search
top

Al Franken Showing Signs of Weakness?

Not to us, to them. He’s backpedalling quickly, but he still was wishy washy when asked. Franken is up in 2014. I’m going to suggest the threat profile is quickly shifting from assault weapons to magazines. If you’re going to write your reps, I’d make sure they understand that the magazine issue is just as important to use as the assault weapons issue. It’s not a compromise we’re going to accept. Not with what happened in New York, and several other states talking about 7 rounds now instead of ten. They can f**k right the hell off on magazine limits at this point. How long before 7 is just too many? No. NO!

9 Responses to “Al Franken Showing Signs of Weakness?”

  1. jerry says:

    Indeed, the risk is almost certainly limits on magazines. This would appeal to many(most) people as they are low information voters, and it would give cover to the ass clowns running as “moderate democrats” in Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska. Sorry about the language.

  2. Cory says:

    Just got off phone with Senator Franken’s office. The staffer spent some time asking me questions about what parts of President Obama’s gun control agenda I disareed with. It surprised me that he wanted this detail.

    • Andy B. says:

      He was probing you to see where the soft places in our lines are. Once they see a pattern of shaky points emerge from enough comments, they will exploit them in whatever way they can.

      Do not ever talk to legislators in detail! Communicate “I am against the package and I will do my damnedest to unseat anyone who supports it,” then hang up. You will never say a single word that can persuade them to your position because of its merit. All you can do is give them intelligence they can use against you.

  3. Patrick H says:

    I’m up in there about Mag Bans- I think they have more support than SLW bans, but at the same time they affect more people (Hanguns>SLW).

    I think the real threat is universal background checks.

  4. J. Dock says:

    Yep. 10 was totally OK until it magically wasn’t. If they control the number they can make it 5, or 3, or… ZERO.

    This is definitely worth getting pissed off and fired up about.

  5. Bryan S. says:

    100% with you.. No. No limits. None. Bill Ruger and his suggestion that we should have ever caved bites us again and again.

    • Harold says:

      Hence my policy of never touching the Ruger brand; we’re still living with the fallout, why should I give the firm/brand a break just because the man who was responsible is now dead?

      The evil that men do lives after them;
      The good is oft interred with their bones;

      From Anthony’s famous eulogy in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

  6. mikee says:

    Frankly, if I am faced with a person aiming an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine at me, I am more concerned about the first few rounds in that mag than the 8th through 100th rounds.

    This is something hard to explain to those who oppose gun rights, but a criminal needs only one shot, from ambush, to incapacitate a victim.

    Defenders against criminals don’t know how many shots they will ever need to make themselves safe.

  7. Phssthpok says:

    this whole “10+ banned/grandfathered” => “10+ banned/NOT grandfathered” => “no more than 7 loaded in any mag that’s left” bit reminds me of the incremental creep that MADD pulled pushing for ever shringking BAC levels for being declared legally DRUNK. MADD is NOT satisfied with .08! (By the way…they’d LIKE to get .05 IIRC, and when even THAT doesn’t cut down on the numbers of drunk drivers* they will push for even lower thresholds.)

    Laws like the ones recently passed in NY do nothing but INCREASE crime by creating a whole new class of crime and pool of criminals to go after. You REALLY want to reduce crime? REDUCE CRIMES! (on the lawbooks)

    *How can it? every time they reduce the threshold they increase the violator pool by making it that much easier to unknowingly cross over the line.

top