California radical Progressives take anti-gun fervor to new heights

[Jerry]

Why exactly does anyone need to own a semiautomatic rifle.

Semi-auto means it fires a shot every time you pull the trigger without any other action such as a manual pump or lever.

I personaly 'need' a semi-auto because I can't throw a rifle lever that fast; it hurts my wrist.

I also do 'need' to own an assult-rifle (full-auto M16) as I am in the Guard and never get to shoot but once per year. I would also like to practice for the Governors 20 and President's 100 competitions.

 

[Jerry]

Like what? And by legitimate I mean it can not be done using a different weapon that is not as dangerous.

Being semi-auto does not make a rifle more dangerous than any other kind of rifle. That's like saying a car with an automatic transmission is more dangerous than a car with a manual transmission.

 

[ocean515]

Okay fair enough.

Clearly this is an insignificant difference. So I guess the question might be is this another restriction we should consider. Although the bigger question really is...what CAN we do to prevent the kind of tragedies that happened in Aurora and in Sandy Hook.

Not sure what you mean by another restriction we should consider. The restrictions are already in place. Guns are being banned for purely emotional reasons.

As to what can be done to prevent tragedies that happened?

Rationally, nothing to prevent them.

Ban certain video games, or certain types of music? Those have been common threads to these attacks.

A lunatic could walk into a classroom without a single gun, and fatally harm everyone in there.

 

[Jerry]

Easier for the hunter but not a necessity then? Seems an unfair match in the first place.

I don't oppose gun ownership, I have one. But I find it hard to justify owning a semi especially with a detachable mag with a 50 to 100 capacity. It seems like killing a roach with anvil, unnecessary overkill (if you will)

One of the core purposes of the Second Amendment to defend against invasion. Granted time has passed and a few things have changed, but we still have the Second Amendment and repelling invasion is one of its purposes.

Without going all Red-Dawn here...if there were an invasion and citizens organised under their local police or Guard authorities, the resulting skirmishes would meet with grater sucess if the militia were armed with modern assult-rifles than with black-pouder muzzle loaders.

Also consider riots and looters. If you find youself in a city washed out by a hurricane, one short semi-auto rifle with a couple 30rnd mags is going to stop more crime against you than a pump-action with only 3 rounds.

 

[Jerry]

I am not anti gun. I do however, support gun control. I think limits are necessary. I am pretty fact based, despite the consensus from Cons on this site, in my positions. You know BTW, when you go into a discussion and tell me I am a waste of time to talk to without ever having had a discussion it makes you appear more emotional then me. This is our first exchange....isn't it.

No kind of firearm should be banned from civilian ownership. Instead, certin kinds of civilians should be banned from posessing any firearm. Additionaly, there needs to be national Castle Doctrin and Stand Your Ground laws.

 

[Jerry]

Bad analogies....cars, washing machines, TV....are not designed to kill.

Why is tobacco legal, then? What function does it serve? At least you can repel a crime against you or hunt with a firearm. What similer secondary purpose does tobacco provide?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Why is tobacco legal, then? What function does it serve? At least you can repel a crime against you or hunt with a firearm. What similer secondary purpose does tobacco provide?

It could keep me from "going off" on you... eace

 

[Jerry]

But I can't take my car into a movie theater or a school or a shopping mall and kill or wound large numbers of innocent people at once.

Yes you can. My local mall has no way to stop an oncomming car. A car could take out half the people in the food court and be on its way to Sears before anyone realised what happened.

Hell just hang at a school and wate for class to let out and plow a truck through a mob of children.

 

[APACHERAT]

Why is tobacco legal, then? What function does it serve? At least you can repel a crime against you or hunt with a firearm. What similer secondary purpose does tobacco provide?

Tobbaco makes the "Native-American" feel like he got a little payback.

 

[Jerry]

It could keep me from "going off" on you... eace

If you think its wise to 'go off' on an armed person, go for it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Like what? And by legitimate I mean it can not be done using a different weapon that is not as dangerous.

:slapme: Okay, here is what you need to learn before you support the utter stupidity of the Democrat anti gun agenda.
1) Semi-automatic = one trigger pull, one shot fired. Commiefornia basically just banned anything not a bolt action or revolver.
2) Detachable magazine weapons are currently most of the modern configurations. Most internal magazine weapons are hunting rifles such as bolt actions.
3) The reason they are called "semi-automatics" are because the weapon automatically chambers a round after firing. They do not have the internals to fire more than one round per trigger pull, HOWEVER they have the ability to chamber a round, usually using the actions of both the slide and the spring in the magazine. Revolvers ALSO chamber the next round by way of the bullet chamber rotating into position after the trigger is pulled. Different load type, same rate of fire.
4) There is absolutely no need requirement for the exercise of rights, this is not up to politicians or any other human being to decide.

 

[disneydude]

Why is tobacco legal, then? What function does it serve? At least you can repel a crime against you or hunt with a firearm. What similer secondary purpose does tobacco provide?

I don't think tobacco has any good function....but I'm also not calling for the complete ban on it. I do support reasonable restrictions on the use of tobacco just like I support reasonable restrictions on the use of some weapons. Again....prohibition proved that outright bans on alcohol did not work, I doubt we would see outright bans on tobacco.....despite what the paranoid gun nuts want people to believe, the govment isn't coming after their guns by posing reasonable restrictions on certain weapons. It is just their paranoia at work.

 

[Jerry]

Like what? And by legitimate I mean it can not be done using a different weapon that is not as dangerous.

To retouch on this....in Canada, you can have a semi-auto hunting rifle with a detachable magazien, so long as the detachable magazien can't hold more then 3 rounds.

Sounds reasonable, right?

California doesn't even want that much. Californa seeks a total ban, stricter than Canada.

By California's standard, Canada has lose gun control laws.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Bad analogies....cars, washing machines, TV....are not designed to kill.

Neither are guns, they are designed to fire a projectile. If you actually knew the subject matter you would know that modern combat rifles are of a smaller caliber than previous weapons, they are issued to wound enemy soldiers in order to force their friendlies to pull wounded off the line, taking two or more men out of the fight for every effective hit.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, I don't necessarily think people NEED to own a car that can reach excessive speed I think they WANT to. But I can't take my car into a movie theater or a school or a shopping mall and kill or wound large numbers of innocent people at once. The other comparisons are just silly.

The **** they can't! Do you not remember a few years back when NYC officers had to take down an aggressive driver trying to run down pedestrians.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think tobacco has any good function....but I'm also not calling for the complete ban on it. I do support reasonable restrictions on the use of tobacco just like I support reasonable restrictions on the use of some weapons. Again....prohibition proved that outright bans on alcohol did not work, I doubt we would see outright bans on tobacco.....despite what the paranoid gun nuts want people to believe, the govment isn't coming after their guns by posing reasonable restrictions on certain weapons. It is just their paranoia at work.

Restrict the person, not the object.

I like your idea of only needing to be 18 to buy any firearm, just like you only need to be 18 to buy any kind of tobacco.

The age restriction is reasonable. Any restriction on the object is unreasonable.

 

[Jerry]

So stripping down peoples 2A rights is "progress"?

That's what "progressive" liberal means; progressive cancer.

 

[disneydude]

Restrict the person, not the object.I like your idea of only needing to be 18 to buy any firearm, just like you only need to be 18 to buy any kind of tobacco.The age restriction is reasonable. Any restriction on the object is unreasonable.

Age restrictions are not the only reasonable restriction and restrictions on objects are not always unreasonable. To make such a blanket statement is ignorant.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You can do that with gasoline in a "to go" container, yet that is quite legal to possess. Many more innocent people are killed/injured with cars than guns.

Yep.Julio González (arsonist) : Wikis (The Full Wiki)

 

[LaMidRighter]

The Bill of Rights was introduced when....1798? You think it would not have included exceptions if these kinds of weapons were what was available at the time?

Nope. The second was to apply to all weapons used by a militia unit. The founders said as much in their own writings, and in fact, pre NFA many Gattling guns were owned privately, as were cannons on merchant ships, and howitzers.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Is this why you think that the gun laws in Cali will continue to diminish what you can legally own?

Do you really need to ask this? They are heavily restricting most modern weapons in common use, for no reasons that are better than arbitrary. I honestly hope SCOTUS actually does their job correctly and slaps the state down hard for this.

 

[Master PO]

Lawmakers send tough gun control bills to the governor - latimes.com

By Patrick McGreevy
September 12, 2013, 10:53 p.m.



SACRAMENTO -- State lawmakers late Thursday sent Gov. Jerry Brown bills that would outlaw the sale of rifles with detachable magazines and expand the list of crimes that result in a 10-year ban on possessing firearms.

Thursday’s action follows the approval of nine other gun control bills earlier in the week in a state that already had some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

even though the constitution mandates all states be of a republican form, California is clearly of a democratic form, of 1 party rule for decades, and that is leading to tyranny of the people of that state.

 

[Linc]

Apparently Nixon, Reagan and arnold were governors of a different California.
In fact, they are one of only about SEVEN states with a COMMISSION type of Congressional Remap, said to be very fair.
Red states are dreading this.

even though the constitution mandates all states be of a republican form, California is clearly of a democratic form, of 1 party rule for decades, and that is leading to tyranny of the people of that state.

 

[Master PO]

Apparently Nixon, Reagan and arnold were governors of a different California.
In fact, they are one of only about SEVEN states with a COMMISSION type of Congressional Remap, said to be very fair.
Red states are dreading this.

well that didn't address what i was saying.

when you have 1 party rule, being republican or democratic for a very long time, you get corruption of more extreme measures.

under republican forms of government...referendums are illegal.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

If you think its wise to 'go off' on an armed person, go for it.

There are a lot of armed individuals in this country...