PDA

View Full Version : Thread from THR:Why I hope Schwarzenegger signs the ammo bill


freonr22
10-08-2009, 3:00 PM
From THR.org!!

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479387
Of course it's incrementalism. Of course it's an infringement on our rights. Of course it is singling out gun owners for persecution when the same focus should be on the purchase of gasoline by people convicted of DUI (in order to be consistent).

HOWEVER. This is one of the only gun control schemes in california that actually passes federal constitutional muster. It's not a ban. This is 100% allowable under states rights. States have every right to regulate commerce within their borders and that is exactly what this is.

Do I think this will do any good? Yes. The gang bangers and illegal aliens steal our guns and then can go buy ammo without any questions being asked. I've watched this scenario repeated too many times to count. Will they just have their girlfriends buy the ammo FOR them? Of course, and that almost always comes back to bite them.

I also think that this will drive more good people out of California, which I believe is the only solution to living under lists of gun control in CA that is patently UNconstitutional. Have I written off California in terms of ever restoring the 2nd amendment? Not in the long term, but yes in the short term. As you can see, this isn't a "bash" upon California in any way.



Unbelieveable!! Some Peoples Children!!

The Reason I have this posted here is maybe some one more eloquent than myself might be able to explain it to THR better and Maybe convince Other people over there to join our/also their fight, One Person Might make the difference!

boxbro
10-08-2009, 3:15 PM
Amazing.
And this guys is supposed to be pro gun ?

M1A Rifleman
10-08-2009, 3:15 PM
Its difficult to follow his logic as its more rambling. I think he's making a slam that turning this state around will require that the "good" people get out of the state as a first step, and he supports the bill to make this happen - sort of an end justifies the means. Which is a stupid position to take.

Shane916
10-08-2009, 3:29 PM
Here's my summary of the post:

It's a bad bill! It shouldn't be passed! I hope CA passes the ban! 2A supporters will leave if it passes! The ban will do no good! But it will do good! But it won't because others will buy the ammo for criminals! CA is doomed! But it's not doomed yet! But it's temporarily doomed! But there's hope in the future! :D

Scratch705
10-08-2009, 3:55 PM
seems like his position on this is that once this bill passes, it will drive out more people and commerce. and that hopefully it will do it to a point that CA will collapse and then bring about change and then it will be happy-go-lucky for gun owners once the change happens.

pretty much he wants CA to experience a SEE (significant emotional event) in order to change the views/values of the citizens/politicians in this state to see that all their lame bills only led to the destruction of the state and not to the benefit.

5hundo
10-08-2009, 4:01 PM
It doesn't keep gang-bangers from buying ammo...

It keeps EVERYBODY from buying ammo.

If it were a bill calling for and inspection of the buyer for gang tattoos prior to purchase, then De Leon might be able to make that claim. However, that's not what the bill says. The bill discriminates against all Californians; the good and the bad...

navyinrwanda
10-08-2009, 4:02 PM
This is same sentiment that said we'd be better off electing Barack Obama president instead of John McCain.

coq
10-08-2009, 4:09 PM
That's stupid.

CalNRA
10-08-2009, 4:12 PM
probably a Brady troll.

the guy joins in August and his 27th post is an obvious flame post. Coincidence?

Sunwolf
10-08-2009, 4:13 PM
"You have to destroy the village in order to save it"

Mitch
10-08-2009, 4:14 PM
probably a Brady troll.

the guy joins in August and his 27th post is a obvious flame post. Coincidence?

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If you ever spend any time on gun forums besides Calguns, these sorts of sentiments are widespread.

cindynles
10-08-2009, 4:15 PM
probably a Brady troll.

the guy joins in August and his 27th post is a obvious flame post. Coincidence?

+1.....I call TROLL

SickofSoCal
10-08-2009, 4:18 PM
Total BS.

dfletcher
10-08-2009, 4:19 PM
Stealing from myself, question posted on another site was "what will gun
control groups do when we (gun owners) win McDonald?" & here's what I wrote, I think it applies here:

"Look to what is being (and has been) done in CA for the future of gun control efforts. Rosters of handguns that are acceptable for import & sale with requirements such as drop tests, magazine safety, LCI and micro stamping. Requirements that are not viewed as gun control per se, but that have the practical application of restricting gun sales.

As I've posted before, the current CA roster of handguns approved for FFL dealer sale has had the practical effect of BANNING the sale of all new model semi auto pistols in CA for the past two years.

Approaches similar to CA AB962 that restrict handgun ammo sales.

Modest testing requirements for gun owners that can morph into real restrictions.
Additional paperwork for FFLs when doing dealer to dealer mailing of any firearm.

And of course, there's the AW ban.

I hope we get a win in Chicago, most observers think that will happen. My concern is that if CA gun laws are not turned back, they will define the limits of what is acceptable for gun control advocates and the courts.

I know the NRA and progun groups in CA are in court and very active. I think we'll have some successes, the more the better for everyone. But I expect the anti gun people will see just how far they can go on the state level in liberal states with a Democratic majority, using some of the above schemes, and trying to apply them to as many states as possible."

So the folks on THR - who figure ammo regulations will pass muster - are gambling that it won't be tried in their state.

Like the fellow said in the original "Walking Tall" movie when the bad guys whipped him - "You let them do this to me and get away with it, you give them the eternal right to do the same damn thing to anyone of you"

Hopefully I got that right - been about 40 years since I've seen the darn thing.

Mitch
10-08-2009, 4:22 PM
So the folks on THR - who figure ammo regulations will pass muster - are gambling that it won't be tried in their state.

If it does happen, they'll just move to another state.

That's what tough guy internet warriors are always doing: running away (or advocating that others run away).

Nose Nuggets
10-08-2009, 4:33 PM
well he is basing this opinion on the incorrect assumption that the commerce clause gives congress the ability to have their fingers in every aspect of trade between the states. which is a load of crap.

CALboy
10-08-2009, 8:18 PM
QUOTE States have every right to regulate commerce within their borders and that is exactly what this is.

To bad they dont enforce the illegal aliens here, and ship them out.

tiki
10-08-2009, 8:24 PM
Come on guys, he has a point. Ever since they made drugs illegal, gangbangers haven't gotten those either. Dumbass.

zhyla
10-08-2009, 8:35 PM
There's a lot of anti-CA gun people out there. I guess I have similar feelings towards, say, the UK.

But his main fallacy is supporting something just because it's not unconstitutional. Constitutionality does not make something a good law.

foxtrotuniformlima
10-08-2009, 9:09 PM
I have to be honest. I've been trying really hard to see this from the other sides point of view. I've been trying to see how this can reduce crime and gun violence and I guess that everything helps a little but for me, this seems to penalize far too many non-criminals. It may stop some or even help the police catch some but it just seems to me to be a bit over reaching.

I wish there was a solution to the problem that they see. I wish that we could some how prevent all prohibited persons from having guns and buying ammo. I just do not see this as being all that affective. They, the criminals, will work around it. They always do.

CALboy
10-08-2009, 9:16 PM
you would think registering handguns would have stopped the criminals and illegals from getting weapons, didnt work. so next they are going for the ammo. whats next? ammo usage tax, environmental pollution from loud noises, gunpowder in the air and lead seeping into the groundwater.

dwtt
10-08-2009, 9:44 PM
Is this the hijacked The High Road, or the new one?

freonr22
10-08-2009, 10:15 PM
its the .org. the hijacked

Kid Stanislaus
10-08-2009, 10:15 PM
Here's my summary of the post:

It's a bad bill! It shouldn't be passed! I hope CA passes the ban! 2A supporters will leave if it passes! The ban will do no good! But it will do good! But it won't because others will buy the ammo for criminals! CA is doomed! But it's not doomed yet! But it's temporarily doomed! But there's hope in the future! :D

Doggone Shane, you nailed it, and quite succinctly too!!

Kid Stanislaus
10-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Solve the issue of poverty. That would be a good start to dealing with the creation of criminals.

I don't buy the crap that being poor is an excuse to be a criminal.

JagerTroop
10-09-2009, 7:28 AM
If it were a bill calling for and inspection of the buyer for gang tattoos prior to purchase, then De Leon might be able to make that claim. However, that's not what the bill says. The bill discriminates against all Californians; the good and the bad...

I strongly disagree. Some of us here have tattoos, but are not gang members. Who is the "tattoo authority" that will determine whether or not they are "gang tattoos"? If you saw me on the street, you'd probably think, "thug, parolee, maybe a gang member". I get enough dirty looks for my choice of expression, but I don't need to be stereotyped to the point of search/investigation.

Bottom line, criminals are going to get guns, ammo, knives, bombs, etc. any way they can. If you screen them for ammo, they just won't buy it in the store, unless they are REALLY stupid (of course it happens). There are background checks in place for guns, but they still get them. What makes anyone think the same thing won't happen with ammo?

Also, it's not like they're buying it on a regular basis. They could do a "gangbanger group buy" and take a trip to Nevada. One trip could supply enough ammo for years to come. You have to remember... these guys aren't hitting the range, dropping 500rds per month. They buy it and load a few mags that only get used for drive by's, and liquor store hold ups. A 50rd box could last them quite a while. It's not like we've got mass shootings, in which they expend hundreds of rounds at a time. I would be curious to find out (realistic stats for the source, not estimates from "experts") how many rounds the average gangbanger goes through per year. I think I might start asking around. I work with quite a few unsavory characters.

RomanDad
10-09-2009, 8:29 AM
Dont post when drunk.

Mute
10-09-2009, 8:48 AM
One shouldn't post when one is an idiot.

Mayhem
10-09-2009, 8:56 AM
It doesn't keep gang-bangers from buying ammo...

It keeps EVERYBODY from buying ammo.


No it doesn't. Infact it doesn't stop prohibited persons from purchasing ammo at all. It doesn't do jack except inconvenience people. Gang Bangers and Criminals usually don't have credit cards (at least not their own credit cards in their names) and rarely buy anything threw mail order or internet let alone ammo.

Your typical scum bag walks into wal-mart or the most convenient gun shop and buys the cheapest ammo for their firearms typically FMJ target loads.

Even though you need to show ID and Give a thumb print There is no back ground check. It's up to the local D.A. and Law enforcement agency to run those I.D.s and thumb prints all for a misdemeanor, Off course it would be to little to late as the ammo has probably already been spent in a crime.

On a bonus side effect of ab962 if it becomes law Law enforcement agencies who actually do look at the sales records use them to obtain search warrants if a known prohibited person purchases ammo with his real ID.

This leaves a New problem What if a prohibited person uses a fake ID? Well he would probably get away with purchasing ammo from a California retailer and some Innocent 80 year old man may get woke up to late night raid of his home by law enforcement become some dirt bag used a fake ID with his address on it. Unless of course some one spent allot of money to run thumb prints to and confirmed the last known Address of record.

Then of course a prohibited person can go around the law. He can get a non-prohibited person to purchase ammo for them, They can go out of state to get their ammo or they can have some one out of state purchase ammo and reship it to them.

SO much for the effectiveness of Ab962 which is more of a an attack on retailers and enthusiast then it is on Criminals and Gang Bangers.

In any event Govonator Armie has until the end of the Day to Veto ab962 as it is unlikely he will work over the weekend. which probably wont happen and ab962 will become law. I may have voted for the recall to ditch Dictator Davis but I never voted for the Govonator. Arny has a record of selling out the people that where responsible for ditching Davis and Electing him.

I can only hope and pray I wake up on Oct. 12th to the best Birthday present I could possibly wish for .... A Mass Veto of B.S. Do nothing, feel good, Tax waisting, Legislation.

JagerTroop
10-09-2009, 9:56 AM
One shouldn't post when one is an idiot.

If you're referring to me, maybe you should live up to your screen name. It's awfully presumptuous of you to assume I'm a idiot. This is a very real scenario, and your half witted comments are not useful, nor are they welcome.

Mayhem
10-09-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't buy the crap that being poor is an excuse to be a criminal.

I agree It's not an excuse. But criminals do by nature tend to be poor people, and poor people tend to be more desperate. wackjobs excluded, Money makes people happy and happy people are less likely to rob and murder their neighbors then unhappy people.

An increase of media sensationalized wack job mass and spree killings are a direct response to social pressures such as the economy and perceived government threat or social changes. The same can be said about suicides.
However the effect of media sensationalism of Mass/spree and school killings has the effect of making the averaged person believe they are happening all the time and everywhere in their own neighborhood, While in fact they have no real effect on the murder rate or crime rate. It's like trying to a taste a bottle of fine whine once it has been dumped in the sea.

Over half American homes have Firearms. over half the murders committed in the U.S. Last year were committed with Firearms. This is near equal cross section of society. As people who commit murder tend to use the easiest means available.

The General thought by antigunners is that the murder rate would go down by just over half if guns were removed from civilian hands.

However there is a big difference between the Murderer and his weapon of choice. While you may remove the firearm from the equation by outright bans and door to door gun confiscation, You are not removing the would be murder.

So the murder rate without the presence of firearms will change little. Maybe 1% - 2% at best and this would only be explained by the difference between the percentage of firearms used to commit murder and and percentage of people who posses firearms. The weapon of choice will just shift to other weapons causing and increase in stabbing bludgeoning strangulation poisoning and Vehicular murders. After all the deadliest weapon in the world is the Human Brain.

It's proven fact that a good economy has a bigger effect on the murder rate (up to 15%) and the overall crime rate then gun control.

However I would like to point out that while the murder rate may insignificantly Dip should we actually be able to magically remove all firearms from America (we can't and criminals are not going to willingly just turn over their firearms), the over all crime rate will go threw the roof as criminals will no longer have to fear the ability for an armed citizen to defend them selfs. Crimes that use Brawns and Brian over fire power such as strong armed Robbery, burglary, home invasion, and Rape will skyrocket.

One of the biggest shifts in burglary has been from night time burglaries when the victims are at home and asleep to day time burglaries when the victims are at work and school. This is evidence that criminals are more afraid of an armed victim then they are the police and prosecution.

One of the great things about firearms is they are the great equalizer. With a firearm a 90 year old grandma actually has chance at defending herself from a big strong burley criminal intent on victimizing her. Even if the criminal is armed grandma has a base 50/50 chance of coming out on top of the situation. However even with mace or a stun gun (handheld not a taser gun) grandma doesn't stand much a chance against a muscled thug. With a taser grandma can only defend herself from one person. Introduce another thug to the equation and grandma is going to wish she got ran over by a rain deer. Completely unarmed grandma stands no chance without a "lottery winning odds" miracle chance or Divine intervention.

Unfortunately I'm preaching to the choir.

Mute
10-09-2009, 12:04 PM
If you're referring to me, maybe you should live up to your screen name. It's awfully presumptuous of you to assume I'm a idiot. This is a very real scenario, and your half witted comments are not useful, nor are they welcome.

I'm referring to the OP from the THR thread. Chill out and get the chip off your shoulder. I agree with you about tattoos.

JagerTroop
10-09-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm referring to the OP from the THR thread. Chill out and get the chip off your shoulder. I agree with you about tattoos.

It's cool. No chip here :)

It's just that as of late, there have been a lot of posts in which people are backing misc. bans, and other "anti 2A" garbage. I tend to get a little fed up.

I was careful to include "If" ;)

Mute
10-09-2009, 12:13 PM
It's cool. No chip here :)

It's just that as of late, there have been a lot of posts in which people are backing misc. bans, and other "anti 2A" garbage. I tend to get a little fed up.

I was careful to include "If" ;)

Understandable. This AB962 crap has me in a foul mood daily. I won't even write what I think of DeLeon as a person (and I'm using that term generously).

5hundo
10-09-2009, 12:27 PM
I strongly disagree. Some of us here have tattoos, but are not gang members.

That's why I said "Gang Tattoos"...

I was being sarcastic.

Stay on topic, please and don't thread-jack...

B Strong
10-09-2009, 1:51 PM
As crazy as this sounds, there are plenty of gun owners that don't support the Second Amendment.

They have some strange brain function that allows a disconnect between "them" (good "responsible" gun owner) and "Us" (you and me and anyone that owns handguns, black rifles, big bore rifles, NFA, or anything the "good" guy finds scary) and they have absolutley no problem in restricting our rights.

I know more than one.

Aside from the type of firearm possession issues these fools have, one guy told me that I "didn't need" to practice every week...

You can not combat idiocy this deep.

bohoki
10-09-2009, 6:37 PM
well if we can limit californias appetite for pistol ammo maybe the rest of the nation will have winchester bulk 9mm back on the shelves at walmarts