PDA

View Full Version : CBS 5 "Expose" follow up


Pages : [1] 2

Thordo
05-19-2012, 6:07 PM
Just saw a promo for a follow up on the CBS 5 story on the BB. It's supposed to air Sunday on the 11PM news!!. Apparently State Senator Leland Yee is appalled and "something has got to be done". Here we go again!!

Thordo

Personmans just gave me these updates from Yee's office and the legislature website!!

Update:
Just called Senator Yee's office. The new text of SB249 will be available online tomorrow. Just follow the link:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
and enter SB249...
I believe even after the change, this link should work:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postqu...e=B&author=yee


Thanks Personmans!!


HERE'S THE VIDEO

Here's the video from CBS 5 so nobody has to go digging for it.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/7307628-cbs-5-report-prompts-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

Thordo


UPDATE AS OF 9:48 AM 5/22.

I called Yee's office to see when the bill will be updated on the website and was told "it could be several days".

cHaOs ReX
05-19-2012, 6:09 PM
While watching CBS news on Channel 5 in the East Bay they showed a blurb about how they broke the story of gun manufactures getting around CA Assault Weapon Ban. Their follow up story seems to be banning the bullet button.

Of course that made me frown rather deeply. Interesting though, as I watched the report they did on the Bullet Button a few weeks ago. It did not seem bias to me. It seemed pretty much to the point, no real hype and they even read some tweets that were from obvious 2A supporters. But this blurb seemed much more hostile.

So seems that their maybe a new law being drafted that attempts to do away with it. =(

I'll give it up gladly for a regular mag release but I doubt that's the law they're gonna go for.

Scratch705
05-19-2012, 6:10 PM
oh damnit.....

MrEd
05-19-2012, 6:16 PM
They mention banning the bullet button , when they said that I was like oh yes please please please , that might force them to open a window to register all the newly created assault weapons . :43:

MrEd
05-19-2012, 6:18 PM
:twoweeks: I have this strange sense of deja vu

NSR500
05-19-2012, 6:20 PM
Looks like Leland Yee wants to go 'Full Retard'.

IsaacGlass
05-19-2012, 6:20 PM
Senator Leland Yee is leading the fight to ban the bullet button. Funny thing, I search their website to see if the article might be posted, instead I found a link to a site that sells Bullet Buttons, seems like KPIX has a double standard issue.

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww75/Isaac_Glass/Tag/CBSSearchPage.jpg

G60
05-19-2012, 6:21 PM
That's Google AdSense.

G60
05-19-2012, 6:27 PM
Yee is the guy butt-hurt over "violent video games." Here's a quote of his from when SCOTUS ruled states cannot regulate them: "The U.S. Supreme Court decided it's going to side with corporate America and Wal-Mart against our children."

Sound familiar?

skyscraper
05-19-2012, 6:29 PM
Assuming they will try, how hard do you guys predict it will be for them to find a way to outlaw the bullet button? They will have to change the wording in the current laws, right?

Thordo
05-19-2012, 6:30 PM
Senator Leland Yee is leading the fight to ban the bullet button. Funny thing, I search their website to see if the article might be posted, instead I found a link to a site that sells Bullet Buttons, seems like KPIX has a double standard issue.

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww75/Isaac_Glass/Tag/CBSSearchPage.jpg

All I can say is WOW!!

NSR500
05-19-2012, 6:31 PM
Leland Yee = Full Retard

The Gleam
05-19-2012, 6:31 PM
Just saw a promo for a follow up on the CBS 5 story on the BB. It's supposed to air Sunday on the 11PM news!!. Apparently State Senator Leland Yee is appalled and "something has got to be done". Here we go again!!

Thordo

Just watch this "Yee" character closely. The Anti-2nd Amendment legislators are a good deal slow on firearms because it is an area for which they know nothing. They have neither the technical or logical understanding, and should not even be such people to address firearms in general, let alone be allowed to vet vicious Anti-2nd Amendment crusades with propaganda as a foundation, without being kept in check.

They are often lesser-known politicos, slipping in Anti-2nd Amendment bills to trump up their own importance, designing the presentation of the ban to appear "logical" to the typical person that is neither against firearm ownership, but has an apathy about guns in general. They already have support from the fearmongering groups, so they try to edge in their favor by appealing to those apathetic about gun ownership, or who may think of guns as only necessary for "hunting ducks" and when the aspects are presented as evil, dark, and steeped in torrid-based fears of firearms, they win over their cause in senate/assembly committees often already comprised of fellow Anti-2nd Amendment hack-politicos in their favor.

They go in with egregious bans, usually full of flaws (not to mention the fact that they are bans in the first place) but do a lot of damage merely because of the hysterics and lies backing their drama.

They usually make monstrous mistakes along the way, but they cause damage none-the-less, and you can't underestimate their vitriolic passion once they do latch on to something they can equally use to boost their carpet-bagger campaigns (a la Paul Koretz or Mike Feuer).

Joe
05-19-2012, 6:34 PM
Sure hope they don't try to ban them. I'd much rather have a BB rifle than a RAW.

IsaacGlass
05-19-2012, 6:34 PM
That's Google AdSense.

Yeah, I know. But you would think KPIX would filter those link out.

mag360
05-19-2012, 6:35 PM
well they tried to ban names..didnt work, general features, didn't work for that long, lets try banning bullet button ® , ah crap that's like roberti roos banning it by name, then they will do a general feauture ban "if it can be release with a bullet" then it's ban. Ban ban aban...

what about featureless?

ahhhh helll naw. They still have these things??

GOEX FFF
05-19-2012, 6:59 PM
Assuming they will try, how hard do you guys predict it will be for them to find a way to outlaw the bullet button? They will have to change the wording in the current laws, right?

Yes, though it's not about the BB itself. The whole thing would have to be rewritten to define what a "tool" is and what a "fixed magazine" is, and rewrite the definition of what an "AW" is.

I can't find his post at the moment, but Bwiese has shed light on this how it's basically futile.

I'm sure he'll be by to clarify.

Scratch705
05-19-2012, 7:02 PM
does this mean i should go buy some ar lowers and wait for the new registration of assault weapons and thus make it so i have free-state version ar's using all the features i want with a regular magazine release?

osis32
05-19-2012, 7:16 PM
I just saw this myself. They "exposed" this 4 years ago and no one cares. Now they have one of the most liberal pounding control freaks trying to make a name for himself "making us safe". Total crap.

skyscraper
05-19-2012, 7:35 PM
Yes, though it's not about the BB itself. The whole thing would have to be rewritten to define what a "tool" is and what a "fixed magazine" is, and rewrite the definition of what an "AW" is.

I can't find his post at the moment, but Bwiese has shed light on this how it's basically futile.

I'm sure he'll be by to clarify.

Thanks goex. That's what I was thinking too since a tool released button isn't considered detachable. Looking forward to more info on this

Mrbroom
05-19-2012, 7:39 PM
How would they consider 80 percent builds with no markings whatsoever???

Slim///
05-19-2012, 7:46 PM
Ahhh geez

mag360
05-19-2012, 7:51 PM
doesn't have anything to do with 80% just pieces of metal.

G60
05-19-2012, 7:58 PM
He may just be trying to ban all semi-automatic firearms. :rofl:

GOEX FFF
05-19-2012, 8:04 PM
He may just be trying to ban all semi-automatic firearms. :rofl:


Yep, and in a Post Heller world, that's not happening.

m03
05-19-2012, 8:14 PM
Bring it on. What are they going to be able to do? Anything more and they'll basically be banning the Elmer Fudd guns which they always promise are perfectly safe.

monk
05-19-2012, 8:33 PM
Looks like my next ar might need to be featureless :(

Tacit Blue
05-19-2012, 9:49 PM
Seems like CBS-5 heard all our complaints and voices. And CBS recruited this moronic senator from San Francisco to take the lead in the fight. I'm getting tired of SF's anti gun agenda in regards to the media..

Kid Stanislaus
05-19-2012, 9:52 PM
On second thought, this is California.....



What more need be said?;)

dantodd
05-19-2012, 10:45 PM
The more broadly they define an "assault weapon" the easier it is to kill the prohibition.

dfletcher
05-19-2012, 10:57 PM
Looks like my next ar might need to be featureless :(

Odd as it sounds, that would be a reason for the anti-gun types to NOT fiddle about with the BB. They will be trading in CA residents who now use legally "fixed" 10 round magazines in AR 15s, AKs and FALs for CA residents who will use detachable 30 round magazines on those same "featureless" guns.

Rattlehead
05-19-2012, 11:08 PM
Tag for more information.

I would buy eight or ten more lowers if anything was going to happen.

hoffmang
05-19-2012, 11:39 PM
Nicki and I did some camera time on this. We shall see what Sunday brings.

-Gene

zvardan
05-19-2012, 11:59 PM
At this point, I don't think this crusade will amount to anything.

stitchnicklas
05-20-2012, 12:24 AM
tag and hopefully a decent and easy to find video link gets posted.


if they try to screw with the BB i will be buying a bunch of lowers

nicki
05-20-2012, 12:30 AM
Gene and I meet with the reporter on this story. The thing the reporter causually mentioned was that the thing that upset Sen Lee was the "Magnet button" which by passed the bullet button.

Sen Lee has helped gun rights indirectly in the "past", I am going to request that everybody hold the "flames", if you contact his office, be respectful.

Gene and I got access to this reporter because according to them, the e mail I sent on the first story was "reasonable", let's just say they read their e mails and some people sent really hot ones.;)

One thing the reporter was telling us was how they couldn't get comments from local law enforcement, as Gene told her, it was because Calguns was suing them on various issues.:43:

I don't know how the story will come out, but regardless, if we can at least get our side out, we could start shifting public opinion our way.

It is a slow and often painful process, the fact that the other side is muzzled gives us an opportunity. This is a victory.

We got this opportunity on very short notice, fortunately for me I work evenings and fortunately JD got hold of Gene so that he could meet with the reporter during the day.

When I mean short notice, it was that I got a phone call as I was walking into my job at 4:45pm in San Jose and we got together in San Fran the next day at 1pm at Jackson Arms.

If you are going to write anything to the station on the story, thank them for having Gene or Myself on the air. We don't know who they will use, I think they will use Gene and deal with me later on other stories.

Long term what I am hoping to do is plant the seeds for gun stories that we want to see. If we plant us as responsible and people who do care and want to reduce gun violence, we will change public perception of us and hopefully that will slow or stop new restricitve gun laws.

Nicki

zvardan
05-20-2012, 12:46 AM
Good stuff. Being likeable gets you much further than logic. :)

safewaysecurity
05-20-2012, 12:58 AM
Very interested in seeing this news report. Hope they don't make us look bad, which they always do.

ldivinag
05-20-2012, 3:31 AM
nicki/gene,

did a producer interview you or that allen martin?

Scratch705
05-20-2012, 4:05 AM
well lets hope they get the whole mag magnet use correct not just a willy nilly anyone can use it anytime device

GNE
05-20-2012, 4:10 AM
Gene and I meet with the reporter on this story. The thing the reporter causually mentioned was that the thing that upset Sen Lee was the "Magnet button" which by passed the bullet button.
Well I would hope that he would get upset when reporters commit felonies on local television.

nicki
05-20-2012, 6:32 AM
nicki/gene,

did a producer interview you or that allen martin?

Interviewer was one of Allen's helpers. I had contacted Allen by e mail, he probably hs several people who do the leg work for him on numerous stories.

If we are above board, don't play mealy mouth games with the reporters, our people become go to people when they have gun related stories.

The fact is on other issues police departments have been and continue to be less than upfront with the reporters.

For example, what if the news decided to do a story on ccw permit issuance, like the one the San Jose Mercury news did a Santa Clara sheriff Laurie Smith recently, that story was explosive, they raked her over the coals and they did it with facts.

As we are adapting the tactic of treating gun rights as civil rights, we will start bringing Liberals over to our side. There are many of course that we can never reach just like there are gun owners on our side that we can't reach on the whole civil right angle.

News stations are fighting for their survival, the days of smearing any demographic is something they finding they won't be able to afford to do.

Nicki

Ford8N
05-20-2012, 7:24 AM
They mention banning the bullet button , when they said that I was like oh yes please please please , that might force them to open a window to register all the newly created assault weapons . :43:

I really hope this Yee dude succeeds in opening another registration so I can have the identical rifle that the lucky citizens just across the California border can have.

mofugly13
05-20-2012, 7:45 AM
I really hope this Yee dude succeeds in opening another registration so I can have the identical rifle that the lucky citizens just across the California border can have.

But what about our children and grandchildren, etc? If the regristration is re-opened, then, Yay!, we get ours. But they will surely maintain the "when you die, so does your AW", and then future generations are screwed.

FastFinger
05-20-2012, 7:52 AM
We got this opportunity on very short notice, fortunately for me I work evenings and fortunately JD got hold of Gene so that he could meet with the reporter during the day.

When I mean short notice, it was that I got a phone call as I was walking into my job at 4:45pm in San Jose and we got together in San Fran the next day at 1pm at Jackson Arms.


Nicki

That is short notice for a lot of life, but pretty generous for local TV news. Most news interviews are arranged and taped the same day, these feature segment set-up a day or two in advance aren't the norm, because breaking news gets more airtime than packaged features and "special reports".

The key is to establish a relationship so that when a gun related breaking news story happens, you're the one they call. When some sick individual goes postal, and the producers want to add depth to the story, there's no shortage of "experts" they can get in a moment's notice to go on camera and condemn 2A rights as the culprit, we need people who reports automatically call to present our side.

Looks like you're building that type of relationship with this PIX reporter - excellent!

southernsnowshoe
05-20-2012, 7:52 AM
well lets hope they get the whole mag magnet use correct not just a willy nilly anyone can use it anytime device


Look, we should only be speaking in general terms when it comes to mechanical specifics. the "shoulder thing that goes up" crowd can only benefit from reading our analytical comparisons of how gun components actually function.
I want statistics from Yee's office on how many crimes have been committed with BB equipped firearms.
And then I want to see him brought up on charges of treason for undermining our constitution rights.

Manolito
05-20-2012, 8:43 AM
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac245/manolito9/cougartrack.jpg

Gene on the Hunt

Ford8N
05-20-2012, 8:45 AM
But what about our children and grandchildren, etc? If the regristration is re-opened, then, Yay!, we get ours. But they will surely maintain the "when you die, so does your AW", and then future generations are screwed.

I'm a pessimist. I would rather have the same rifle that US citizens across an invisible line can have now, than after Obama gets re elected and appoints judges to SCOTUS who will take away our Second Amendment rights. Selfish, I know. But I'm being honest.

erik_26
05-20-2012, 10:04 AM
At this point, I just want them to completely outlaw guns 100% cold turkey.

No exemptions as to how long it has or has not been in the state.

100% ban.


Maybe then people will wake up and take the government back. For I would hope that the S*** would hit the fan.

I am thoroughly sick of you can have this but not that. We trust you with this but not with that. We can't show you photos of dead Bin Laden because as your parent, we don't think it is appropriate.

G60
05-20-2012, 10:14 AM
Ah. "Something needs to be done" about something that is already illegal. Makes sense.

wilit
05-20-2012, 10:36 AM
I can't find his post at the moment, but Bwiese has shed light on this how it's basically futile.


I have faith in our CA legislators that they will attempt and succeed in passing legislation to attempt the futile.

Jason_2111
05-20-2012, 5:08 PM
I hate being right sometimes.

This is going to be a ginormous wasted of time and money.

LikeAllGuns
05-20-2012, 6:17 PM
Sure hope they don't try to ban them. I'd much rather have a BB rifle than a RAW.

+ 1000000

vincewarde
05-20-2012, 6:29 PM
I'm a pessimist. I would rather have the same rifle that US citizens across an invisible line can have now, than after Obama gets re elected and appoints judges to SCOTUS who will take away our Second Amendment rights. Selfish, I know. But I'm being honest.

If that does happen, it is a 100% certainty that some kind of constitutional amendment will be passed by congress and ratified by the states. It may not provide as mush protection as we have now, the with 75% of the population supporting basic gun rights, such a ruling would galvanize the gun rights movement.

The politics are simple: 82% of states have shall issue or better. That means 82% of states are solidly in the pro-gun rights column. Representatives and Senators from those states are more than enough to get the amendment out to the states, and those states are more than enough to pass the amendment. The president and even state governors are not involved in the process. Unless they want to loose their next election, both state and federal lawmakers will get it done. CA, NY, MA and DC will not be able to stop it.

I am not saying that this would be a good thing, but if it does happen - especially after Heller/McDonald - the momentum would definitely be with us.

Now if the anti 2nd Amendment justices were smart, they will just limit the impact of Heller/McDonald by assigning it a low level of protection. In the end, they will get much more that way.

Now, please understand that I absolutely don't want this to happen - I am just saying that we can come back from such a loss with a vengeance.

vincewarde
05-20-2012, 6:46 PM
Yep, and in a Post Heller world, that's not happening.

Not only is a ban on semi-auto rifles off the table, such as law would invite a challenge to California's entire AW ban. It could backfire big time. For that reason, I highly suspect that Gov. Brown would be unlikely to sign such a bill. He is a good lawyer and heknows what the outcome would likely be.

Steyr_223
05-20-2012, 7:02 PM
good luck Gene and Nicki..Will be watching this tonight.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Bhobbs
05-20-2012, 7:05 PM
Yep, and in a Post Heller world, that's not happening.

What makes you think that? How is Heller gonna stop them?

dantodd
05-20-2012, 7:10 PM
What makes you think that? How is Heller gonna stop them?

Because semi-auto firearms are the very definition of firearms in "common use" which Jeller expressly protects. While the state may try a ban it will NEVER go into effect.

Bhobbs
05-20-2012, 7:17 PM
Because semi-auto firearms are the very definition of firearms in "common use" which Jeller expressly protects. While the state may try a ban it will NEVER go into effect.

I understand the Heller ruling will be useful in court, but it does nothing to stop them from passing a ban. My point is, they can still pass a ban and we will have to file a suit in court to get it stopped and who knows how long it would take for the courts to rule in our favor.

SilverTauron
05-20-2012, 7:21 PM
If that does happen, it is a 100% certainty that some kind of constitutional amendment will be passed by congress and ratified by the states. It may not provide as mush protection as we have now, the with 75% of the population supporting basic gun rights, such a ruling would galvanize the gun rights movement.

The politics are simple: 82% of states have shall issue or better. That means 82% of states are solidly in the pro-gun rights column. Representatives and Senators from those states are more than enough to get the amendment out to the states, and those states are more than enough to pass the amendment. The president and even state governors are not involved in the process. Unless they want to loose their next election, both state and federal lawmakers will get it done. CA, NY, MA and DC will not be able to stop it.

I am not saying that this would be a good thing, but if it does happen - especially after Heller/McDonald - the momentum would definitely be with us.

Now if the anti 2nd Amendment justices were smart, they will just limit the impact of Heller/McDonald by assigning it a low level of protection. In the end, they will get much more that way.

Now, please understand that I absolutely don't want this to happen - I am just saying that we can come back from such a loss with a vengeance.

The problem with any analysis we make of "the other side" is that we are constrained by logic and common sense when deciding our actions.

They are not. Remember the Disarmament Lobby believes they are on something akin to a divine mandate to save us from the scourge of gun violence, and this outlook can lead to rash actions which won't help their cause. A total ban on handguns passed local muster in San Fransisco 7 years ago. It wasn't forced in or introduced as a sneaky attachment to other legislation. Proposition H was legally voted into law with the majority of the county being in favor of the ban.

Long term, that did more damage to the disarmament cause than it helped. It didn't stop them from trying.

If a legislator in California introduced a UK type ban on firearms, two things would likely happen. One, the millions of voters who put such statist morons in office to begin with will support it. Second, the rest of the nation won't lift a finger to stop it. Most of the free USA thinks California is too far gone to salvage. Your state is the butt of every anti-gun law joke in 'Free America'. Id imagine gun dealers in places like Illinois and New Jersey have too many sorrows of their own to joke about CA, but the bottom line is that there won't be a great deal of national sympathy for the plight of California gun owners.

The Feds may also step in for California's "tough stance on gun control": the Democratic Senate can easily stonewall any House resolution against a CA gun ban as they have HR 822, and Mitt Obama could draft an Executive Order mandating the ATF to assist the state DOJ in enforcing The Ban. There's multiple ways to skin a cat, and so it is with rescinding civil rights.

sholling
05-20-2012, 7:47 PM
If that does happen, it is a 100% certainty that some kind of constitutional amendment will be passed by congress and ratified by the states.
You are an optimist. If the congress passed and the states ratified an amendment that said "the right of individuals to buy, sell, possess, and carry and use for recreation or self defense purposes any and all firearms, large capacity magazines, or any amount of ammunition shall not be infringed or taxed by the United States or any of the several states, or any local government" it would just be interpreted by the courts to not convey or affirm any individual right to keep or bear arms - it's just that simple. That's what happened to the Privileges Or Immunities (POI) clause of the 14th Amendment as soon as it was ratified. The purpose was to assure that the states would not be able to violate the right of freed blacks to own firearms or property or work in the trades or own and operate a business. The Supreme Court of the day simply ruled that it did not apply to the rights it was intended to protect and over a century later the POI clause is still pretty much ignored by the courts.

bwiese
05-20-2012, 7:52 PM
I would appreciate folks NOT elevating the drama on this matter - in particular, attacks on Yee.

I won't go into detail, but please try to understand the term Odd Duck.

Also please understand we want to be thrown into the right Briar Patch.

rkt88edmo
05-20-2012, 7:59 PM
not the brare patch - anything but that old nasty brare patch!

Bruce
05-20-2012, 8:23 PM
IIRC May is a "Sweeps" month for TV shows.

Centurion_D
05-20-2012, 8:29 PM
Very interested in seeing this news report. Hope they don't make us look bad, which they always do.

Don't worry..they will make us look bad.

the_natterjack
05-20-2012, 8:38 PM
http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/brer-rabbit-in-briar-patch.jpg

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 8:47 PM
If that does happen, it is a 100% certainty that some kind of constitutional amendment will be passed by congress and ratified by the states. It may not provide as mush protection as we have now, the with 75% of the population supporting basic gun rights, such a ruling would galvanize the gun rights movement.


I'll believe it when I see it.

And as sholling points out, the Supreme Court will simply interpret the new amendment away.

The amendment would have to also forcibly remove the anti-gun justices from the Supreme Court, but since the Supreme Court is the "final word" on the Constitution, they will simply interpret that away as well. The only sort of amendment that would have any chance whatsoever of having any effect would be one that dissolves the Supreme Court as an entity altogether. And if you go down that road, then you're going to wind up with lots of huge problems, because like it or not, an entity that has the power of judicial review is a necessary check on the power of the other branches of government.


No, at the point a Constitutional amendment is tried, we'll basically be at the point of fighting a shooting war over this, because the situation will be such that no other workable option will be available. And a shooting war is something our side will lose because we are so hugely outgunned and out-surveilled by the government that it's not even funny.


And that presumes that a Constitutional amendment will be tried at all. It won't be until the federal government itself attempts to eliminate the right. Until that point, the states can, independently, protect and promote the right to whatever degree they wish. Why, when the state of affairs is that, would Congress and/or the free states attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment that would only have the effect of freeing up the people in the zero-rights states?


No, if we lose the Supreme Court then it's essentially game over for us.

rkt88edmo
05-20-2012, 8:50 PM
Hopefully someone worked an ICP reference into the exposee, that will be its only saving grace.

MAGNETS!!!

trashman
05-20-2012, 8:51 PM
Hm - interesting byproduct of this is learning that Yee has ever been an indirect help to RKBA issues...

Glad they interviewed Gene and Nicki...will be interesting to see what the final produced piece looks like.

--Neill

j.hors
05-20-2012, 8:51 PM
At this point, I just want them to completely outlaw guns 100% cold turkey.

No exemptions as to how long it has or has not been in the state.

100% ban.


Maybe then people will wake up and take the government back. For I would hope that the S*** would hit the fan.

I am thoroughly sick of you can have this but not that. We trust you with this but not with that. We can't show you photos of dead Bin Laden because as your parent, we don't think it is appropriate.

I agree with needing to take back the government...but how many in this country would be willing to fight to take back the county and government

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 8:58 PM
I agree with needing to take back the government...but how many in this country would be willing to fight to take back the county and government

Not nearly enough. The vast majority will simply cower in their homes.

And who can blame them? The government has so much more firepower and surveillance capability than the civilians that it is ridiculous to even think of attempting to overthrow it.

4DMASTR
05-20-2012, 9:09 PM
Just posted the trailer on their Facebook, Yee is horrified!

https://www.facebook.com/CBSSanFrancisco

gotshotgun?
05-20-2012, 9:30 PM
This is very interesting indeed.

the_natterjack
05-20-2012, 9:30 PM
:D Magnets!

_-agl0pOQfs

trashman
05-20-2012, 9:44 PM
No, at the point a Constitutional amendment is tried, we'll basically be at the point of fighting a shooting war over this, because the situation will be such that no other workable option will be available. And a shooting war is something our side will lose because we are so hugely outgunned and out-surveilled by the government that it's not even funny.


So I'm not at all sure I agree a priori that by the time a constitutional amendment is needed and attempted we'd have civil war. (my time these days is at a premium, so I generally don't think it's worth arguing for the sake of arguing, but hey, even I get weak periodically... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=218743))

However, for the purposes of this discussion I'll accept that you're right about that, and simply point out that the very act of insurrection assumes that the folks on our side would be willing to lay down their lives and never experience the outcomes intended by their (probable) deaths.

Indeed, the whole point would be to change things for the good of the Republic and our children's children, etc.

So you're right in that "we'd lose" means "we who participate in the insurrection lose" but I do have faith that when it comes time to actually, you know, do the shooting, that the men and women in uniform who would have to fire on their fellow citizens just won't -- and there would never be a crackdown or purge exceeding that of the Stalinist era which is what would be required before the RKBA could be eliminated.

There are simply too many guns in civilian hands, and that number grows daily (and it gladdens my heart).


No, if we lose the Supreme Court then it's essentially game over for us.Nah - we survived Miller (which likely entailed collusion between the bench and the Feds (http://law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_lib erty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf)) and if we lose at the Supreme Court we'll survive that too.

It might take our lifetimes to work it out, but we'll work it out, and without civil war.

--Neill

trashman
05-20-2012, 9:46 PM
Not nearly enough. The vast majority will simply cower in their homes.

Agreed, just like the vast majority of uniformed .gov-ers that will not fire upon their fellow citizens.

There isn't currently enough of an economic advantage to working for the government that those employees will kill to keep their jobs...

--Neill

G60
05-20-2012, 9:48 PM
"we talk to...the lawmaker who (tomorrow) will propose a law banning it."

LOL! Can't wait to read the text of this proposed law!

goober
05-20-2012, 10:01 PM
Hopefully someone worked an ICP reference into the exposee, that will be its only saving grace.

MAGNETS!!!



:clown: effin' MAGNETS how do THEY work??? :rolleyes:

FastFinger
05-20-2012, 10:08 PM
I would appreciate folks NOT elevating the drama on this matter - in particular, attacks on Yee.

I won't go into detail, but please try to understand the term Odd Duck.

Also please understand we want to be thrown into the right Briar Patch.

Bill, Methinks you misspelled a name there...

http://www.caribjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/breyer.jpg

Peter.Steele
05-20-2012, 10:27 PM
Hopefully someone worked an ICP reference into the exposee, that will be its only saving grace.

MAGNETS!!!

:D Magnets!

_-agl0pOQfs

:clown: effin' MAGNETS how do THEY work??? :rolleyes:



Or, in haiku form:

****ing magnetics:
I do not know how they work.
Clowns taught me science.

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 10:28 PM
However, for the purposes of this discussion I'll accept that you're right about that, and simply point out that the very act of insurrection assumes that the folks on our side would be willing to lay down their lives and never experience the outcomes intended by their (probable) deaths.

Indeed, the whole point would be to change things for the good of the Republic and our children's children, etc.

So you're right in that "we'd lose" means "we who participate in the insurrection lose" but I do have faith that when it comes time to actually, you know, do the shooting, that the men and women in uniform who would have to fire on their fellow citizens just won't -- and there would never be a crackdown or purge exceeding that of the Stalinist era which is what would be required before the RKBA could be eliminated.


Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

Remember, to the military, the armed civilians will be terrorists. The U.S. government will have absolute control over the broadcast media by that time, it will have essentially shut down the internet, and the military gets its very orders from the U.S. government. The only information that those in the military will be getting that won't be from government-controlled sources will be through direct word of mouth.

There will most certainly be people in the military who cannot fire on civilians, but history has repeatedly shown that there are sufficient numbers of military people willing to fire on their own that the numbers who would refuse will not make a difference in the outcome.



There are simply too many guns in civilian hands, and that number grows daily (and it gladdens my heart).


Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.



Nah - we survived Miller (which likely entailed collusion between the bench and the Feds (http://law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_lib erty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf)) and if we lose at the Supreme Court we'll survive that too.

It might take our lifetimes to work it out, but we'll work it out, and without civil war.


If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 10:47 PM
Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

Remember, to the military, the armed civilians will be terrorists. The U.S. government will have absolute control over the broadcast media by that time, it will have essentially shut down the internet, and the military gets its very orders from the U.S. government. The only information that those in the military will be getting that won't be from government-controlled sources will be through direct word of mouth.

There will most certainly be people in the military who cannot fire on civilians, but history has repeatedly shown that there are sufficient numbers of military people willing to fire on their own that the numbers who would refuse will not make a difference in the outcome.




Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.




If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.


You forgot about the drones that are going to be flying around inside U.S. airspace after the bill gets passed by congress :p. A MQ-9 Repear is much cheaper to operate per hour than a C130 or a Helicopter. It can loiter over the target area for 8 hours+ on a single tank of fuel.

thedrickel
05-20-2012, 10:47 PM
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

You are all going to jail ..............................in two weeks!

Peter.Steele
05-20-2012, 10:56 PM
“The reason the second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights is because General Gage wanted to take the Bostonians’ firearms. If Leland Yee wants to be General Gage it will be an interesting outcome”


Holy hell, that's a quote and a half.

ldivinag
05-20-2012, 11:10 PM
here we go...

misterjake
05-20-2012, 11:12 PM
Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

Remember, to the military, the armed civilians will be terrorists. The U.S. government will have absolute control over the broadcast media by that time, it will have essentially shut down the internet, and the military gets its very orders from the U.S. government. The only information that those in the military will be getting that won't be from government-controlled sources will be through direct word of mouth.

There will most certainly be people in the military who cannot fire on civilians, but history has repeatedly shown that there are sufficient numbers of military people willing to fire on their own that the numbers who would refuse will not make a difference in the outcome.




Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.




If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.

1. You fight your way to better weapons.
2. We outnumber them 165 to 1.
3. An AC-130 is worthless without fuel.
4. Who ever's will is greater always wins in the end.

CenterX
05-20-2012, 11:14 PM
Just watched the coverage. Gene spoke well. Lee looked like he was suffering from a perpetual hangover. Sad state of affairs.
The struggle continues.

MrEd
05-20-2012, 11:16 PM
Oh Gene , why did you have to make sense and well crafted arguments !! The DOJ felt compeled to not comment . Now you force those in Sacramento to "protect the public" by banning the bullet button . :43:

SuperSet
05-20-2012, 11:18 PM
I'm so proud to have CGF out there representing us.

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 11:20 PM
Good job Gene. CBS5 and Yee are in for a rude awakening!. I pray to god they don't succeed.

2011
This year, Senator Yee opposed AB376, which banned the sale of shark fins claiming that it was "an attack on Asian culture" and targeting the Chinese delicacy was an "another example in a long line of examples of insensitivity to the culture and traditions of the Asian American community." Proponents of the bill seek to discourage illegal shark finning, a practice which involves cutting off the tails and fins of living sharks, which are then thrown back into the ocean to die.[55] Opponents contend that restaurants do not acquire shark fins illegally and that the focus should be specifically on fins caught illegally. Yee followed up with a press conference at a San Francisco Chinatown restaurant where shark fin soup was served to reporters to demonstrate how the soup is served to customers.[56]

Yee is a hypocrite. And firearms aren't part of American culture Yee? haha. You're being 'insensitive' and attacking OUR CULTURE!

REH
05-20-2012, 11:21 PM
For the folks who don't get channel 5.....................video link please

Tubbie
05-20-2012, 11:23 PM
Just saw the piece aired on KPIX. Seeing one of California most corrupted politicians Yee given his opinion bout AW and BB made me threw up in my mouth a little. What I got out of this little show and tell? I'm donating more money to Gene.

And, please don't compare mental retardation to Leland Yee. It's a biological development defect for those poor folks whereas Yee is a complete idiot. It's an insult to retards everywhere.

jj805
05-20-2012, 11:25 PM
For the folks who don't get channel 5.....................video link please

It was word for word of the write up on the link in post #83

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 11:25 PM
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/live-video/

berg
05-20-2012, 11:27 PM
For the folks who don't get channel 5.....................video link please

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/

Librarian
05-20-2012, 11:27 PM
Interesting. Mr. Lee is, unfortunately, emoting.

I wonder what bill he plans to 'gut and amend' to get his legislation before the legislature - it's after the legislative calendar limit for introducing new bills. "Feb. 24 Last day for bills to be introduced (J.R. 61(b)(4)) (J.R. 54(a))."

Equis
05-20-2012, 11:28 PM
So is this just a move from Yee to show us that he is working? I mean what do these representatives really do? I feel given enough time, everything will be banned or regulated, then would we really need them? Geez, I was flipping channels a couple of minutes earlier, and I saw that the city of Carmichael (sp?), you need a permit from City Hall to wear high heels in public.

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 11:30 PM
Yee is just upset because of the attempt to ban shark fin soup.

thedrickel
05-20-2012, 11:31 PM
I just love my representatives . . . Leland Yee, Jerry Hill, Jackie Speier . . . does it get any worse?

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 11:33 PM
1. You fight your way to better weapons.
2. We outnumber them 165 to 1.


Is that all?

With the weaponry the government has at their disposal, it will take a tens of thousands to one advantage on our side to pull it off.



3. An AC-130 is worthless without fuel.


The government has its own sources of that, and can easily gain control of more in the event it proves necessary. Good luck shutting off all its access to fuel, especially if you lack the kind of firepower the government has.



4. Who ever's will is greater always wins in the end.

Tell that to the defenders of Thermopylae, who had will far exceeding that of their enemy but were, nevertheless, eventually defeated by sheer numbers.

Tell that to the Japanese, who fought in World War 2 with a ferocity that was legendary, and who would have caused us to lose millions in an invasion of their mainland. Their will was no match for our atomic bombs.


No, the notion that the greater will always wins is a nice fantasy, but it is only that: fantasy. Will is just another variable in the mix of variables that ultimately determine the outcome. History shows that it can always be overcome with sufficient amounts of firepower.

And the U.S. government is the entity with nearly all the firepower, not the civilian population.

jj805
05-20-2012, 11:34 PM
Yee is just upset because of the attempt to ban shark fin soup.

:rofl2: He is going to ban the Sea Sheppard Group also. He needs his whale meat.:43:

stitchnicklas
05-20-2012, 11:36 PM
still no viable link.....

Peter.Steele
05-20-2012, 11:37 PM
Is that all?

With the weaponry the government has at their disposal, it will take a tens of thousands to one advantage on our side to pull it off.


That's been working out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, hasn't it?

fairfaxjim
05-20-2012, 11:37 PM
Interesting. Mr. Lee is, unfortunately, emoting.

I wonder what bill he plans to 'gut and amend' to get his legislation before the legislature - it's after the legislative calendar limit for introducing new bills. "Feb. 24 Last day for bills to be introduced (J.R. 61(b)(4)) (J.R. 54(a))."

It shouldn't be too hard, he has 20 worthless bills on the pile for 2012.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

I'm so relieved that Sen. Yee has determined for us how crystal clear this is. I mean WOW! "NO DEBATE, NO DISCUSSION" What an arrogant POS!!!

GPJunkie
05-20-2012, 11:40 PM
It IS pretty interesting that he feels that sensitivity to the "culture and traditions of the Asian American community" is of more import than the Bill of Rights.

nicki
05-20-2012, 11:41 PM
Yes I would like a more pro gun story, but overall I thought the story was neutral.

If you send e mails, be thankful for both sides of the story, they do read their e mails, that is how Gene and myself connected with the reporters.

The reality is many gun owners didn't know about the Calguns foundation, now they do and they know that the Head of Calguns is why they can get bullet buttons.

The story also showed the Cal DOJ as avoiding dealing with this issue.

For those of you who remember the push for the original Roberti-Roos bill in 1989, then attorney general Van Decamp was a complete media whore in the push for the first ban.

Something important about Gene's tone, it was bring it on. Hopefully all of you got Gene's reference about Leland Yee being General Gage.

News runs on conflict and controversy, more to come.

I am glad Gene was able to make, o/w you would have had me and I am not as eloquent as Gene.:43:

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 11:42 PM
:rofl2: He is going to ban the Sea Sheppard Group also. He needs his whale meat.:43:

He's just trying to get back at us. Our Western culture doesn't agree with eastern traditions, so he's trying to get us back where it hurts. Yee you are a sad... sad man...

Will you be happy with Ramen instead?:p He must hate imitation crab in Sushi also! Sounds like a seafood elitist.

Ackrite
05-20-2012, 11:43 PM
kcbrown, this is an honest and legitimate question. How have the Afghan insurgents been able to defend and fight for whatever they believe in with such inferior fire power, lack of air support, lack of first-world military training, lack of any decent education, and so much more for so long? They also did this with the Soviets.

CenterX
05-20-2012, 11:44 PM
We need a referendum that all representatives remain sober for 6 months prior to running for office all the way through their term. Daily whiz tests to confirm.

Then maybe some improved competence there would be in Sacramento.

b.faust
05-20-2012, 11:44 PM
Yee is just upset because of the attempt to ban shark fin soup.

He actually opposed it as: "an attack on Asian culture."

He's also been pulled over a few times for cruising in search of "professional companionship" in the mission.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/11/22/MN91849.DTL

He's generally unimpressive politically as well, being on the loosing end of most of his hair brained ideas, and getting busted for stupid in the process.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/04/public-radio-yees-wiki-edited-from-within-state-capitol

He's basically just annoying and boardline incompetent. (Which is exactly what the voters love)
Or as a video game professional friend of mine once said about him, "Clinically Stupid."

Here's a good summation of Mr. Yee
http://www.8asians.com/2011/07/25/sf-weekly-sf-mayoral-candidate-leland-yee-cant-erase-his-past/

hoffmang
05-20-2012, 11:45 PM
I just love my representatives . . . Leland Yee, Jerry Hill, Jackie Speier . . . does it get any worse?

You forgot Feinstein and Boxer.

-Gene

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 11:45 PM
That's been working out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, hasn't it?

We're still in both places, aren't we? We haven't been handed a military defeat over there, have we?

An armed insurrection cannot succeed unless it achieves surrender on the part of the government it is fighting against. Until it achieves that, it has achieved nothing.

The insurrections in Afghanistan and Iraq are excellent examples of that. You're taking away the wrong lesson from those places. We're still there despite their best efforts. And that's in countries on the other side of the world where the U.S. government's very existence is not at stake. The U.S. government can afford to lose there. It would not be able to afford to lose here. That means it will pull out all the stops in order to keep an armed insurrection from succeeding here.

Afghanistan and Iraq? You haven't seen anything. There are tons of options we have refused to deploy over there that would be deployed here if necessary (e.g., chemical and biological weapons).

kcbrown
05-20-2012, 11:46 PM
kcbrown, this is an honest and legitimate question. How have the Afghan insurgents been able to defend and fight for whatever they believe in with such inferior fire power, lack of air support, lack of first-world military training, lack of any decent education, and so much more for so long? They also did this with the Soviets.

Because we are not willing to go all in. Neither were the Soviets (they had international diplomatic issues to consider, just as we had during the Korean War when the Chinese decided to engage).

The U.S. government would be willing to go all in if its very existence were at stake, as it would be in the face of an armed insurrection here at home.

jdberger
05-20-2012, 11:49 PM
I just love my representatives . . . Leland Yee, Jerry Hill, Jackie Speier . . . does it get any worse?

You could have Pete Stark.

osis32
05-20-2012, 11:52 PM
What I don't get is they aired something almost identical 4 years ago. Where were our public champions protecting us then? And why aren't all these crimes being reported with these weapons? The news always wants to say how powerful and dangerous a gun is yet there haven't been any incidents reported. Tee wants to protect me he can go to Oakland and bore the gang bangers into submission.

Flopper
05-20-2012, 11:53 PM
Tell that to the defenders of Thermopylae, who had will far exceeding that of their enemy but were, nevertheless, eventually defeated by sheer numbers.

Quite possibly the worst example you could have used. How exactly did the Second Persian Invasion of Greece go for the Persians?

Please take this nonsense mental masturbation of a threadjack to another thread already.

IPSICK
05-20-2012, 11:54 PM
I guess we're waiting to find out which Briar Patch we're getting thrown into. Segment seemed just as biased as the last one.

I'm guessing/hoping Gene's statements and appearance are part of a grand but subtle strategy.

Still not liking the idea of proposed legislation that may limit my rights. I hope Yee is as incompetent as he sounds and the other incompetents don't grow in number to support him

jj805
05-20-2012, 11:55 PM
You forgot Feinstein and Boxer.

-Gene

Gene, I just wanted to say thanks for making the time to go on camera.

hoffmang
05-20-2012, 11:56 PM
The only thing I am bummed about was that I shocked the interviewer when I told her that less than 7% of gun crimes used a so called "AW." She asked me for backup and I was wrong. It was 8% but 5.34% are so called "assault pistols" like the Tec-9. ARs and AKs were found by the Federal Government to constitute less than 3% of gun crime...

-Gene

Librarian
05-20-2012, 11:56 PM
Leland also just ran for Mayor of San Francisco.

His campaign website has this page of things he and his campaign believe represent him well - http://www.lelandyee.com/about/

Yes, he does have quite a list of bills submitted this part of the session:
20. SB 742 - Yee
* Medicine.
21. SB 762 - Yee
* Fish and wildlife: taking and possession.
22. SB 869 - Yee
* Automotive repair dealers: airbags.
23. SB 904 - Yee
* Environment: agency.
24. SB 967 - Yee
* Public postsecondary education: executive off
25. SB 977 - Yee
* State employees: memoranda of understanding:
26. SB 981 - Yee
* Public Utilities Commission: commissioners: e
27. SB 1000 - Yee
* Public Utilities Commission: records.
28. SB 1001 - Yee
* Political Reform Act of 1974: lobbyists and c
29. SB 1002 - Yee
* Public records: electronic format.
30. SB 1003 - Yee
* Local government: open meetings.
31. SB 1134 - Yee
* Persons of unsound mind: psychotherapist duty
32. SB 1336 - Yee
* Improper governmental activities: investigati
33. SB 1339 - Yee
* Commute benefit policies.
34. SB 1349 - Yee
* The Social Media Privacy Act: postsecondary e
35. SB 1363 - Yee
* Juveniles: solitary confinement.
36. SB 1403 - Yee
* Public Utilities Commission.
37. SB 1460 - Yee
* Automotive repair: replacement parts.
38. SB 1465 - Yee
* Loan programs.
39. SB 1488 - Yee
* Healing arts: traditional Chinese Medicine tr
40. SB 1515 - Yee
* California State University: board of trustee
(Entries 1-19 on the list were 2010-2011.)

Schlyme
05-20-2012, 11:56 PM
Are all the comments about the story from calgunners? lmao!

Tacit Blue
05-20-2012, 11:57 PM
KC, you realize the U.S. military has the ability to occupy a country effectively in terms of a invasion and occupation. But we've always had a hard time fighting counter insurgency.

And since we destroyed our relationship with Pakistan with the Bin Laden raid. Taliban can literally hide out and regroup at the border at will, if they get their azzes kicked they just run back over and rearm and man up. Technological advancements are not a substitution for will power, and insurgent warfare.

live2suck
05-20-2012, 11:57 PM
Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

...

If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.

Once again, your "pessimism" offers a harsh dose of reality to the "optimists" on this board. The prospects you discuss in this post absolutely terrify me, and they have for years; I only hope they never come to fruition. A "hot" civil war in the United States would condemn tens (possibly, hundreds) of millions of Americans to death. This isn't your great great grand-pappy's battlefield anymore; the only option we have is internal reform.

That being said, Gene's statements in that article are extremely ballsy (for CA), and this legislative session is going to be very interesting.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:00 AM
Quite possibly the worst example you could have used. How exactly did the Second Persian Invasion of Greece go for the Persians?


The forces were much more evenly matched in the Second Persion Invasion, and the Greeks had the home field advantage.

Neither will be the case in the event of an armed insurrection here.


Firepower matters, a lot.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:03 AM
KC, you realize the U.S. military has the ability to occupy a country effectively in terms of a invasion and occupation. But we've always had a hard time fighting counter insurgency.

And since we destroyed our relationship with Pakistan with the Bin Laden raid. Taliban can literally hide out and regroup at the border at will, if they get their azzes kicked they just run back over and rearm and man up. Technological advancements are not a substitution for will power, and insurgent warfare.

Technological advancements and firepower are not necessarily sufficient to defeat an insurgency, but a defeat is not necessary. Merely denying victory to the insurgency is sufficient. The government's goal is to remain in power.

Indeed, an insurgency could be useful to the U.S. government since it would give it all the excuse it would need to wield absolute power over the citizenry, something that it does not currently do. The government's ultimate goal is to rid itself of the Constitutional constraints it operates under. An insurgency would give it all the excuse it would need to do precisely that.

alfred1222
05-21-2012, 12:05 AM
Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

Remember, to the military, the armed civilians will be terrorists. The U.S. government will have absolute control over the broadcast media by that time, it will have essentially shut down the internet, and the military gets its very orders from the U.S. government. The only information that those in the military will be getting that won't be from government-controlled sources will be through direct word of mouth.

There will most certainly be people in the military who cannot fire on civilians, but history has repeatedly shown that there are sufficient numbers of military people willing to fire on their own that the numbers who would refuse will not make a difference in the outcome.




Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.




If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.

You couldn't be more wrong. Your fundemental flaw in this argument is that you assume that the entire US military will turn against the US people. You are mistaken, they will not. The military is made up of citizens, who gain no special treatment or privileges from serving in the military, and therefore serve for the patriotism or a paycheck, whatever makes them happy. Sure, the top brass doesn't think this way, but the guys on the ground do. You might say that there will be no means to communicate with the troops, and that the media and internet will be shut down. Dont you think the military will see this as well?? Don't you think they understand that thr government who is willing to order an attack on civilians is horribly corrupt?? To think that the US military will turn against their own people is hilariously ridiculous .

Quite possibly the worst example you could have used. How exactly did the Second Persian Invasion of Greece go for the Persians?

Please take this nonsense mental masturbation of a threadjack to another thread already.

QFT

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:08 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. Your fundemental flaw in this argument is that you assume that the entire US military will turn against the US people. You are mistaken, they will not. The military is made up of citizens, who gain no special treatment or privileges from serving in the military, and therefore serve for the patriotism or a paycheck, whatever makes them happy. Sure, the top brass doesn't think this way, but the guys on the ground do. To think that the US military will turn against their own people is hilariously ridiculous .



QFT

A majority of them would go AWOL and take that equipment with them. They aren't going to pull the trigger on us, because another unit could be doing the same to their family members elsewhere. This is straight from their mouth's also, service members also get frustrated too KC. That's why Libya brought in mercenaries, there's videos of Libyan fighter pilots crashing their jets on purpose and chopper pilots sitting on the ground. Flat out refusing to kill civi's.

pTa
05-21-2012, 12:08 AM
Anyone have a link to this story?

monk
05-21-2012, 12:10 AM
Anyone have a link to this story?

Page 3: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

50BMGBOB
05-21-2012, 12:12 AM
I caught the segment and thought it was very good. If all gun pieces where this even, we would be a lot better off. We will never win over some of the diehard anti's, but with balanced reporting, we can win the middle.

alfred1222
05-21-2012, 12:14 AM
A majority of them would go AWOL and take that equipment with them. They aren't going to pull the trigger on us, because another unit could be doing the same to their family members elsewhere. This is straight from their mouth's also, service members also get frustrated too KC. That's why Libya brought in mercenaries, there's videos of Libyan fighter pilots crashing their jets on purpose and chopper pilots sitting on the ground. Flat out refusing to kill civi's.

Exactly. Entire garrisons would go AWOL, as would their vehicles and weapons. Just think of the logistical requirements for the military to fully staff every single base that they have stateside if more than half of the soldiers went AWOL.

gunsmith
05-21-2012, 12:16 AM
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/

That link no worky on my pc due to I have an old piece of crap, its not mine either so I cant download the whatchamacallit they want me to in order to view the vid, anyone have a youtube version for those of us with ancient technology?

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:19 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. Your fundemental flaw in this argument is that you assume that the entire US military will turn against the US people. You are mistaken, they will not.


They will not be, in their minds, turning against the U.S. people. They will, in their minds, be turning against terrorists.

The vast majority of the population will sit the whole thing out. That is what happened even during the American Revolution (the population was roughly 2 million, and a total of around 75,000 Americans fought in the war, for a participation rate of around 3.8%).

So it will be easy for members of the military to convince themselves that they are fighting against a real enemy who just happens to be composed of American citizens, instead of fighting against the citizenry itself.


To dismiss the possibility (no, probability) that the military will turn against the civilian insurrectionists is to ignore very nearly the entire history of the world. Libya is an interesting and notable exception, but it is just that: an exception.

jj805
05-21-2012, 12:21 AM
That link no worky on my pc due to I have an old piece of crap, its not mine either so I cant download the whatchamacallit they want me to in order to view the vid, anyone have a youtube version for those of us with ancient technology?

Just read the link in post # 83. It is literally word for word.

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:22 AM
Exactly. Entire garrisons would go AWOL, as would their vehicles and weapons. Just think of the logistical requirements for the military to fully staff every single base that they have stateside if more than half of the soldiers went AWOL.

It would be awkward conversation between units if they found out they were killing each other communities. I don't think that situation would go down too well do you?

alfred1222
05-21-2012, 12:25 AM
It would be awkward conversation between units if they found out they were killing each other communities. I don't think that situation would go down too well do you?

Nope not well at all

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:26 AM
They will not be, in their minds, turning against the U.S. people. They will, in their minds, be turning against terrorists.

The vast majority of the population will sit the whole thing out. That is what happened even during the American Revolution (the population was roughly 2 million, and a total of around 75,000 Americans fought in the war, for a participation rate of around 3.8%).

So it will be easy for members of the military to convince themselves that they are fighting against a real enemy who just happens to be composed of American citizens, instead of fighting against the citizenry itself.


To dismiss the possibility (no, probability) that the military will turn against the civilian insurrectionists is to ignore very nearly the entire history of the world.

KC I have friends in the active duty Army infantry units and Army reserve's. Both of their answer's were flat out No...... Even the fanatical USMC grunt's told me the same thing. Only the National Guard will be called out during a civil disturbance at first.. And they have families in the communities they protect.

hoffmang
05-21-2012, 12:27 AM
Leland also just ran for Mayor of San Francisco.

His campaign website has this page of things he and his campaign believe represent him well - http://www.lelandyee.com/about/

Yes, he does have quite a list of bills submitted this part of the session:


However, I don't see many candidates for a gut and amend as I don't seem to see any dormant bills in the area of the Penal Code...

This may go nowhere, but I'm not going to speculate yet. Drafting whatever he's proposing is tough.

-Gene

nicki
05-21-2012, 12:29 AM
The only thing I am bummed about was that I shocked the interviewer when I told her that less than 7% of gun crimes used a so called "AW." She asked me for backup and I was wrong. It was 8% but 5.34% are so called "assault pistols" like the Tec-9. ARs and AKs were found by the Federal Government to constitute less than 3% of gun crime...

-Gene


I thought we had good repoire with the crew and we planted seeds for future gun stories.
The stats will come out and what will eventually come out if we play our cards right is how these bills distract the public from real solutions.

A politician who will trash the 2nd amendment will trash the rest of them, including the 1st.

Nicki

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:29 AM
KC I have friends in the active duty Army infantry units and Army reserve's. Both of their answer's were flat out No...... Even the fanatical USMC grunt's told me the same thing. Only the National Guard will be called out during a civil disturbance at first.. And they have families in the communities they protect.

I hope to God we never have to find out how much resolve they really have on that. Their resolve will have to be considerable.

The National Guard had no problem firing on students at Kent State, and those were unarmed students, not armed insurrectionists.

monk
05-21-2012, 12:30 AM
It would be awkward conversation between units if they found out they were killing each other communities. I don't think that situation would go down too well do you?

Isn't that what martial law is for?

hoffmang
05-21-2012, 12:32 AM
I hope to God we never have to find out how much resolve they really have on that. Their resolve will have to be considerable.

The National Guard had no problem firing on students at Kent State, and those were unarmed students, not armed insurrectionists.

The Guard conveniently forgot to disarm all the correct people that we'd want to keep their arms during the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. "Saw no seizable firearms on patrol" was the constant refrain in the reports...

-Gene

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:34 AM
Isn't that what martial law is for?

If your suggesting what KC's suggesting. In short, will they will pull people from their homes or kick down your door?. No... The guardsmen will patrol streets during curfew's, yes that will happen most likely. Just flat out execution or spraying down civi's is a fantasy. They'll operate by rules of engagement, because they know if they went around systematically shooting people. That would ignite a powder keg.

Think the role of a " peace keeper".

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:39 AM
The Guard conveniently forgot to disarm all the correct people that we'd want to keep their arms during the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. "Saw no seizable firearms on patrol" was the constant refrain in the reports...


That's because their mission was not to quell a known uprising against the government.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 12:41 AM
If your suggesting what KC's suggesting. In short, will they will pull people from their homes or kick down your door?. No... The guardsmen will patrol streets during curfew's, yes that will happen most likely. Just flat out execution or spraying down civi's is a fantasy. They'll operate by rules of engagement, because they know if they went around systematically shooting people. That would ignite a powder keg.

Think the role of a " peace keeper".

Yes. However, playing the role of a "peace keeper" is sufficient to quell an armed insurrection. Remember, the purpose of the armed insurrection is to overthrow the sitting government through force of arms. You don't do that by sitting down with the government over a cup of tea, you do that by shooting, or threatening to shoot, government actors.

If you as the National Guard commander are tasked with "keeping the peace", what are you going to do in the face of a bunch of armed civilians who are intent on bringing harm to important government officials in the event that those officials don't simply roll over? Are you simply going to stand idly by and let the civilians shoot government officials? Somehow I doubt it. You will regard the civilians as the aggressors.

alfred1222
05-21-2012, 12:47 AM
Yes. However, playing the role of a "peace keeper" is sufficient to quell an armed insurrection. Remember, the purpose of the armed insurrection is to overthrow the sitting government through force of arms. You don't do that by sitting down with the government over a cup of tea, you do that by shooting, or threatening to shoot, government actors.

If you as the National Guard commander are tasked with "keeping the peace", what are you going to do in the face of a bunch of armed civilians who are intent on bringing harm to important government officials in the event that those officials don't simply roll over? Are you simply going to stand idly by and let the civilians shoot government officials? Somehow I doubt it. You will regard the civilians as the aggressors.

I would smile, wave, and than join them on their march

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:51 AM
Yeah how do you know that a military coup d'etat wouldn't happen? 70,000 lb M1A1/A2's will be more effective than your AR15 with a 10 rd BB.

Ok enough of this KC. Let Gene goto bat for us ,before you start posting all these radical comments on here. That won't help our cause one bit.

battleship
05-21-2012, 12:55 AM
I was surprised at just how much this politician L Yee acted very shocked by what he had learned of the BB through the 1st segments on CBS, if he was so concerned about such matters it should not take 1 small segment from a news channel to bring it to his attention in a state with very strict control over guns, calibers and accessories.

You would expect any politician in this state to be on the up when it comes to legalities involving firearms, especially with a tool that has been here for years. His demeanor was one of somebody who was just caught with his pants down doing something he should of not been doing.
And now he wants to be seen to be running to the public's rescue to keep them all safe. Safe from what i ask, hes trying to make a story out of something that has not happened, a pending disaster in his eyes.
How long has this guy been asleep on the job, because if he truly cares about the public he serves he would be up to date and properly educated before acting like the sky is about to fall down around him.
The 2nd segment was far less biased because CBS surely was given a spanking about how they left so many holes not filled in from the 1st segment, and it made them look stupid.
I wish Gene was given more air time, perhaps he was but due to editing, information was left on the cutting room floor. These type of reports always seem like a flash in the pan, perhaps they design it that way but they never seem to do a good job to get the full story.

vincewarde
05-21-2012, 12:57 AM
Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.

All true - but every insurrection has begun with small arms. Unless the government wants to level whole cities, many of these weapons would be useless. Tactics would have to address that reality. Until you capture enough heavy weapons, and or gain the support of elements of the military, you do not take and hold territory - especially cities.

As for the military acting in violation of the constitution to keep Obama in power, that will never happen. Most military members take their oath seriously and most are right of center to boot. No matter what the hand picked commanders in the Pentagon might try, it would be a very hard sell to the mid-level commanders would would have to carry out such orders.

In any case, Obama would be a fool to rely on the military to back him unless he is on firm constitutional grounds. Ditto for any other president.




If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.[/QUOTE]

Lugiahua
05-21-2012, 1:01 AM
Just watch this "Yee" character closely. The Anti-2nd Amendment legislators are a good deal slow on firearms because it is an area for which they know nothing. They have neither the technical or logical understanding, and should not even be such people to address firearms in general, let alone be allowed to vet vicious Anti-2nd Amendment crusades with propaganda as a foundation, without being kept in check.



I really wish one day on a congress hearing or something similar, a Brady or other anti-gun representative being greatly embarrassed in front of the nation by asked about their firearm knowledge basis and credibility. :rolleyes:

Imaging this:
Senator: Mr./Ms. xxx, after listening your whole argument against AR-15, I was wondering were you familiar with this system yourself?

XXX(Anti-gun guy): No, I never participate any "killer" training or own a such weapon.

Senator: So you are telling me that you have never fired an AR-15, nor familiar with it? And you are trying to convince us that it was dangerous to the society? :D

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 1:05 AM
I would smile, wave, and than join them on their march

Really?

Is that what you would do right now?

wildhawker
05-21-2012, 1:06 AM
"Wait, there are common semiauto rifles in California?! I'm aghast!"

"Hundreds of thousands, actually. They're so common that major manufacturers like Colt, who were once 'banned by name', are just a Cal-FFL away."

"But this... this cannot be!"

"We've been ******* you in the *** for a number of years now. We know you know it. It's cool if you like it."

"..."

-Brandon

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 1:07 AM
Yeah how do you know that a military coup d'etat wouldn't happen? 70,000 lb M1A1/A2's will be more effective than your AR15 with a 10 rd BB.

Ok enough of this KC. Let Gene goto bat for us ,before you start posting all these radical comments on here. That won't help our cause one bit.

Agreed. Time for a cease fire on my part.

Worst case scenarios are just that: worst case. We're nowhere near that, and I hope to God we never get there.

I like how Gene's playing this one, by the way. :43:


(I just hope this doesn't wind up being a "be careful what you wish for" moment, but I'm pretty sure he's thought this one through rather carefully...)

b.faust
05-21-2012, 1:11 AM
"Wait, there are common semiauto rifles in California?! I'm aghast!"

"Hundreds of thousands, actually. They're so common that major manufacturers like Colt, who were once 'banned by name', are just a Cal-FFL away."

"But this... this cannot be!"

"We've been ******* you in the *** for a number of years now. We know you know it. It's cool if you like it."

"..."

-Brandon

Wait till someone shows him 'featureless' and no need for a BB...

http://static2.fjcdn.com/comments/mind+blown+_eeedd03c9ec6701049dbeff4464320ff.jpg

Sgt Raven
05-21-2012, 1:19 AM
Wait till someone shows him 'featureless' and no need for a BB...

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/mind+blown+_eeedd03c9ec6701049dbeff4464320ff.jpg

:eek: :twoweeks: :29:

vincewarde
05-21-2012, 1:33 AM
The problem with any analysis we make of "the other side" is that we are constrained by logic and common sense when deciding our actions.

They are not. Remember the Disarmament Lobby believes they are on something akin to a divine mandate to save us from the scourge of gun violence, and this outlook can lead to rash actions which won't help their cause. A total ban on handguns passed local muster in San Fransisco 7 years ago. It wasn't forced in or introduced as a sneaky attachment to other legislation. Proposition H was legally voted into law with the majority of the county being in favor of the ban.

Long term, that did more damage to the disarmament cause than it helped. It didn't stop them from trying.

If a legislator in California introduced a UK type ban on firearms, two things would likely happen. One, the millions of voters who put such statist morons in office to begin with will support it. Second, the rest of the nation won't lift a finger to stop it. Most of the free USA thinks California is too far gone to salvage. Your state is the butt of every anti-gun law joke in 'Free America'. Id imagine gun dealers in places like Illinois and New Jersey have too many sorrows of their own to joke about CA, but the bottom line is that there won't be a great deal of national sympathy for the plight of California gun owners.

Ultimately, CA has nothing to say about the limits of gun control will be. It's up to SCOTUS at this point. CA will push as much gun control as the SCOTUS allows.

The Feds may also step in for California's "tough stance on gun control": the Democratic Senate can easily stonewall any House resolution against a CA gun ban as they have HR 822, and Mitt Obama could draft an Executive Order mandating the ATF to assist the state DOJ in enforcing The Ban. There's multiple ways to skin a cat, and so it is with rescinding civil rights.

What part of 82% of states being pro-gun rights do you not understand? The gun rights lobby is that strongest political lobby in the US - and by far the most effective. What do you think the reaction would be if SCOTUS reversed Heller? It would galvanize the gun rights movement in the whole country.

CA, NY, MD, and the rest of the 9 states that are still anti-gun rights would not be enough to stop an amendment. Senators and Representatives from the 41 states that are pro-gun rights would have to choose between not be re-elected or voting against the amendment. Almost all would chose to vote yes and preserve their re-election chances.

There would be a lot of arguing over wording and what kind of weapons would be protected - but in the end, the required 2/3 of both houses would pass something - probably with some votes to spare. Just think about how far the AWB got.

Once that happens, it goes out to the states. The president has absolutely no role whatsoever. Once 3/4 of the state legislatures vote in favor, it becomes part of the constitution.

If you think about it, the process actually favors the less populated states. Population does not influence a states representation in the Senate or how it is counted for ratification purposes. This is to our advantage.

The rest of the nation is not like CA, let alone SF. The bulk of the states are not prepared to give up their firearms or their constitutional protections.

kcbrown
05-21-2012, 1:38 AM
Once that happens, it goes out to the states. The president has absolutely no role whatsoever. Once 3/4 of the state legislatures vote in favor, it becomes part of the constitution.


Yes, and the Supreme Court will immediately nullify it in the same way it did the 14th Amendment via Slaughterhouse.

You still have not described any defense whatsoever against that.


A Constitutional amendment could pass. That's not the real problem. The real problem is that in the scenario under which such an amendment would be passed (a Supreme Court that insists on limiting RKBA as much as possible, if not outright denying it), it wouldn't matter. That's a direct consequence of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.

Fish
05-21-2012, 1:55 AM
Also please understand we want to be thrown into the right Briar Patch.

That's a dangerous game - I don't think the outcome is as certain as we all might think.

On the other hand, it's really the only game in town: it was only a matter of time before somebody realized that BB's existed and got hysterical about it. In fact, I'm (pleasantly) surprised at how commonplace BBed rifles had a chance to become before the hysterical set figured out what was going on.

So now the die is cast. The next "two weeks" will be interesting. May fortune favor our side.


"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -- Sun Tzu

Carnivore
05-21-2012, 2:10 AM
Leland Yee first is was violent games, now it is bullet buttons and next will be violent games with bullet buttons....

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/xbox_360_bullet_button_mods.jpg

Scratch705
05-21-2012, 3:14 AM
Leland Yee first is was violent games, now it is bullet buttons and next will be violent games with bullet buttons....

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/xbox_360_bullet_button_mods.jpg

that is a awesome modded controller. i would so want one.

edit: i second wanting a link to video. i know the video is word for word with the article but you just can't get the emotion through words.

SilverTauron
05-21-2012, 5:51 AM
Ultimately, CA has nothing to say about the limits of gun control will be. It's up to SCOTUS at this point. CA will push as much gun control as the SCOTUS allows.

And beyond it, if they can get away with it.If the Disarmament Lobby passes an unconstitutional law which somehow passes judicial muster, they win.Look at the intentional disregard for the FOPA that New York/New Jersey airport police have. A local East Coast judge essentially said that its OK for the Port Authority police to ignore Federal Law protecting gun owners in transit.


What part of 82% of states being pro-gun rights do you not understand? The gun rights lobby is that strongest political lobby in the US - and by far the most effective. What do you think the reaction would be if SCOTUS reversed Heller? It would galvanize the gun rights movement in the whole country.


The "whole country" has already written off California as a lost cause. If the national gun lobby went before the government stating that the Feds should prevent California from passing infringement legislation, the same argument could be turned against states which pass pro-2A laws.Obama won't be the last liberal in the White House.


CA, NY, MD, and the rest of the 9 states that are still anti-gun rights would not be enough to stop an amendment. Senators and Representatives from the 41 states that are pro-gun rights would have to choose between not be re-elected or voting against the amendment. Almost all would chose to vote yes and preserve their re-election chances.

Yes they would. Democratic politicos would make it a landmark issue to champion California's "strong stance against the NRA". They would do whatever it took to ensure any pro gun bills die in committee, as HR 822 has. That piece of legislation has enough traction to pass the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate, which is why it will spend the rest of its days buried in the Senate Judiciary Committee, never to emerge for a vote.



There would be a lot of arguing over wording and what kind of weapons would be protected - but in the end, the required 2/3 of both houses would pass something - probably with some votes to spare. Just think about how far the AWB got.

Remember the FOPA? That was an act intended to help gun owners. At the last minute political manouvering resulted in Democrats causing the full auto registry to be closed.Going Federal with gun rights laws is a lot like gambling:we can win big, draw, or lose our shirts.




Once that happens, it goes out to the states. The president has absolutely no role whatsoever. Once 3/4 of the state legislatures vote in favor, it becomes part of the constitution.

If you think about it, the process actually favors the less populated states. Population does not influence a states representation in the Senate or how it is counted for ratification purposes. This is to our advantage.

The rest of the nation is not like CA, let alone SF. The bulk of the states are not prepared to give up their firearms or their constitutional protections.

The rest of the nation gives less than a tinkers da** about California. They think someone would have to be nuts to live in a place which treats you like a serf. The reason gun owners tolerate it is because as far as most of them are concerned, you guys brought it on yourselves. If there's a resolution advanced for The Ban, there will be efforts on the part of the NRA to stop or render it moot, but that's so that politicians don't get it in their heads to try it elsewhere. That's not a flattering thing to say,but its the truth. Texas gun owners will just shake their heads and think "why hasn't that crooked state slid into the ocean yet."

Darklyte27
05-21-2012, 5:52 AM
Interesting from wiki,


"Leland Yee immigrated to San Francisco from Taishan,[1] Guangdong, China when he was three years old and later became a naturalized United States citizen. His father served in the U.S. Army and the Merchant Marines.[2] Yee attended San Francisco's Martin Luther King Jr. Academic Middle School and earned a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley, a master's from San Francisco State University and a Ph.D. in Child Psychology from the University of Hawaii."

I think his father would slap him over the head if he saw what he is doing today.

Falconis
05-21-2012, 6:27 AM
Interesting from wiki,


"Leland Yee immigrated to San Francisco from Taishan,[1] Guangdong, China when he was three years old and later became a naturalized United States citizen. His father served in the U.S. Army and the Merchant Marines.[2] Yee attended San Francisco's Martin Luther King Jr. Academic Middle School and earned a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley, a master's from San Francisco State University and a Ph.D. in Child Psychology from the University of Hawaii."

I think his father would slap him over the head if he saw what he is doing today.


Not necessarily. I know someone who served 10+ years in the Navy and came out anti gun. Won't even teach his kids anything about them.

stitchnicklas
05-21-2012, 7:58 AM
ANY USABLE LINK YET??????????????????

all i can find is the story from a couple weeks ago...

Bruce
05-21-2012, 7:58 AM
Failure to anticipate that the military will fire on its own civilians is failure to learn from very nearly every other country that has experienced a civil insurrection, including our own.

It was our own people that we fired upon during the Civil War.


So unlike you, I cannot have "faith" that the U.S. military will not fire on a bunch of armed civilians. It will. It has before and it will again.

Remember, to the military, the armed civilians will be terrorists. The U.S. government will have absolute control over the broadcast media by that time, it will have essentially shut down the internet, and the military gets its very orders from the U.S. government. The only information that those in the military will be getting that won't be from government-controlled sources will be through direct word of mouth.

There will most certainly be people in the military who cannot fire on civilians, but history has repeatedly shown that there are sufficient numbers of military people willing to fire on their own that the numbers who would refuse will not make a difference in the outcome.




Good luck shooting down that C130 gunship with your peashooters, much less that B1 bomber, that Tomahawk guided missile, etc.

Number of small arms is not enough. Not even close.

The civilians are outgunned by orders of magnitude. This isn't the 1700s where the average civilian and the average soldier were on essentially equal footing. In the 21st century, the average soldier is backed by megatons of explosive power of all kinds, not to mention the various other exotic weaponry that only the government has access to.

No, the disparity in firepower between the government and the citizenry has never in the history of the planet been so high.




If you mean "survive" as in "give up the right entirely", then sure, I agree with you. You can pretend to fight after that all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't matter. Slaughterhouse remains standing even now. If we lose the fight for RKBA now, we will have lost it for many generations to come. That's as permanent as it gets.

One word:

Wolverines!!

NotEnufGarage
05-21-2012, 8:02 AM
So is this just a move from Yee to show us that he is working? I mean what do these representatives really do? I feel given enough time, everything will be banned or regulated, then would we really need them? Geez, I was flipping channels a couple of minutes earlier, and I saw that the city of Carmichael (sp?), you need a permit from City Hall to wear high heels in public.

I guess that shows just how far off the rails the press has gone. Carmichael is not a city and there is no city hall. It's part of unincorporated Sacramento County.

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 8:15 AM
He is supposed to submit a bill today. He has a dozen or so he could gut and amend. I get the feeling he is talking all the way out his ***, and we will never hear another peep on this subjet. This is an issue the state does not want to take on. What are they going to do, reopen the register? Compensate six figures worth of 'assault weapon' owners? The state, with a little help from CGF has ****ed themselves in a corner.

I think they put yee on the spot. If you look at his record, he seems to be very confused a lot of the time. The legislature will have its hands full just dealing with retired LEO's and their guns this session. The bigger question is, CBS, should I be angry at them or not? I feel like they kicked this hornets nest, they need to follow up or something. They cant just go around stiring the pot getting people all worked up, even possibly hung over and dim witted politicians, and then say, 'we are just asking questions'. You sow the wind, you reap the hurricane.

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 8:18 AM
Leland Yee first is was violent games, now it is bullet buttons and next will be violent games with bullet buttons....

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/xbox_360_bullet_button_mods.jpg

This is clever. 'Bullet buttons'.... I am going to spread this around a bit.

cdtx2001
05-21-2012, 8:19 AM
It will be interesting to see what this Yee character is gonna do now.

I double dog dare him to ban the bullet button.

Sportsmans_Arms_Gabe
05-21-2012, 8:21 AM
The only thing I am bummed about was that I shocked the interviewer when I told her that less than 7% of gun crimes used a so called "AW." She asked me for backup and I was wrong. It was 8% but 5.34% are so called "assault pistols" like the Tec-9. ARs and AKs were found by the Federal Government to constitute less than 3% of gun crime...

-Gene

Gene - regardless, thanks for making an appearance and speaking with intelligence and passion. Those of us who make our living selling firearms in this bassakwards state truly appreciate you and everything CG has done/continues to do.

morfeeis
05-21-2012, 8:28 AM
ANY USABLE LINK YET??????????????????

all i can find is the story from a couple weeks ago...
2X.
i'm not installing silver-light to watch their video. anyone have another link to the video?

tenpercentfirearms
05-21-2012, 8:57 AM
I can't seem to find a link to the video anywhere either.

jwkincal
05-21-2012, 9:09 AM
To dismiss the possibility (no, probability) that the military will turn against the civilian insurrectionists is to ignore very nearly the entire history of the world. Libya is an interesting and notable exception, but it is just that: an exception.

Here's a few more exceptions from recent memory

Tienanmen square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienanmen_Square_Massacre#Clearing_the_Square) (the first troops sent in wouldn't advance into the square; they were locals. The Gov't had to send out to the provinces to get guys that could be sold on the "dangerous revolutionaries" story)

Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Stănculescu) (I'll never forget the footage of the People's Army having it out with the Stasi in high-rise to high-rise action in downtown Bucharest)

Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army) (Still evolving, perhaps, but clear that there are divided loyalties)

Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution#Under_Hosni_Mubarak.27s_r ule) ("The military reportedly refused to follow orders to fire live ammunition, and exercised restraint overall.")

Of course, there's no way to know short of actually finding out. Personally I think the cat is alive but I'm happy to never see the box opened...

Wherryj
05-21-2012, 9:12 AM
While watching CBS news on Channel 5 in the East Bay they showed a blurb about how they broke the story of gun manufactures getting around CA Assault Weapon Ban. Their follow up story seems to be banning the bullet button.

Of course that made me frown rather deeply. Interesting though, as I watched the report they did on the Bullet Button a few weeks ago. It did not seem bias to me. It seemed pretty much to the point, no real hype and they even read some tweets that were from obvious 2A supporters. But this blurb seemed much more hostile.

So seems that their maybe a new law being drafted that attempts to do away with it. =(

I'll give it up gladly for a regular mag release but I doubt that's the law they're gonna go for.

Banning the Bullet Button is going to be a rather messy affair. Do they just ban them bay name (such as the first attempt to ban "assault weapons") or by "character"? How long before the manufacturers merely change the name of styling?

If they DO manage to ban bullet buttons, doesn't that open yet another period of registration for "assault weapons""? Meaning that the state will have just grandfathered another how many million that can now be used without the bullet button/low capacity mags, etc.

Neither outcome sounds very palatable to the anti's. I suspect that they'll just grouse about it.

qmaB4Im0tY

dfletcher
05-21-2012, 9:24 AM
I am imagining the challenges of crafting new legislation that partially undoes existing law. It seems like quite a pain in the neck. On the other hand, why would not a simple "Section XYZ (tool to detach) shall not apply to firearms sold after 1 June 2012 and any magazine must be permanently affixed or require complete disassembly of the firearm to be removed" suffice? Is it necessary to touch the many existing BB firearms to regulate the new? Wouldn't the approach be to treat such guns as is done with hi cap magazines - before a certain date & they're OK, after they're not.

Are we assuming some weasely little lawyer (a real one, not the LCAV folks) couldn't draft such a bill?

IPSICK
05-21-2012, 9:32 AM
I would appreciate folks NOT elevating the drama on this matter - in particular, attacks on Yee.

I won't go into detail, but please try to understand the term Odd Duck.

Also please understand we want to be thrown into the right Briar Patch.

Admittedly, there is still a part of me that remains skeptical of getting thrown into the right briar patch though I have a good amount of confidence in the people working for that strategy.

It is interesting though that the anti-centric segment makes no mention of featureless rifles. Maybe it treads too close to some of the sporting/hunting crowd who they feel may not be completely on our side yet.

Also, I too am hoping this doesn't turn into a registration period where I end up having more gun privileges than others. Honestly, I initially welcomed registration because of the possibility of having a fully functional AR but as a rights advocate the more privileges than others idea did not sit very well with me.

For now I need to keep on reminding myself that this is chess not checkers.



P.s. I didn't think Gene invented the Bullet Button. Am I more ignorant than I thought about this?

CBruce
05-21-2012, 9:42 AM
I'm not really in the market for an AR right now, but if they do manage to pass something that would grandfather in a new batch of exempt assault rifles, I'm going to pick up at least two to take advantage of it.

Personmans
05-21-2012, 9:43 AM
Do we know when the bill is going to be released? Quite curious about it.

robcoe
05-21-2012, 9:44 AM
I think I just came up with a solution to all these stupid laws, it would require an ammending the Constitution, but it might work.

It would be something that says ALL laws, federal, state, local, everything, have a 5 year experation date. Keep them buisy keeping the basics(no murder, ect) in force that they don't have time to try and pass anything like Yee's BB ban.

db.40
05-21-2012, 9:56 AM
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets" -gunfacts.info

Does Mr. Yee think the bullet button was invented yesterday? BB rifles are used in an underwhelming level of crimes. These rifles have been in California homes for a long time and we don't see them used in crimes at all really. What a d-bag.

IPSICK
05-21-2012, 10:00 AM
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets" -gunfacts.info

Does Mr. Yee think the bullet button was invented yesterday? BB rifles are used in an underwhelming level of crimes. These rifles have been in California homes for a long time and we don't see them used in crimes at all really. What a d-bag.

Have there been any BB'd rifles used in a crime? Seems doubtful a criminal would commit a major crime and bother complying with a relatively minor law.

BT JUSTICE
05-21-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't imagine the Big 5 stores in and around San Francisco sell guns... but can you imagine the S%&* hemmorage Yee would have if he saw the featureless AKs for sale? Not to mention all of the many featureless military style rifles floating around now... Don't tell him that semi auto Ma deuce doesn't count as a banned 50 BMG rifle either...

GammaRei
05-21-2012, 10:08 AM
I don't imagine the Big5 stores in and around San Francisco sell guns... but can you imagine the S%&* hemmorage Yee would have if he saw the featureless AKs for sale? Not to mention all of the many featureless military style rifles floating around now... Don't tell him that semi auto Ma deuce doesn't count as a banned 50 BMG rifle either...

Wait really... I want a ma deuce.....

- G

Thordo
05-21-2012, 10:10 AM
ANY USABLE LINK YET??????????????????

all i can find is the story from a couple weeks ago...

This link is working as of 2 minutes ago. Wait a few seconds for it to show up on your screen. It'll be after the third paragraph in the article.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

Thordo

GutPunch
05-21-2012, 10:22 AM
This link is working as of 2 minutes ago. Wait a few seconds for it to show up on your screen. It'll be after the third paragraph in the article.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

Thordo

Thank you!

Babycakes
05-21-2012, 10:27 AM
hmmm... if they try and ban the bullet button by name... and not change what is already written in the law... couldn't you just switch over to a different magazine lock... since "bullet button" is a trademark of only one manufacturer?

Kerplow
05-21-2012, 10:28 AM
Wait really... I want a ma deuce.....

- G

It's not a shoulder fired rifle, which is apparently a specific part of the ban.

Ubermcoupe
05-21-2012, 10:29 AM
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7307628

Yuk.

pTa
05-21-2012, 10:31 AM
I am imagining the challenges of crafting new legislation that partially undoes existing law. It seems like quite a pain in the neck. On the other hand, why would not a simple "Section XYZ (tool to detach) shall not apply to firearms sold after 1 June 2012 and any magazine must be permanently affixed or require complete disassembly of the firearm to be removed" suffice? Is it necessary to touch the many existing BB firearms to regulate the new? Wouldn't the approach be to treat such guns as is done with hi cap magazines - before a certain date & they're OK, after they're not.

Are we assuming some weasely little lawyer (a real one, not the LCAV folks) couldn't draft such a bill?

/Does the M1 Garand need to be completely disassemble dto remove the floorplate or magazine spring?// how about the mini14 or SKS? / Get it now? /Snmarter lawyers/politicians than Yee have looked at BB weapons and shook their heads/ do you think they were just dumb and Leland Yee is some genius?//.

RazzB7
05-21-2012, 10:37 AM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/576544_391511180887030_332056260165856_1044916_166 996065_n.jpg

PandaLuv
05-21-2012, 10:41 AM
Looks like Leland Yee wants to go 'Full Retard'.

he already has.



that really pisses me off.

dfletcher
05-21-2012, 10:42 AM
/Does the M1 Garand need to be completely disassemble dto remove the floorplate or magazine spring?// how about the mini14 or SKS? / Get it now? /Smarter lawyers/politicians than Yee have looked at BB weapons and shook their heads/ do you think they were just dumb and Leland Yee is some genius?//.

The Garand does not qualify as an AW because it does not have a detachable magazine. The Mini 14 in standard configuration does not qualify as an AW. The "manufactured after" date would apply to firearms which, absent installation of the BB, would be an AW by configuration.

I am not aware that "smarter lawyers/politicians" have looked at the BB specifically. I'd be interested to know who and when. No, I do not think they are dumb nor do I believe Yee is a "genius".

But I do believe in trying to figure out what "the other side" may come up with so we may be better prepared to fight back.

tenpercentfirearms
05-21-2012, 10:43 AM
This link is working as of 2 minutes ago. Wait a few seconds for it to show up on your screen. It'll be after the third paragraph in the article.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

Thordo

Thanks!

I guess we all need to build more featureless rifles.

Prince50
05-21-2012, 10:44 AM
The saddest part was Gene claiming to be the creator of my Bullet Button. Gene has never created a single mag lock in his life, and it has always been his assertion that he was a creator. Gene was in the group wh at first who said bullet tip magazine locks were illegal. He was then the one to make an about face and try to release one for sale, which did not look like the current and real Bullet Button. he never produced the product, as myself and others already had them made.

Gene has done nothing to proliferate the distribution of this device, and it was my company who mainstreamed, invented, manufactured,NAMED, and convinced every major AR manufacturer and most other rifle manufacturers to actually ship compliant firearms into this state. it is not known. The Hoffman mag device, or the Gene lock. it is not his trademark that has now become a mainstream term if he industry, it is not anything he made that got our rifles shipped into this state.

Shame on you Gene.

It is a travesty that I and my staff at BulletButton.com are having their very important efforts overshadowed by Gene. The folks who deserve this recognition are Raddlock, semiautosam, Solar Tactical, Vamfire, and of course myself.

As to the bill......... We will see.

Darin Prince
Inventor and owner of he Bullet Button

kwansao
05-21-2012, 10:44 AM
Yes, Leland yee is only interested in advancing his own career.

Jason_2111
05-21-2012, 10:50 AM
he already has.



that really pisses me off.

Agreed.

I think I'll start an AR pistol build this week.

tonelar
05-21-2012, 10:52 AM
If my 22 year old cousin knows that :
"Leland Yee is the king of wasting everyone's time and money with £#*++¥ legislation that's already been defeated by logic and precedents before even being submitted."

What are the chances this goes anywhere?

Prince50,
I haven't seen the story. Is it possible Gene's words were hacked up by CBS?

RazzB7
05-21-2012, 10:54 AM
The saddest part was Gene claiming to be the creator of my Bullet Button. Gene has never created a single mag lock in his life, and it has always been his assertion that he was a creator. Gene was in the group wh at first who said bullet tip magazine locks were illegal. He was then the one to make an about face and try to release one for sale, which did not look like the current and real Bullet Button. he never produced the product, as myself and others already had them made.

Gene has done nothing to proliferate the distribution of this device, and it was my company who mainstreamed, invented, manufactured,NAMED, and convinced every major AR manufacturer and most other rifle manufacturers to actually ship compliant firearms into this state. it is not known. The Hoffman mag device, or the Gene lock. it is not his trademark that has now become a mainstream term if he industry, it is not anything he made that got our rifles shipped into this state.

Shame on you Gene.

It is a travesty that I and my staff at BulletButton.com are having their very important efforts overshadowed by Gene. The folks who deserve this recognition are Raddlock, semiautosam, Solar Tactical, Vamfire, and of course myself.

As to the bill......... We will see.

Darin Prince
Inventor and owner of he Bullet Button

As a proud owner of several of your products, thank you for all you've done on behalf of California gun owners.

IPSICK
05-21-2012, 10:58 AM
If my 22 year old cousin knows that :
"Leland Yee is the king of wasting everyone's time and money with £#*++¥ legislation that's already been defeated by logic and precedents before even being submitted."

What are the chances this goes anywhere?

Prince50,
I haven't seen the story. Is it possible Gene's words were hacked up by CBS?

Unfortunately, Gene does claim to invent the Bullet Button in the segment. However, it doesn't diminish what he's done for our cause. I just wished he gave credit where credit was due. It sill may be possible that KPIX encouraged him to take responsibility for the device, although that doesn't excuse him or the station.

DRH
05-21-2012, 10:59 AM
The D bag's website site says he is going to gut and rewrite his exsiting billl SB249
http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-05-21-yee-introduces-bill-close-loophole-assault-weapon-law


Here is the bill but no changes have been posted yet - SB249
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_249&sess=CUR&house=B&author=yee

FastFinger
05-21-2012, 11:00 AM
You could have Pete Stark.

Maxine Waters. Ouch.

thedrickel
05-21-2012, 11:01 AM
All SAS did was steal from people, he never had an original idea in his life. Ask me how I know . . .

zvardan
05-21-2012, 11:04 AM
If this should somehow come to fruition, what would be required is a complete rewrite of the AWB. Changing the wording in such a fashion that would eliminate the BB as an option would be extremely difficult.

If anything, calguns gets its name in the news and those who still thought these items to be illegal now know they are not. This would include business outside of California who won't sell us certain products.

Kerplow
05-21-2012, 11:05 AM
So apparently this legislation is going to be introduced today, should we expect a panic run on OLL's?

tonelar
05-21-2012, 11:05 AM
The Garand does not qualify as an AW because it does not have a detachable magazine. The Mini 14 in standard configuration does not qualify as an AW. The "manufactured after" date would apply to firearms which, absent installation of the BB, would be an AW by configuration.

I am not aware that "smarter lawyers/politicians" have looked at the BB specifically. I'd be interested to know who and when. No, I do not think they are dumb nor do I believe Yee is a "genius".

But I do believe in trying to figure out what "the other side" may come up with so we may be better prepared to fight back.

None of the current BB'd semis have detachable magazines. I'm willing to bet that at least three state attorney generals have looked at these CA legal ARs and AKs with "no comment" already.

You're good. You're keeping up with the "know your enemy" philosophy.

gose
05-21-2012, 11:07 AM
Unfortunately, Gene does claim to invent the Bullet Button in the segment. However, it doesn't diminish what he's done for our cause. I just wished he gave credit where credit was due. It sill may be possible that KPIX encouraged him to take responsibility for the device, although that doesn't excuse him or the station.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45322

burger and fries
05-21-2012, 11:09 AM
so what will happen if this piece of legislation passes?

do we appeal, and if so, what can we expect in terms of realistic opposition?

if it does pass, what can we (BB ar owners) expect?

lrdchivalry
05-21-2012, 11:10 AM
In any case, Obama would be a fool to rely on the military to back him unless he is on firm constitutional grounds. Ditto for any other president.


We also don't want to forget how Obama stated that we couldn't rely on the military to defend the "homeland" and that is why we wanted to create a national defense force, just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded. Couple that with the DHS report that stated that members of the military are to remain under suspicion (not to be trusted). I think they know that there will be more than a few who will not follow orders. I believe there were even stories about guard units refusing to disarm citizens after Katrina, so we know the entire U.S. military will not blindly follow orders.

Will there be those that will fight against the Constitution and the citizens? Sure, however, there will be more than a few that will not and as others have pointed out, will take their equipment with them.

IPSICK
05-21-2012, 11:13 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45322

Well label me mistaken. So what is Prince50 actually claiming then?

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 11:14 AM
http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-05-21-yee-introduces-bill-close-loophole-assault-weapon-law

RazzB7
05-21-2012, 11:15 AM
So, with the stroke of a pen, SB249 goes from an obscure agricultural bill (my brain hurts from reading it and trying to make sense. I'm just a mechanic) to a new "assault weapons" ban?

I guess I'm politically naive. Why was this done? Does it somehow get it to a vote sooner because the bill already exists, even though it was something completely different?

burger and fries
05-21-2012, 11:15 AM
just checked the meeting minutes and nothing about the bullet button is listed for today.

http://senate.ca.gov/

Jeepers
05-21-2012, 11:16 AM
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7307628

Yuk.

thanks for the vid link

i have to say i didnt like the twisting of truths from either side .... will have to wait and see where this goes, sure hope Mr Yee doesnt get wind of featureless and pre 2000 owned mags :rolleyes:

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 11:19 AM
“There is absolutely no reason why these military style weapons need to have such easily changeable magazines,” said Yee. “While most gun owners are law abiding, I am deeply concerned with these assault weapons getting into the wrong hands, resulting in mass casualties of civilians or law enforcement officers.”

Notice how he's playing the fear mongering tactic of drawing in law enforcement officers into the equation?:facepalm: We need more retired LEO's to go on the record say this is bs, or hell what about celebrities? Can't we recruit R lee. Ermey the " Gunny"? He lives in CA, he's a badazz mofo and has gone against many anti gun proponents.

Kerplow
05-21-2012, 11:21 AM
To get around the law, gun makers have created a new mechanism, or “tool,” that allows the magazine to be easily removed by the tip of a bullet or in some cases by just putting a small magnet over the “bullet button,” basically recreating a normal push button and allowing magazines to be changed within seconds.

I wonder if this is the mag magnet finally coming to bite us in the ***. Then again, legislators in this state are so kooky I'm sure the bullet tool is scary enough to prompt feel good legislation.

robcoe
05-21-2012, 11:22 AM
“There is absolutely no reason why these military style weapons need to have such easily changeable magazines,” said Yee. “While most gun owners are law abiding, I am deeply concerned with these assault weapons getting into the wrong hands, resulting in mass casualties of civilians or law enforcement officers.”

Notice how hes playing the fear mongering tactic of drawing in law enforcement officers into the equations?:facepalm: We need more retired LEO's to go on the record say this is bs, or hell what about celebrities? Can't we recruit R lee. Emery the " Gunny"? He lives in CA, he's a badazz mofo and has gone against many anti gun proponents.

Actually what we need is for current officers to start pressuring their unions to quit asking for exemptions from anti-gun laws and start just opposing them completely, whether they have exemptions or not.

burger and fries
05-21-2012, 11:23 AM
We need more retired LEO's to go on the record say this is bs, or hell what about celebrities?

getting mainstream celebs to support our cause will be like getting vegans to eat bloody steaks wrapped in thick-cut bacon.

Prince50
05-21-2012, 11:25 AM
Bullet tip magazine lock designs were submitted he at Calguns long before Gene released the "California safe range mag lock"' and we were told they were illegal. This is while I was making my Prince50 mag lock, already bringing in California complaint rifles.

Then January first, Gene wrote his post, claiming that it suddenly dawned on him to create a bullet tip magazine lock.

It is not! and has never been a Bullet Button, which is the trademark for my product which I produced and have produced since it's inception.

Gene as far as I know has never produced any actual product, his design was over complicated, late to the game, never produced, and Never, Never called a Bullet Button. He has also never spent one minute marketing my Bullet Button to those who matter most to us, the manufacturers. I did that work, and it is my company who can claim it.

Darin

Zachs300zx
05-21-2012, 11:27 AM
http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-05-21-yee-introduces-bill-close-loophole-assault-weapon-law

Unbelievable. :banghead:

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 11:29 AM
Bullet tip magazine lock designs were submitted he at Calguns long before Gene released the "California safe range mag lock"' and we were told they were illegal. This is while I was making my Prince50 mag lock, already bringing in California complaint rifles.

Then January first, Gene wrote his post, claiming that it suddenly dawned on him to create a bullet tip magazine lock.

It is not! and has never been a Bullet Button, which is the trademark for my product which I produced and have produced since it's inception.

Gene as far as I know has never produced any actual product, his design was over complicated, late to the game, never produced, and Never, Never called a Bullet Button. He has also never spent one minute marketing my Bullet Button to those who matter most to us, the manufacturers. I did that work, and it is my company who can claim it.

Darin

Darin,

At this present time we should unite as California gun owners. I understand there is ongoing debate between you and Gene, but Gene is leading the fight against Yee right now. Can we please save the infighting for later? You may not even get to sell any Prince 50's or bullet buttons at this going rate.

Arisaka
05-21-2012, 11:30 AM
The saddest part was Gene claiming to be the creator of my Bullet Button. Gene has never created a single mag lock in his life, and it has always been his assertion that he was a creator. Gene was in the group wh at first who said bullet tip magazine locks were illegal. He was then the one to make an about face and try to release one for sale, which did not look like the current and real Bullet Button. he never produced the product, as myself and others already had them made.

Gene has done nothing to proliferate the distribution of this device, and it was my company who mainstreamed, invented, manufactured,NAMED, and convinced every major AR manufacturer and most other rifle manufacturers to actually ship compliant firearms into this state. it is not known. The Hoffman mag device, or the Gene lock. it is not his trademark that has now become a mainstream term if he industry, it is not anything he made that got our rifles shipped into this state.

Shame on you Gene.

It is a travesty that I and my staff at BulletButton.com are having their very important efforts overshadowed by Gene. The folks who deserve this recognition are Raddlock, semiautosam, Solar Tactical, Vamfire, and of course myself.

As to the bill......... We will see.

Darin Prince
Inventor and owner of he Bullet Button

I thought that was strange as well. I thought everyone knew that Darin invented the Bullet Button.:confused:

NSR500
05-21-2012, 11:30 AM
:popcorn:

Adeodatus
05-21-2012, 11:31 AM
This pisses me off SO FREAKN BAD!!!

Iv'e drawn my line in the sand... I WILL NOT submit any more to this tyranny!!! NO MORE!!!:mad:

Where is that CGF donation link?...

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 11:32 AM
Actually what we need is for current officers to start pressuring their unions to quit asking for exemptions from anti-gun laws and start just opposing them completely, whether they have exemptions or not.

CB5 is not only the enemy of law abiding citizens in CA. They also wrote an article on LEO's retiring with AR15's, casting them in a negative light. It doesn't matter if you wear Blue,Green or civi clothes their main agenda is complete disarmament of everyone in CA. Including former LEO's. I'm tried of this psychological state of being a "bad...bad.. citizen", always looking over shoulders.

nick
05-21-2012, 11:37 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. Your fundemental flaw in this argument is that you assume that the entire US military will turn against the US people. You are mistaken, they will not. The military is made up of citizens, who gain no special treatment or privileges from serving in the military, and therefore serve for the patriotism or a paycheck, whatever makes them happy. Sure, the top brass doesn't think this way, but the guys on the ground do. You might say that there will be no means to communicate with the troops, and that the media and internet will be shut down. Dont you think the military will see this as well?? Don't you think they understand that thr government who is willing to order an attack on civilians is horribly corrupt?? To think that the US military will turn against their own people is hilariously ridiculous .



QFT

Some will, some won't. The military is representative of the citizenry (to a point, since specific segments of society provide larger numbers of soldiers). any, if not most, soldiers fight for each other, and not necessarily some ideals/values. it doesn't mean they don't have such ideals, it just means that they value the buddy next to them more.

Kcbrown's mistake is in making broad assumptions about History, and trying to apply it directly. For example, in our own War for Independence a lot of the rebels/patriots were formerly (or currently) of British military service, including one George Washington. This has also been the case with all successful revolutions of the past 200 years. There were also numerous cases of the military suppressing the uprisings. So it's not nearly as clearcut as most people try to make this.

tonelar
05-21-2012, 11:38 AM
Did Gene's button make it into production? I know definitely that the orig Prince50 lock predates it. But does the Prince50 bullet button predate his design?

zvardan
05-21-2012, 11:40 AM
You know, the context needs to be taken into consideration.

With him as the creator, does it not take any heat off of you? Do you want publicity? Credit? More issues?

Furthermore, if you Google "bullet button", doesn't your high priced design always come up?

burger and fries
05-21-2012, 11:40 AM
where's the NRA in all this?

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 11:41 AM
Darin,

At this present time we should unite as California gun owners. I understand there is ongoing debate between you and Gene, but Gene is leading the fight against Yee right now. Can we please save the infighting for later? You may not even get to sell any Prince 50's or bullet buttons at this going rate.

This is good advice. We really need to circle wagons right now. Although, I would not be happy either if I was the designer, manufacturer and marketer of the 'Bullet Button'.


If we fall apart now, it wont matter anyway....

GutPunch
05-21-2012, 11:43 AM
What I want to know is how much of this is re-election garbage or just how serious Senator Yee is actually? Is he trying to get in line for a US House/Senator's seat?

IPSICK
05-21-2012, 11:44 AM
CB5 is not only the enemy of law abiding citizens in CA. They also wrote an article on LEO's retiring with AR15's, casting them in a negative light. It doesn't matter if you wear Blue,Green or civi clothes their main agenda is complete disarmament of everyone in CA. Including former LEO's. I'm tried of this psychological state of being a "bad...bad.. citizen", always looking over shoulders.

But that's why LEO's need to join us on a united front and not hide behind exemptions.

tonelar
05-21-2012, 11:49 AM
Im actually eager to see what that brilliant guy Yee comes up with. I guess having a drawer full of unbuilt lowers is good insurance.

trashman
05-21-2012, 11:49 AM
Interesting - so Yee gutted the Cow Palace governance bill (SB 249), which was designed to give the localities some say over activities occurring there (namely, gun shows).

--Neill

Personmans
05-21-2012, 11:51 AM
Is there any way to find out what the "new text" of SB249 is?
Or do we have to wait until "Yee removed the contents of Senate Bill 249 and replaced it with the new assault weapon language. The bill will likely be considered by the Assembly next month."

b.faust
05-21-2012, 11:52 AM
Just donated to CGF, I suggest everyone else does this as well. Even a buck is better than nothing. I think this guy (Yee) is a moron and this probably has no teeth, but I'm not going to sit back and take chances.

So, don't just gripe, throw some $$$ at the problem.
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate.html

B.

Personmans
05-21-2012, 11:55 AM
Is there any way to find out what the "new text" of SB249 is?
Or do we have to wait until "Yee removed the contents of Senate Bill 249 and replaced it with the new assault weapon language. The bill will likely be considered by the Assembly next month."


Update:
Just called Senator Yee's office. The new text of SB249 will be available online tomorrow. Just follow the link:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
and enter SB249...
I believe even after the change, this link should work:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_249&sess=CUR&house=B&author=yee

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 11:55 AM
Is there any way to find out what the "new text" of SB249 is?
Or do we have to wait until "Yee removed the contents of Senate Bill 249 and replaced it with the new assault weapon language. The bill will likely be considered by the Assembly next month."

I think that is exactly how this is gonna go.

Just donated to CGF, I suggest everyone else does this as well. Even a buck is better than nothing. I think this guy (Yee) is a moron and this probably has no teeth, but I'm not going to sit back and take chances.

So, don't just gripe, throw some $$$ at the problem.
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate.html

B.

Also great advice. That 25 bucks I send to the SAF or NRA every month is going direct to CGF for now. Every bit helps.

RazzB7
05-21-2012, 11:55 AM
Regardless of who invented it, we ALL need to fight this legislation. If we get into a genitalia measuring match while Rome burns, we will all lose.

Librarian
05-21-2012, 12:00 PM
So, with the stroke of a pen, SB249 goes from an obscure agricultural bill (my brain hurts from reading it and trying to make sense. I'm just a mechanic) to a new "assault weapons" ban?

I guess I'm politically naive. Why was this done? Does it somehow get it to a vote sooner because the bill already exists, even though it was something completely different?

'Gut and amend' is one of my favorite things to hate about the rules of the California Legislature.

The bill passed out of the Senate in its form as an Ag bill.

It didn't get very far in the Assembly, but did get out of its house of origin, so became a '2 year bill'.

It will likely be re-referred to committee, out of Ag to Public Safety, and then to Appropriations for a pro forma look (probably no fiscal effects); if it passes both committees, then it goes to the Assembly floor, and if it passes there, goes back to the Senate for concurrence with Assembly amendments (usually another pro forma step).

It therefore would skip the whole Senate committee process (in this form).

Had this gut and amend not been permitted, the bill would have had to wait until next January.

Personmans
05-21-2012, 12:04 PM
'Gut and amend' is one of my favorite things to hate about the rules of the California Legislature.
[...]
Had this gut and amend not been permitted, the bill would have had to wait until next January.

So where is CBS 5 to do an Expose on this?
Doesn't it hurt far more people to have underhanded legislation than a handful of law-abiding gun owners ever could?

RazzB7
05-21-2012, 12:04 PM
'Gut and amend' is one of my favorite things to hate about the rules of the California Legislature.

The bill passed out of the Senate in its form as an Ag bill.

It didn't get very far in the Assembly, but did get out of its house of origin, so became a '2 year bill'.

It will likely be re-referred to committee, out of Ag to Public Safety, and then to Appropriations for a pro forma look (probably no fiscal effects); if it passes both committees, then it goes to the Assembly floor, and if it passes there, goes back to the Senate for concurrence with Assembly amendments (usually another pro forma step).

It therefore would skip the whole Senate committee process (in this form).

Had this gut and amend not been permitted, the bill would have had to wait until next January.

Thanks for explaining that, Librarian. Now I have something new to hate about our state legislation. :rolleyes:

That is ridiculous on it's face and I don't know how any organization would allow wholesale changes without going back to square one.

curtisfong
05-21-2012, 12:05 PM
Had this gut and amend not been permitted, the bill would have had to wait until next January.

If the result of this bill is to re-open AW registration, I don't mind if it gets fast tracked.

jwkincal
05-21-2012, 12:10 PM
The saddest part about all of this is that this guy is writing f'ing LEGISLATION based entirely on what he saw on a SWEEPS-WEEK local news feature.

The species grows stupider before our very eyes...

Prince50
05-21-2012, 12:12 PM
After breathing, and some good advice from pro Calguns folks, I will chill out for now. The ball is not in my court right now. I hope it is corrected soon.

More important is our rights.

If you have not donated to Calguns, please do so now!

The fight for your rifles is on!

Darin

Tacit Blue
05-21-2012, 12:15 PM
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/ec/33/ec33e36766bb653b340166d7c2bca8ec.jpg


Drug Addicted Welfare Recipients, Fueling Mexican Illicit Drug Trades at Taxpayers Expense & Crook to Mayor; Candidate & Presumed Front Runner for San Francisco Mayor, Senator Leland Yee has BIG RAP Sheet:

From Crook to Mayor; traditions of former corruptive mayor Willie Lewis Brown is still alive and well in San Francisco. Believe it or not, Leland Yee is the current front runner for San Francisco mayor in these upcoming elections.

Current California State Senator Leland Yee is the Asian version of Race Card pundits, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson has a RAP sheet.

In the July 20 to 26th issue of the San Francisco weekly; revealed about Yee’s lack of explanation while San Francisco city supervisor, with a salary of $42,500 had a $60,000 dollars a year mortgage.



They also revealed that Leland Yee was arrested in a San Francisco in a prostitution dragnet, on Capp Street back around 1999 and thus was arrested. Senator Leland Yee has had other run-ins with the law. He was arrested for shoplifting, of all things, suntan lotion for his wife, in Keauhou Hawaii, back around 1992.

His children were forcibly removed out of a school in San Francisco for falsifying his home address and were also accused for altering medical records for recipients of his nonprofits to defraud government taxpayers. Leland Yee was accused of altering medical records for recipients of his non-profit to scheme, or bilk money from the government back in 1991.

Just LIKE former Mayor, Willie Lewis Brown, current OP-ED writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, Leland Yee is a special interests kind of guy; Yee sponsored 54 bills to organizations that GAVE him $188,755 in campaign contributions.

http://www.examiner.com/article/front-runner-for-san-francisco-mayor-senator-leland-yee-has-big-rap-sheet

Vlad 11
05-21-2012, 12:15 PM
Wow..so Sen. "No Debate, No Discussion" Yee is really going to open this door.

What kind of real support can this have? It has been 7-8 years or more and now some guy thinks he can take this on? Its not that we have the foot in the door, its the dam has completely collapsed and this moron is trying to put his finger in the leak.

Not gonna happen.

It will be great when this gets slapped down hard but these clueless idiots never seem to learn.

SanPedroShooter
05-21-2012, 12:16 PM
If the result of this bill is to re-open AW registration, I don't mind if it gets fast tracked.

That is interesting. I have heard people say they would rather have the fixed mag or featureless than deal with the storage/transportation/sales/inheritance/usage requirements and liabilities though. Maybe just sour grapes...?

I will have to do some research into just what owning a reg'd 'AW' entails aside from being able to run my old standard AK mags....

hoffmang
05-21-2012, 12:17 PM
After breathing, and some good advice from pro Calguns folks, I will chill out for now. The ball is not in my court right now. I hope it is corrected soon.

Darin and I will speak live shortly. One thing is completely true though. I did not invent the term/name "Bullet Button." That was 110% Darin's idea and I want everyone to know I agree with him fully on that. You'll note that I called it a "Range Safe Maglock." Also, if you watch the video on KPIX you can see where I was explaining that and then they cut into what I said next. 20 minutes of interview creates like 30 seconds of actual coverage.

-Gene

Wherryj
05-21-2012, 12:17 PM
I would appreciate folks NOT elevating the drama on this matter - in particular, attacks on Yee.

I won't go into detail, but please try to understand the term Odd Duck.

Also please understand we want to be thrown into the right Briar Patch.

I'm quite certain that, should we be thrown into the correct briar patch, Gura/Kilmer/Mitchell, et al. will make the best of the situation.

dfletcher
05-21-2012, 12:18 PM
Darin,

At this present time we should unite as California gun owners. I understand there is ongoing debate between you and Gene, but Gene is leading the fight against Yee right now. Can we please save the infighting for later? You may not even get to sell any Prince 50's or bullet buttons at this going rate.

I don't know the background of the disagreement. Reviewing the TV piece I noticed the reporter's voice over asserted who invented the BB, then Gene referenced design(ing) "it". I suppose we are to presume taken together this qualifies as someone claiming ownership, but is that what was really said? Casual listening may lead to that conclusion, that was my thought. But taken apart is that what was really said or was there creative editing and speaking in generalities?

I am hopeful disagreement doesn't get in the way of the bigger issue.