And so it begins...

So as predicted, those who would take away the rights of the majority to punish the few, those who believe they are elected to protect us from ourselves, and those who don't give two hoots in hell about the Constitution or our rights, are using the tragedy in Arizona to further their political agenda.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

One of the fiercest gun control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson, Ariz., Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition clip the gunman used.

Promoting legislation against guns, bullets, and MAGAZINES (not "clip") in the wake of this tragedy, is like trying to pass legislation against cars, tires, and gasoline, following a DUI accident. You might as well blame forks, plates and cooking pans for making obese people fat...

There has also been talk about legislation banning "stockpiling" of ammo. Just what exactly is a "stockpile" anyways?

...and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of the ammunition allegedly used by the 22-year-old assailant.

Further in the article Illinois Representative Mike Quigley states:

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute” is a problem, said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

I guess three rounds of rifle ammunition for hunting, three shotgun shells for hunting/home defense, and maybe five rounds of .22 ammo for a revolver for home defense. We don't want someone using a larger and more deadly round do we? I imagine it will look something like no caliber over XX size, no more than 10 rounds of any caliber and no more than 30 rounds total, enforced by requiring you to turn in your spent casings to purchase more replacement ammo. Oh, and don't forget the note from the police or game warden declaring how many shots were fired to defend yourself or kill your deer...

These people are shameless. Seize on a tragedy, to take the opportunity to shove more legislation down the throats of the people. It was a tragedy, no one is taking that away from the victims. However, you cross the line yourselves, when you try to punish everyone else for the criminal's wrongdoing. Good intentions, bad government...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago.

The 2nd Amendment states:

"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."

Trying to ban certain calibers of ammunition, or the amount, falls under the "shall not be infringed" part. No matter what your good intentions are, you are violating the Constitution. If you can toss aside the parts you don't like, and others can toss aside the parts they don't like, then we soon find ourselves with no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, and "We the People" are now "We the Subjects".