“GOP, Dems Inch Toward Compromise on Magazine Clip Limits”
First off, it’s magazines.
Second, this is the ruling class solidifying its power by bridges some of its erstwhile differences. The GOP has decided — should they go along with this measure — that they, like the Dems, are willing to give up on the so-called Reagan Democrats, just as they are willing to give up their base. The result being that they solidify big governmental power (that they likely won’t control for a while) in a long-game whereby they hope to narrow the differences between party outlooks while setting themselves up as the “right” alternative to the Democrats, having first slid the entire political spectrum left.
As Lugar and Rove and others have shown, it is the Establishment way or they’ll happily stand aside and let the Democrats win.
Fine. Then it’s time to finish off this relationship between the Republican Party and conservatives / classical liberals / libertarians and make it official. Because as I’ve been suggesting throughout this full-on anti-gun propaganda assault, the reason the GOP hasn’t been speaking up for the 2nd Amendment is because the GOP has become a party of political positioning and tactical (albeit poorly so) pragmatism. And they were preparing to “prove” that they, too, cared about “the children” by infringing on the rights of gun owners.
An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties appear willing to compromise on high-capacity magazines, the one component of gun control legislation that seems palatable to Republicans who view a full ban on assault weapons as politically toxic.
The New York Times reports that there appears to be some willingness on both sides to limit the type of magazines that can hold 15 and 30 rounds that have been used in mass shootings like those in Newtown, Conn., Tucson, Ariz., and Aurora, Colo.
Lawmaker told the newspaper they see a distinct difference between limits on magazine sizes and a full ban, which would not gain enough support.
Constitutional lawyers and some conservatives generally believe that limiting magazine size falls within the boundaries of recent Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Evidence suggests that a ban on magazine size would indeed reduce the number of those killed in mass shootings, largely because of the difficulty in changing clips, particularly among amateur gun users.
[my emphasis] Go ahead, it’s okay to ask: what is the “evidence” to which this refers? Generally, when one has evidence to cite, one cites the evidence. One doesn’t assert the fact that evidence exists to stand in for the presentation of that evidence. That is, unless one is full of shit.
Senate Democrats up for re-election in states that generally support gun rights are among those most concerned, however. They worry the limits would erode the rights of law-abiding citizens. “I’m ready to step off the status quo on guns,” Sen. Mark R. Warner, D-Va., said. “But I’ve got to work this one through in my mind.” In a New York Times/CBS News poll last month, some 63 percent of respondents said they would favor a ban on high-capacity magazines, while 34 percent opposed the idea.
The NRA has staunchly opposed a ban on weapons, arguing that it would have no effect on gun violence.
Legislation by polling. Following propaganda efforts and emotional populism. Majoritarianism. This is precisely why the founders had the wisdom to recognize unalienable rights and form a republic, where the rights of the minority could not be taken away by temporary coalitions that form a majority.
“We have to consider the millions of weapons out there that will be rendered useless,” Robert A. Levy, a lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the 2008 Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of residents in the District of Columbia to bear arms, said.
Levy supports a ban on magazines with over 20 rounds, which he said “would rule out very few weapons.”
— Well, unless you count the AR-15, the most popularly-owned rifle in the US. Making this a de facto “assault weapons” ban.
Whatever course is taken, it appears a limit on rounds would have to be a bill separate from the assault weapons ban if it stands a chance to pass.
Colorado House Democrats Monday passed new ammunition limits and expanded background checks as part of a package of bills responding to recent mass shootings.
The Democratic-led House voted to ban large-capacity magazines, placing a limit of 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Lawmakers also passed a requirement for background checks on firearm sales between private parties.
The debate on the measures has attracted attention from the White House.
The one thing that could make a TEA Party-like Party into a national Party is some sort of outrageous coalition between Democrats and Republicans to infringe on our rights. For my money, I say bring it on. Federalism is about to take center stage, and local pockets of resistance to tyranny will rise up politically to challenge the fatted establishment fixtures.
It couldn’t happen soon enough, if you ask me.