Clinton Has Cost Me $55 With His 10 Round Clip BS

If you’re the gun control establishment, it serves a VERY useful purpose:

It gets gun owners used to accepting more and more small restrictions. Because they’re patient. Baby Steps will get you anywhere you want to go if you’re willing to wait and take enough of them.

THAT, my friends, is why we need to fight and resist each and every new restriction that comes down the pike. Our freedoms have already been nickel-and-dimed to death, and it’s time for it to end. We have already been more than accommodating and more than willing to compromise.

But it’s not compromise when one side keeps on and on giving and the other side keeps demanding more and more compromise. That’s tyranny.

For example, suppose you lost an election fair and square, but you kept recounting the results over and over and over until you got a result that you liked, then quit. Would that be something any reasonable human over the age of 3 would try? Especially if the only vote count that changed was your own. Thank goodness the real world doesn’t work that way.

oh, wait. Damn!

Here in the US the states already dictated the amount of rounds a rifle could have while one was hunting.

Marc

See what I mean without a fully automatic ak47 with a 30 round clip hunting just ain’t the same. :smiley:

Wrong question. We should not ask “what is the harm” in restricting our rights. We should ask, “is it preventing a harm great enough to justify the infringement of our rights.”

I mean, what if the gov’t limited prayer to a certain day, or required that a church could only hold 10 people at a time. What is the harm? you can still worship, right?

And what useful purpose does a 30-round clip serve (aside form not being “a pain in the ass,” I mean)?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**

Wrong answer. No rights have been limited or infringed. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Limiting clip size to 10 rounds in no way takes that away from you. There has been no harm done, in any real sense. You can just as easily buy three 10-round clips, can you not?
**

Ah, but see that’s a separate issue. The Constitution specifically forbids such a limitation. It does not specify what clip size you are entitled to.

Its useful purpose is not being a pain in the ass. Obviously thats its only purpose. But of course we should remove all the things that make our life easier and go back to good old horses that never killed anyone. I mean what useful purpose do cars have over horses(besides “not being a pain in the ass”

“Oh yeah, there’s the answer - more ammo! Boy howdy, I jest cain’t wait ‘til one of ours {nudge nudge wink wink} is back in that there big ol’ white house, boy!”

Hey espirix now that you’ve insulted rednecks Im certain you wont mind me bashing gays right?:slight_smile: After all fair is fair.

  1. Democratic Congress.

I don’t see how this prevents Mr. Z’s proposed religious restricitons any more than the 2nd amendment does for clip sizes. You would still be free to practice your religion, just in groups of ten or less.

MAuve said

the Supremes established in the Miller case that the standard for an “arm” is that it has be something vital to a “militia”. the 2nd says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

If a banana clip is an “arm” (or part of one and I can’t have one, my right is being infringed.

By your reasoning, everything except single shot 22 short pistols with a 1" barrel could be made illegal without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. "after all, you can still have an “arm”, albeit a useless one.

In my religious example, people can still found religions and worship. The law just makes it more “orderly” if they can only have a church of 10 people. If I am not mistaken, churches are already subject to building codes. WHat is the big deal if the churches are limited to say 10 people? THey can still worship. It is just a convenience issue.

Nah its not the religious types who should be limited to 10. Its the gun control people. All of them must be forced to wear a sticker on their forehead(a very sticky one mind you) and if they gather in groups of 10+ they should all be fined $55 dollars.

Damn, another gun control thread.

Here I had hopes that we might be fighting some ignorance, and maybe correcting someone’s knee-jerk, uninformed ideas:

  1. that Mr. Clinton is solely to blame
  2. that it’s reasonable to blindly accept the word of some chick trying to make money at a gun show (Thanks, DB)
  3. that Mr. Gore intends to further limit clip sizes
  4. that he would have, as President, the ability to do so
  5. that Mr. Bush has any intentions of fighting to counter any previously passed gun control laws
  6. that he would have, as President, the ability to do so
  7. that speed limits are at all comparable to gun control laws
  8. that 55 mph speed limits were “stupid”

. . . or y’all can simply go 'round on the same anti-gun control arguments that even you must be getting tired of repeating by now. Geez louise, there are what, four active gun threads in GD right now?

Why is that Asmodean? Do you think they’re dangerous? That the don’t have the right to be heard? That they have less rights than gun owners?

The bill was introduced in the House as:
Assault Weapon Act of 1993 H.R.1421.IH
It was passed in the house as bill: H.R.4296.EH

But despite wasing through Congressional record, I can’t find where it was passed in the Senate.

here are the records of the 103rd congress. Good Luck!

Anthracite said:

And WB is just now seeing the effect in the cost of a clip that he says is “normally” $14? What is “normal”? Seven years ago?!

Again, I have to point back to using the saleslady at the gun show as his key source for this “information.”

I know you are smarter than this, so I am going to assume that you are just unfamiliar with firearms.
In '94 they banned future production of any civilian clip that holds more than 10 rounds. All the old clips could stay in circulation, but no new ones unless you were somehow working for the government.

So the day they passed the law, the supply was basically the same as the day before. But little by little as clips broke here and there, the supply diminished and was never replaced. Hence…$80 clips.

FWIW…

They also did the same thing with “Assualt Weapons.” You can have an automatic rifle (or a bayonet lug, or flash suppressor, or a folding stock:)) in certain states, (with certain licenses), but everything had to be manufactured before '94. They all have serial numbers (even the parts), so the supply diminshes every year, and the price skyrockets.

Yes it was a democratic congress, and yes Clinton was involved. (so was gore) T

So that would seem to indicate that the price of the clips must have gradually increased over the past seven years, yes? Hence, unless the price has skyrocketed recently for some other reason, $14 is hardly likely to be the “normal” price. Or did I miss something?

But, from what I’ve seen in this thread, 10-shot clips are legal to produce, right? How did making larger clips illegal to produce inhibit arms manufacturers from producing 10-shot clips? It sounds like they made bad projections of demand, and now are trying to shift the blame like a Palm Beach Democrat.

Well to be fair after the bill was passed there were still plenty of magazines that could be manufactured. And even today there are plenty of large capacity magazines available because most of them don’t just wear out after a year. But the cost of these things are higher then they would have been without the ban. Why? Because they’d still be able to produce them and they wouldn’t be as scarce.

Marc

Some of us still remember those pre-'94 days…
And besides…you know we can’t consider anything post-Clinton to be NORMAL. :slight_smile:

FTR, I posted my very brief earlier post because I thought David B was referring to something slightly different .

And the price of the large capacity magazines varies greatly. And there will always be an unlimited supply for weapons made before the 1994 law.

Why? Simple. The law, as passed, provides that all new large-capacity magazines be equiped with a serial number, so their date of manufacture is clearly indicated.

However, nothing stops a guy with a small machine shop from cranking out thousands of “pre-ban duplicate” magazines, because they were not required to be serial numbered, or have their date of manufacture indicated in any way. Thus, once again, the criminals will have their high-capacity magazines, ban or no ban.

And anyone with any mechanical sense who has ever looked at an AR-15 or AK-47 magazine knows that they are laughably simple to manufacture. In my prime metalworking days, I could have made about 2 a day in the engineering shop at school. No problemo. And the AK-47 75-round drum magazines are not so hard either.

As I said - the criminals will have their magazines, until the government starts banning Bridgeport mills, Monarch lathes, and sheet metal shears.