000+ Americans here?

Attacking two countries -- occupying those countries for 10 years?

Again, we need people like Palin and Beck to cut the aggression --

and we need people like the GOP/NRA to cut the aggression --

Now's the time --

[X_Digger]

32. I think you made the previous poster's point for him..

Knee-jerk legislation is exactly how we ended up with the Patriot Act, TSA, etc.

[HankyDubs]

52. any time the gun crowd talks about emotion

It reminds me of all the fear they gin up about home invasions and the big scary gubbermint and "losing are cawnter-two-shinul rights."

Where would the gun crowd be if not for the emotional appeals to FEAR?

[naaman fletcher]

57. I'm not the one who brought up emotion

It was the poster who said something to the effect of "well, she's emotional, her husband and son were shot".

[defendandprotect]

61. GOPs/NRA "emotions" are based on aggression, violence, fearmongering ....

While McCarthy's emotions are based on empathy for the victims in Arizona --

a quite different kind of "emotion" than the aggression which the gun lobbyists

continue to express.

The GOPs/NRA sets the tone for the gun lobby whenever there is a new shooting spree --

ignore the human side and just concentrate on your gun.

And it's being displayed again in this tragedy -- and it is shameless!

[defendandprotect]

62. +1000% -- Where would the entire right wing be without appeals to FEAR -- ??

[gejohnston]

39. For her sake

I hope she does not make a fool out of herself again by making absurd statements like the one about heat seeking bullets, or the evils of rifles with pistol grips and barrel shrouds without knowing what a barrel shroud is.

[defendandprotect]

63. For your sake --

can only hope you wake up one day to the human costs of guns --

McCarthy is on that human side of the issue having lost her husband in a

shooting spree --

The GOPs/NRA is on the aggression side of the issue -- sell more guns --

create a more violent America. And send more Laughner's out into the world.

GOPs/NRA are cloning Laughner's every day --

[intheflow]

20. K&R for actual political leadership on the left. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

33. This bill is going nowhere

and McCarthy knows it. It's nothing but an attempt to take advantage of the Tucson tragedy to further her anti gun crusade.

[Dappleganger]

38. I don't have a problem with this feel-good bill.

Don't think it'll help keep weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people, however. Good luck in getting them away from the bad guys, they tend to not follow the rules so well.

[stockholmer]

51. because your government is so violent against people,I shudder if they ban you from having firearms

The cat is long out of the bag, your culture of violence dictates that law-abiding citizens have to have guns to protect themselves from the criminal mens rea rent up from a culture of unequal wealth distribution.

At the end of the day, this violence will be fully (it often already was and is partially) turned around on innocent American citizens by the state, in the same method and manner that has killed over 2.5 million people of colour in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., since 1991 GHW Bush Gulf War, then Clinton Sanctions, then GW Bush Iraq/Afghan War, and now Obmama's Afghan/Pakistan/Yemeni expansions.

[Kolesar]

54. It is not like that where I live, Mr. Fear Monger ... eom

[zogofzorkon]

53. Actually gun dealers and gun owners should love this.

You will have to carry 3 guns instead of 1 to get your 30 off. Triple the sales triple the fun.

[snooper2]

65. 100% for this...No real reason anybody needs that many rounds loaded

If you are protecting your home...First off..you use one of these..




For hunting, if you can't kill the target with a single shot, you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place

[bossy22]

66. so why do we give police handguns with 15 round magazines?

listen- i understand the arguments against 30 rounds- but why is the limit drawn at 10? Why shouldn't the limit be 15, or 17 rounds. The standard capacity of today's pistol magazines is on average 12-17 (standard meaning what the gun was originally designed and shipped with).

[snooper2]

67. Why do we give Navy pilots missles?

it's apples and oranges..

Here, make the max 12 and we can all be happy

[benEzra]

70. If individual police officers duties included shooting down planes,

you might have a point. But police sidearms are carried for exactly the same reasons that non-LEO civilians carry them, i.e. defense of the individual, and ordinary LEO patrol officers have always been armed with ordinary civilian small arms in this country.

If ordinary civilian 13-to-20-round pistols are inappropriate for "civilian" purposes then they are inappropriate for all civilians, including police, corporate/private security, and bodyguards. There should be no LEO/corporate/bodyguard exceptions to magazine capacity limits, IMO. Of course, you'll never see that, because the people pushing the capacity limits don't want to ban normal-capacity firearms for themselves and their protectors; they just want to ban them for the "little people."

If the capacity limits reflected typical civilian firearm magazine capacities--18 or 20 for pistols, 30 for civilian rifles---they might be less controversial. But trying to turn the clock back on rifle capacities to the freaking 1860's and pistol capacities to pre-1930's (or worse) is ridiculous, IMO.

[bossy22]

71. they are not apples and oranges

Navy pilots get missles to accomplish offensive strike missions against strategic targets. A cop gets a pistol for self defense. A civilian will purchase a pistol to carry for self defense as well. Doesnt seem like apples and oranges. If you believe they are apples and oranges then you don't understand that basic principles of police firearm use. police firearm use is DEFENSIVE in nature- not OFFENSIVE (like our navy pilot's missle). Police don't draw their guns to attack a criminal, they use it to defend themselves and others against a criminal. Therefore the needs of the average beat cop are similar to the avg civilians with regard to this aspect of self defense. Most armed interactions between police and criminals is 1 on 1; same goes for armed interactions between civilians and criminals. The only difference is that a police officer is more likely to be involved in an armed interaction than a civilian- BUT THAT HAS NO BEARING on what is needed when that armed situation arises.

Also, counter to popular belief- a single officer will never engage multiple criminals who are heavily armed by him/herself. Thats suicide. What they will do is call SWAT. Also, police have backup- a regular person usually does not.

[aikoaiko]

75. Its not really... police encounter the same criminals victimizing regular folks.

[cleanhippie]

68. *yawn* What a waste of time and resources.

Not that it will get passed, but if it did, it will have ZERO effect on gun crime. The whole thing is a wasteful, kneejerk response.

[Imajika]

73. Indeed...

Total and complete waste of time and energy.

This is as big a waste of time as the Republicans trying to repeal health care reform.

There isn't going to be any new federal gun control laws. It just isn't going to happen.

[cleanhippie]

74. Yup. It sucks because there ARE so many things that need attention.

Again, what a waste of time.

[slackmaster]

69. She's a classic "loose cannon" for our party

We don't need crap like that.

[cleanhippie]

78. Accomplishing nothing but driving voters to the other side.

And people wonder why we lose elections...

[Tejas]

79. Ambulance chasing.

McCarthy had probably just about forgot about HR 1022 until the AZ shootings, the shootings happen on Saturday and she jumps on the scene Sunday trying to be relevant.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

89. Let's see if America can be sane for a change?

[truthisfreedom]

93. So what about the people who buy up all of the high-capacity clips before this law is enacted?

You think they'll turn 'em in?

[davepc]

97. So she wants people to hand load their 10+ round magazines?

"shoulder thing that goes up!"

[Hoopla Phil]

98. Why are police (and retired police) exempted from this?

[davepc]

100. Police are exempt from all gun control legislation.

You name the law and the local and state law enforcement have exemptions. From serialized ammunition to "smart" guns that supposedly can only be fired by the proper owner.

If they weren't exempt they'd fight the laws.

[slackmaster]

101. Because gun ban proponents are all authoritarians at their core

That's why.

[beevul]

103. The Op has a misleading title.

"Rep. McCarthy Intros Bill to Ban High-Capacity Ammo Clips"

It should read :

""Rep. McCarthy Intros Bill to Ban Standard capacity AND High-Capacity Ammo magazines"


Thats what it is, and thats what it would do.