0
http://www.thegunzon...a/papabill.html
Quote
He [Ruger] contended that the public's problem was with "firepower," which could be resolved by eliminating high capacity mags.
I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't to eliminate "firepower" but "firearms."
Bill finally said, "Neal, you're being very negative about it." He got angry, then said "Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will." And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined "regulation" of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.
I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that "the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns."
Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the Second Amendment.
Five years later William B. Ruger Sr.'s model legislation served as the basis of the "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" section of the Clinton Administration's "Crime Bill," save one major detail… the 15-round capacity had been dropped to 10-rounds by the time it had passed and been signed into Law on 13 September 1994! (The antigunners not only stuck it to "us," but stuck it to their Quisling as well.)
Why were we not surprised?!
I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't to eliminate "firepower" but "firearms."
Bill finally said, "Neal, you're being very negative about it." He got angry, then said "Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will." And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined "regulation" of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.
I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that "the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns."
Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the Second Amendment.
Five years later William B. Ruger Sr.'s model legislation served as the basis of the "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" section of the Clinton Administration's "Crime Bill," save one major detail… the 15-round capacity had been dropped to 10-rounds by the time it had passed and been signed into Law on 13 September 1994! (The antigunners not only stuck it to "us," but stuck it to their Quisling as well.)
Why were we not surprised?!
