Here it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IokBzzH8NA8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IokBzzH8NA8
Just called his office, but got voice mail. I'm guessing his phone lines have been lit up since he made that comment. Personally, I think that he was speaking off the cuff and would not support the hi-capacity mag ban. That being said, he needs to be encouraged to fight any 2A infringement, and reminded of what will happen in the next election if he does not.
he did say it at the end. Squishy..looks like he is trying to strike some sort of deal.
Here is my letter to him:
________
Dear Sen. Inhofe,
I appreciate your support of the second Amendment and its recognition of our natural right to self defense. I was DISHEARTENED to hear your interview with Brian Williams on NBC today, where you indicaed at the end that a magazine capacity limitation "made sense".
We already had a magazine capacity limitation from 1994-2004 and it chad no affect on anything.
Magazines can be changed in under 2-3 seconds by almost anyone operating a firearm, and as such a mag cap limit is only a "feel good" measure that throws fodder to those who are anti 2A in our country.
I strongly urge you to please stand firm on our freedoms. No compromise with 2A. we already have 20000+ gun laws that all law abiding citizens jumping through hoops while criminals obey none of them. One more law that has been proven to have no effect will do nothing positive, but will greatly damage our freedoms.
I will be closely watching this debate unfold in our Senate and House, and I urge you to please not compromise your principles and to represent the good people of Oklahoma, who are strongly pro 2A, in an appropriate fashion.
Sincerely
____________________
^^^ This.
If you read the summaries of executive orders, they don't really have much at all to do with gun control. There are a couple of them that I think are on shaky legal ground (I'm pretty sure that an act of Congress made gun control off-limits for the CDC and prohibited the Feds from releasing firearms trace data other than to law enforcement in the pursuit of their legal duties), but there's nothing about "ugly rifles" or "scary large magazines" in any of them.
I'm not really sure what he was trying to say at that point; that wasn't one of his better interviews. He was rather vague and rambly, so it was hard to follow what he was actually trying to say.
It was very weak, I will grant you that. I'd like to hear some clarification on what he was trying to say; as I said above, he was vague and rambly, so I don't think he was actually intending to say that a 10+-round mag ban had merit.
I was excited that Oklahoma would be represented, but then was a bit embarrassed. Maybe I would have been more impressed if he, too, had been reading from a teleprompter. Or maybe his interview needed more children in the background.
I haven't been too impressed with that fellow after he tried to land that plane on that closed airstrip...
I haven't been too impressed with that fellow after he tried to land that plane on that closed airstrip...
I just watched that video and there wasn't a darn thing wrong with what he said. Some of you are just over-reacting. He said there might be some merit then immediately went into the on-the-other-hand ............... So, I didn't hear him make a definitive statement about his position on the size of a magazine making a difference in prevention. I know Jim and know him well and I am not concerned with him on this issue.
On a couple of occasions he also said that he hadn't seen or read and no one else has read the EOs yet so he didn't know exactly what was in them. Also in the Obama proposed legislation he said you have to take a wait and see as they haven't been written yet. So, I don't see any of this as a problem at the moment.
Why don't we wait and see what the EOs say and what we see in the legislation and then see what his and others position on them are before we jump to conclusions.
On a couple of occasions he also said that he hadn't seen or read and no one else has read the EOs yet so he didn't know exactly what was in them. Also in the Obama proposed legislation he said you have to take a wait and see as they haven't been written yet. So, I don't see any of this as a problem at the moment.
Why don't we wait and see what the EOs say and what we see in the legislation and then see what his and others position on them are before we jump to conclusions.
That was painful to watch.
Similar threads
