February 19, 2013

“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.

Newsmax:

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.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:59am
26 comments | Trackback

Comments (26)

  1. [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.

    Mark Kelly said so and he’s, like, an astronaut, so it’s SCIENCE, wingnut.

  2. The difficulty in changing clips?

  3. there’s probably a helpful youtube on it somewheres Mr. moe

    practice practice practice

  4. The difficulty in changing clips?

    Jared Loughner dropped his full mag, therefore that will always happen in any mass shooting event. Ask an ASTRONAUT!

  5. Also, gunmen always wade into the middle of the crowds they’re shooting at so that people can easily grab them should they stop shooting for even a second. All you need to stop a psycho killer (provided that they don’t have mags over 10 rounds) is a ballpoint pen.

  6. Invoking the spirit of Inigo Montoya on the word “compromise”…

  7. I have determined that the only valid self defense arm is the flintlock. Flint, tinder, power, ball, a bunch of ramming and such. I shall now go compose and publish official self-defense advice for the U of CO.

    Because time.

    See, the next time some gun decides to take out a mall of latte moms it’ll have to stop and reload itself during which pause a mom can disable it — pursuant her remembering that her self defense may or may not involve her urinating but is advised to absolutely include her considering said option carefully — to neatly brain the flintlock-cum-maniacal patriarchy-defending male man (you figure it out) with her kid’s plastic folding stroller (having previously decamped a toddler to the safety of the nearest Cinnebon.

    Judas Maude. What freaking reality is this anyway?

  8. I mentioned some time ago that the rattlesnake with which the Tea Party associates itself on Gadsden’s flag is not only one of the most dangerous animals in America, but also one of the most polite.

    We are shaking our rattles for all we’re worth, warning these clumsy power-mad idiots that they’re treading too close. But do they ever listen?

  9. Ballpoint pen combat. Bonus: MATT DAMON!

  10. largely because of the difficulty in changingreloading from clips

    Fixed

  11. I have determined that the only valid self defense arm is the flintlock. Flint, tinder, powder, ball, a bunch of ramming and such.

    Likewise, the 1st Amendment limits the press to broadsheets and pamphlets done with ink on paper using moveable type, and the 3rd Amendment only applies to the Continental Army and Redcoats. Or is only the 2A frozen in time according to the gun-grabbing nimrods?

  12. They’re going to find that ANY compromises on the 2A will be TOXIC.

  13. Oops hit return too soon.

    (cont.)

    They’re going to find that they no longer have any room to reach across the aisle for “compromise”.

    They’ve used up what little benefit of the doubt we were willing to give them as they have been capitulating and surrendering more and more as Obama has kept up his assault on the constitution and the Congress’ own rights and duties.

    This is the HILL.

  14. A bill was introduced in the State Assembly by Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) that would require citizens of New York to acquire liability insurance as a condition to gun ownership.

    Bill S2353 will require all gun owners in NY to obtain and “continuously maintain” insurance coverage of at least $1 million, or they will suffer “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm.

    If the citizen fails to obtain the insurance, then by simply owning the firearm, they will be in violation of the law.

    My bolding.

    Our fascists are certainly in a hurry, ACTION,ACTION, ACTION. We must have ACTION, NOW!

  15. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    in·fringe
    /in?frinj/
    Verb

    1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
    2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

    This isn’t that hard to understand, State Assembly”man” Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn). At least not for people with normally functioning grey matter.

  16. When those ostensibly on the right capitulate to the demands of the left, it’s called a compromise.

    What country is this, again? I don’t know any more. I only know that whatever it was is about gone.

  17. What country is this, again? I don’t know any more

    Oz?

  18. Behold the dweeb behind the curtain!

  19. Seems like Dr. Hanson is exposing the form of the “big lie” rhetoric without applying the name to it. Which, heck, I guess is to be expected when one lives under the rule of such a regime. Gotta be careful how and what one says in public.

  20. Perhaps he thought it self-evident.

  21. I’m pretty sure he does do. But that ought to raise the question in us, how come not just apply the name? But then again, we already know the answer to that: nazism (and its appurtenances) is today the touchstone of evil, and therefore has to be very carefully used.

  22. Thanks for posting that link, newrouter.

  23. Of course, just because they aren’t going to outlaw guns currently owned right now, does not mean we can rest easy. “Closing loopholes” means universal background checks (which means eventually an attempt at registration). So, the MN DFLers have not given up on getting our guns, but there was so much backlash to what they did try to do right now that they had to back off.

  24. Pingback: Wednesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath

Leave a Reply