PDA

View Full Version : Proof "they" are after all guns...


bwiese
08-07-2012, 12:45 PM
For all the "moderates" and "duck hunters" who say we gunnies are paranoid, read this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg


If that doesn't confirm for you THEY'RE AFTER ALL GUNS, not just EBRs then you have a hole in your head.

(For reference, Adam Keigwin is Sen Leland Yee's aide and is driving SB249.)

BluNorthern
08-07-2012, 1:04 PM
Went to his facebook page. The guy is textbook.

ewarmour
08-07-2012, 1:05 PM
Na... it'll never happen here. Apathy, apathy, chortle, I'm a member of SASS and don't care about "clip" fed guns.

Mountain lions are people too! Hunting with hounds is unsportsman like. Trapping is bad. I don't do these things so you shouldn't either. Apathy, apathy.

Bit by bit, little by little you will be disarmed. Period. No debate, no discussion.

tbhracing
08-07-2012, 1:07 PM
My guns are my children, you can't have them, ever.

Casual_Shooter
08-07-2012, 1:17 PM
I have a feeling their plan is: Ask for everything. Fight tooth and nail for it. Settle for slightly less but still win.

SamsDX
08-07-2012, 1:18 PM
In case there was ever any question, here's additional proof:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1843/akeigwinbanallrifles001.jpg

stitchnicklas
08-07-2012, 1:21 PM
i will give nothing back,the line is drawn already...

PolishMike
08-07-2012, 1:22 PM
Haha Keigwin is such a ****tard. I enjoy his stupidity.

5thgen4runner
08-07-2012, 1:30 PM
i will give nothing back,the line is drawn already...

Same here enough already. We have been pushed far enough.

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 1:30 PM
Like arguing with a brick wall...

http://content.screencast.com/users/WolfSnap/folders/Snagit/media/d65c4a96-6d6d-4aa8-bd84-0dbe9d4220b7/2012-08-07_13-30-00.png

repubconserv
08-07-2012, 1:35 PM
unfortunately... this is true.

Muscles Glasses
08-07-2012, 1:36 PM
i will give nothing back,the line is drawn already...

Same here enough already. We have been pushed far enough.

Not one INCH!!! :chris::chris::chris::chris::chris::chris:

Glock22Fan
08-07-2012, 1:37 PM
Just proves the point, there's no compromising with these people. They've read the instructions for eating elephants. They will do it one bite at a time. After each bite, they will regroup and get ready for the next bite.

Every compromise suggested is just one bite. There is never any intent to give anything back (which surely is the true meaning of compromise).

They will chomp away until they are stopped, or reach a very hard bit they can't chew. There's no arguing logic with these mindless automatons. Our aim must be to give them those titanium mouthfuls, or blast them back with public opinion (backed with legislative action) or SCOTUS rulings. Every time one of us says "Well, I can live with . . . " there's another mouthful gone. And exactly the same as eating elephants, it is very difficult to reverse the process.

dad
08-07-2012, 1:44 PM
Na... it'll never happen here. Apathy, apathy, chortle, I'm a member of SASS and don't care about "clip" fed guns.

Mountain lions are people too! Hunting with hounds is unsportsman like. Trapping is bad. I don't do these things so you shouldn't either. Apathy, apathy.

Bit by bit, little by little you will be disarmed. Period. No debate, no discussion.

And that is just how they will do it, "bit by bit, little by little"!

Chip away here, chip away there!

And you tell yourself, "it's okay", "your permitted to have a 10 round magazine"!

The Lautenberg Amendment, that's a real good start on "bit by bit"!

"Stand up, organize, fight back"!

IPSICK
08-07-2012, 1:45 PM
I just took a hunter safety course this past weekend and the disconnect was palpable in the amount of FUD being provided by the instructor. The instructor really believed that magazines more than 5 rounds were illegal and that the mag magnet was something that wasn't already illegal.

Besides pointing out the faults of their apathy, how do we truly unite hunters with gun owners? I am very curious because besides the FUD there are slight but significant differences in culture. I think hunters believe in gun rights but they still seem to see enthusiasts as fanatical and not sportsmen like themselves.

ProlificARProspect
08-07-2012, 1:45 PM
Why would a advocate against sexual Assualt want to take a option to protect oneself from rapist off the table?... Such as legally owning a rifle?

A doubt a rapist want to victimize a armed person! A person that has gone through a terrible experience as sexual assualt, knows how important it is to fight to never be a victim again.

Adam Keigwin
Community Organizer
North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault
February 1999 – August 2000 (1 year 7 months)

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-keigwin/5/46a/355?_mSplash=1

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 1:45 PM
Wow, well that just seals what I have just realized over the last few months. The ultimate goal is a total ban. But we shouldn't be surprised. Many gun grabbers have said as much.

"Get guns off the street" literally means get all guns out of the hands of the people. And how many times have you heard politicians say those words? Sometimes they follow it up with "I'm not talking about some deer rifle..." yeah right. That's the lie.

1BigPea
08-07-2012, 1:48 PM
Adam Keigwin is sick in the head.

repubconserv
08-07-2012, 1:51 PM
I just took a hunter safety course this past weekend and the disconnect was palpable in the amount of FUD being provided by the instructor. The instructor really believed that magazines more than 5 rounds were illegal and that the mag magnet was something that wasn't already illegal.

Besides pointing out the faults of their apathy, how do we truly unite hunters with gun owners? I am very curious because besides the FUD there are slight but significant differences in culture. I think hunters believe in gun rights but they still seem to see enthusiasts as fanatical and not sportsmen like themselves.

The mag magnet itself (and in certain uses) is not illegal in CA. It is only illegal to use in certain ways.

kmca
08-07-2012, 1:52 PM
Just proves the point, there's no compromising with these people. They've read the instructions for eating elephants. They will do it one bite at a time. After each bite, they will regroup and get ready for the next bite.

Not quite sure I understand "their" concept of compromise. Doesn't it mean both sides give up something?:confused:

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 1:54 PM
I just took a hunter safety course this past weekend and the disconnect was palpable in the amount of FUD being provided by the instructor. The instructor really believed that magazines more than 5 rounds were illegal and that the mag magnet was something that wasn't already illegal.

50% of the world has an IQ < 100. Any questions?

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 1:54 PM
Not quite sure I understand "their" concept of compromise. Doesn't it mean both sides give up something?:confused:

They use the word "compromise" to trick us. It's not a compromise, we get nothing but the short end of the stick.

RazzB7
08-07-2012, 1:56 PM
When we push back, we are "gun nuts" or "The Gun Lobby" and politicians are "afraid of the NRA's political machine". They're waging a war of words with public opinion and we're losing.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2012, 2:02 PM
Not quite sure I understand "their" concept of compromise. Doesn't it mean both sides give up something?:confused:

Normally yes, however their idea of compromise is "you give me less than I want now, and I'll come back once the dust has settled and take more until I've got it all."

creekside
08-07-2012, 2:04 PM
Wow, well that just seals what I have just realized over the last few months. The ultimate goal is a total ban. But we shouldn't be surprised. Many gun grabbers have said as much.

"Get guns off the street" literally means get all guns out of the hands of the people. And how many times have you heard politicians say those words? Sometimes they follow it up with "I'm not talking about some deer rifle..." yeah right. That's the lie.

"Gun control" is explicitly about the goal of banning the possession of firearms in private hands.

This can be easily understood by observing a gun control politician's reaction to any legislation which clarifies existing law or improves processes. Frantic opposition as opposed to rational discussion.

Many years ago, I too fell for the lie of "moderate" gun control. I still think reasonable firearms regulations* are a good idea.

However, in a political climate where any reasonable regulation is immediately twisted out of all recognition, I have come to side with the NRA.

"Not one inch."

* Reasonable firearms regulations: not nearly as many as we have now. Start with making the 10 day waiting period apply only to the first firearm purchased. Achieves all of the same alleged public safety goals, less inconvenience for firearms owners. But watch "moderate" politicians froth if you suggest it.

Halco
08-07-2012, 2:10 PM
"according to County of Hawaii Police Lt. Ed Tanaka, shortly before 4 p.m. Dec. 19, 1992, Yee walked out the KTA Superstore in Kona's Keauhow Shopping Village -- with an 8-ounce bottle of Tropical Blend Tan Magnifier oil in the front pocket of his shorts.

A store security officer stopped him, and the police were called.

Yee told the arresting officer it was a mistake, but he wound up being hauled down to police headquarters anyway, where he was booked and photographed on suspicion of petty misdemeanor shoplifting.

An official at the Kona District Court tells us that authorities didn't prosecute the case because Yee -- who was serving on the San Francisco School Board at the time -- subsequently disappeared, apparently having returned to San Francisco without notifying law enforcement in Hawaii."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Mug-Shot-Doesn-t-Flatter-Supervisor-3326339.php#ixzz22tcX8bab

IPSICK
08-07-2012, 2:10 PM
The mag magnet itself (and in certain uses) is not illegal in CA. It is only illegal to use in certain ways.

Even you're correction of my post further emphasizes the FUD that was transmitted.

MUKAK
08-07-2012, 2:12 PM
50% of the world has an IQ < 100. Any questions?

more than 50!! lol

IPSICK
08-07-2012, 2:13 PM
50% of the world has an IQ < 100. Any questions?

Though, I appreciate your work on stopSB249 your post seems very sarcastic and divisive. The 2nd Am is for the common people even those with slightly less than 100 IQ's. Not that I am affirming or dismissing your comment.

Crazed_SS
08-07-2012, 2:16 PM
Someone should confront Yee and other SB249 supporters about this. I swear I read a quote earlier from some legislator who was saying the same ol thing about how he supports hunting bla bla bla...

vantec08
08-07-2012, 2:18 PM
I am through, forever, trying to compromise with those who deliberately want to infringe for the sole purpose of refusing to hold criminals, and a failed criminal justice system, accountable. There is not one particle of simple, plain-spoken honesty from them. Their entire drill is to make themselves "feel good" and avoid what 40 years of "understanding the underlying causes of crime" has wrought. After thousands of years as a species and hundreds as a society, we know what "causes" crime. Criminals do. Its like eating their hamburgers: they didnt kill the animal, they didnt butcher it or package it, or participate in any of that ugly mess, but they sure enjoy the results. Well guess what? THAT is the baseline of criminality and the adequate response TO it. ITS UGLY . . .MESSY. It isnt "nice" or clean or pleasant. Now, where in COTUS are any of us guaranteed a nice precise, antiseptic life?

jimh
08-07-2012, 2:22 PM
to the guys who say they won't give up the guns, if this bill passes, you will be a felon if you don't comply, you won't be able to use/keep your weapon legally. You will be a criminal. There is only one answer and our founding fathers knew it. The government must fear the people.

vantec08
08-07-2012, 2:32 PM
to the guys who say they won't give up the guns, if this bill passes, you will be a felon if you don't comply, you won't be able to use/keep your weapon legally. You will be a criminal. There is only one answer and our founding fathers knew it. The government must fear the people.

You know, this is exactly from where revolutions originate. Not in-and-of itself, but is one of the camel back-breakers. We have been, and continue to be, taken for granted more like "subjects" than citizens. Couldnt agree more, its past time for the government to fear the people.

morfeeis
08-07-2012, 2:33 PM
My guns are my children, you can't have them, ever.
.....

Interfan
08-07-2012, 2:40 PM
to the guys who say they won't give up the guns, if this bill passes, you will be a felon if you don't comply, you won't be able to use/keep your weapon legally. You will be a criminal. There is only one answer and our founding fathers knew it. The government must fear the people.

In CA, if you rolled out of bed this morning and drove to work, you probably broke at least three laws already. That is the problem with a legislature that is out of control and has become a factory for misguided and unnecessary laws.

Perhaps enforcing current laws, like those against shoplifting or criminal flight, would be more productive for Mr. Yee to focus on.

To they guys that think that this law is about the "Mag Magnet" and have adopted the view that it is OK to ban something that is already "illegal"; you're smoking crack. This law and those behind it are there to disarm and control. "They" understand the Second Amendment and why it is there, that is why "they" want to dispense with it. People seem to forget that Hitler was democratically elected at first, too.

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 2:50 PM
Though, I appreciate your work on stopSB249 your post seems very sarcastic and divisive. The 2nd Am is for the common people even those with slightly less than 100 IQ's. Not that I am affirming or dismissing your comment.

In point of fact, since IQ's are normally distributed on a bell curve (by definition), 50% of the population is below 100, and 50% of the population is above 100. It's literally how a normally distributed curve works.

The point is that not everyone who teaches hunting classes graduated at the top of their class. Unfortunately, it also means that some people aren't smart enough to be teaching a class and explaining the law. Spreading of FUD is a side-effect.

Interfan
08-07-2012, 2:54 PM
In point of fact, since IQ's are normally distributed on a bell curve (by definition), 50% of the population is below 100, and 50% of the population is above 100. It's literally how a normally distributed curve works.

The point is that not everyone who teaches hunting classes graduated at the top of their class. Unfortunately, it also means that some people aren't smart enough to be teaching a class and explaining the law. Spreading of FUD is a side-effect.

The other problem could be that the law is too complicated for your average person to understand; so the byproduct of complexity is misinformation. In the case of CA gun laws, that lack of understanding due to complexity is apparent with the legislature and law enforcement too.

vantec08
08-07-2012, 3:03 PM
The other problem could be that the law is too complicated for your average person to understand; so the byproduct of complexity is misinformation. In the case of CA gun laws, that lack of understanding due to complexity is apparent with the legislature and law enforcement too.

Which is why at least one regional sheriff's station captain retired in my county.

Left Coast Conservative
08-07-2012, 3:28 PM
They use the word "compromise" to trick us. It's not a compromise, we get nothing but the short end of the stick.

Yes, indeed! Most people, those who are not gun owners and who do not pay attention to this issue, do not know that the pro-control advocates do not debate in good faith. Phrases like "common sense gun laws" are really meant to convince the general public that the "grabbers" are the more reasonable side, and to garner their political support.

How to combat that? Get more people to become gun owners. I know from experience that once someone goes shooting or decides to get their own gun for whatever lawful purpose, they become much more resistant to the pro-control arguments.

Fight the bad laws tooth and nail, and expand the base of gun owners. The California gun grabbers are loosing, they know it, and are going all in while they still have some clout.

SamsDX
08-07-2012, 3:31 PM
Not to detract from SB249, but Yee et al.'s next target:

Magazine rebuild kits.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/346/screenshot001kqu.jpg

Mendo223
08-07-2012, 3:36 PM
i will give nothing back,the line is drawn already...

same boat as yall man....i will NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS. under no circumstances...alll my guns with BBs will be tragically lost in a boating accident before i take them in to get welded or confiscated..

SgtDinosaur
08-07-2012, 3:36 PM
I really hope the hogs are getting hungry. Apropos of nothing.

TempleKnight
08-07-2012, 3:38 PM
In point of fact, since IQ's are normally distributed on a bell curve (by definition), 50% of the population is below 100, and 50% of the population is above 100. It's literally how a normally distributed curve works.

The point is that not everyone who teaches hunting classes graduated at the top of their class. Unfortunately, it also means that some people aren't smart enough to be teaching a class and explaining the law. Spreading of FUD is a side-effect.

I just want to know why so many CA lawmakers are in the bottom half.

m16
08-07-2012, 3:39 PM
Not to detract from SB249, but Yee et al.'s next target:

Magazine rebuild kits.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/346/screenshot001kqu.jpg

Take a polygraph to determine when a REBUILD KIT was purchased?

What a dunce.

nicki
08-07-2012, 3:41 PM
Like arguing with a brick wall...

http://content.screencast.com/users/WolfSnap/folders/Snagit/media/d65c4a96-6d6d-4aa8-bd84-0dbe9d4220b7/2012-08-07_13-30-00.png

Well we will have to see which organizations signed up to support this bill so that way we can join them and mess them up from the inside out.

Nicki

em9sredbeam
08-07-2012, 3:42 PM
I am disgusted by these worms that somehow get into political offices. No more compromise. I will leave CA first.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 3:55 PM
I am disgusted by these worms that somehow get into political offices. No more compromise. I will leave CA first.

As goes California, so goes the nation. Can't remember who said that but proof is in the pudding.

Coolguy101
08-07-2012, 4:01 PM
Take a polygraph to determine when a REBUILD KIT was purchased?

What a dunce.

I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

Glock22Fan
08-07-2012, 4:02 PM
In point of fact, since IQ's are normally distributed on a bell curve (by definition), 50% of the population is below 100, and 50% of the population is above 100. It's literally how a normally distributed curve works.

snip



I used to regularly tell my first wife that 50% of the population had an IQ below 100. She invariably replied "No, that can't possibly be correct."

Then she got a job as a doctor's receptionist (British National Health Service). After a few weeks, she realized that she had been mistaken and became convinced that the real percentage of people below 100 was well above 50%. Good job she wasn't working with, or for, politicians, or the percentage would have been even higher.

Interfan
08-07-2012, 4:18 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

You are part of the problem. Your mentality is 100% of the problem. You're on a gun forum and you are whining that people may (may is the operative word here) be doing with something which is legal in 46 other states but may be illegal here. The problem isn't the people, it is the law. We have enough hall monitors in Sacramento and don't need any more here.

Sgt Raven
08-07-2012, 4:27 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.


BGOS! :rolleyes:

romadant
08-07-2012, 4:32 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

Hi, Mr. Keigwin.

1BigPea
08-07-2012, 4:35 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

Fail!

Glock22Fan
08-07-2012, 4:38 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

It's another solution looking for a problem. We've already got 20,000 laws that don't stop criminals, why should this one? Especially when most of us think that legal or not (and I am not recommending that anyone breaks the law) this is a stupid law and breaking it is not exactly a capital offense.

There's a saying in the armed forces: Never give an order that you know will not be obeyed. Which can also be rephrased as: A law which cannot be enforced is a bad law.

We've got too many nannies trying to protect us from ourselves. You seem to be another such.

m16
08-07-2012, 4:41 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

You are missing the point.

Keigwan's entire statement is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin.

What good would a polygraph do, when it is perfectly legal to use a rebuild kit to repair a magazine with a cracked top weld or worn out feed lips?

We shouldn't even have a hi-cap mag ban to begin with.

OlderThanDirt
08-07-2012, 4:47 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

Kyle1886
08-07-2012, 4:48 PM
As I stated in another thread, there are a lot of folks on the front porch, but I don't see anyone in the street. So go back in the house or take to the street?

Since it's "just CA", there will be little support from the outside. When push comes to shove, if we can't do it through the courts, and ballot box, there will not be any other box.

Respectfully
Kyle


same boat as yall man....i will NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS. under no circumstances...alll my guns with BBs will be tragically lost in a boating accident before i take them in to get welded or confiscated..

i will give nothing back,the line is drawn already...

ShooterDK
08-07-2012, 5:11 PM
a certain staffer is really starting to overplay his hand... big boss may not like.

Kyle1886
08-07-2012, 5:19 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

Normally I might agree with you about the shotgun but since I've gotten ancient, less mobile and with shoulder problems I've had to give up shotguns and heavy long guns. A light AR style carbine fits the "reaching out" enough for my old eyes and the hand gun has to do for self defense. All are just tools that are delivery systems, they just look different with the same bacic function. Once a delivery system is banned, it will not be long before others fall. It may be a few years for bolts to fall, but eventually they will---:TFH:---then what?

Respectfully
Kyle

1 2 many
08-07-2012, 5:34 PM
to the guys who say they won't give up the guns, if this bill passes, you will be a felon if you don't comply, you won't be able to use/keep your weapon legally. You will be a criminal. There is only one answer and our founding fathers knew it. The government must fear the people. 1++++++++

sreiter
08-07-2012, 5:35 PM
Not to detract from SB249, but Yee et al.'s next target:

Magazine rebuild kits.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/346/screenshot001kqu.jpg

**** that guy. How DARE he paint all gun owners as criminals. Someone should punt him in the Dick

hawk1
08-07-2012, 5:47 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

You're another that feeds into the problem. :mad:

If you really believe the part above in bold, then you might as well turn in that shotgun and your bolt action. You're not "going to war", right?..:rolleyes:

http://olive-drab.com/images/firearms_shotgun_win12_marine_ww2_375.jpg

http://www.scott-duff.com/CanfieldBoltAction.jpg

Knife Edge
08-07-2012, 5:48 PM
**** that guy. How DARE he paint all gun owners as criminals. Someone should punt him in the Dick

Or put him on the terror watch list....

advocatusdiaboli
08-07-2012, 5:56 PM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

Assuming I agree with the 10-round limit, but I don't and never will. And many here don't and never will either. Your posts ought to be posted on Yee's and Keigwan's web sites rather than here. Maybe you can volunteer for their campaigns. At least then you'd be honest about your views and not waste space here. Sure, your right to free speech stands, but I am free to ignore you from now on.

707electrician
08-07-2012, 5:56 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

Wow. The "I don't need it/don't have one, because it isn't the best option for hunting or self defense so who cares if they ban them" attitude is part of the problem

dfletcher
08-07-2012, 5:58 PM
For all the "moderates" and "duck hunters" who say we gunnies are paranoid, read this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg


If that doesn't confirm for you THEY'RE AFTER ALL GUNS, not just EBRs then you have a hole in your head.

(For reference, Adam Keigwin is Sen Leland Yee's aide and is driving SB249.)

This should be posted every time one of those questionable "gee guys, what's so bad about a little gun control?" posts pop up. People who don't like guns don't want anyone to have guns. No one, not any. I should think living in CA would have already convinced people. If Senator Yee's bill has not I don't know what will.

advocatusdiaboli
08-07-2012, 6:01 PM
**** that guy. How DARE he paint all gun owners as criminals. Someone should punt him in the Dick

He gonna hate those who want the right to keep and bear what he fears. He's twisted so much by his fear and hate he posts this kind of nonsense espousing Gestapo-like contravention of the Bill of Rights. He's probably like to see a rendition of 30-round magazine owners to Guantanamo for water boarding. He has a sickness for which there is no cure. And, worst of all, he has power but no citizen ever got to vote on his gaining that power.

BluNorthern
08-07-2012, 6:02 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

Acquiescence and compromise....see what it's gotten us so far.

Your bolt action and shotgun WILL be next, someday.
It's all for public safety.

Swatter911
08-07-2012, 6:04 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

repubconserv
08-07-2012, 6:12 PM
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

I like it... sig material

OlderThanDirt
08-07-2012, 6:21 PM
Acquiescence and compromise....see what it's gotten us so far.

Your bolt action and shotgun WILL be next, someday.
It's all for public safety.

I think everyone is missing my point. I'm not advocating any sort of acquiescence or compromise. You would have to see my gun collection to understand. Only the fact that most every other type of firearm out there poses a risk in the eyes of gun control advocates. Go back to the first post and read what they want to ban...everything.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg

I sometimes wonder about the reading comprehension of some people around here.

And no, Hawk1, I seriously doubt that I am going to war in my lifetime. However, if pressed into service, I would choose one of my AR10 or FN FAL rifles instead of an AR15 plinker. Just a personal choice.

Chunky_lover
08-07-2012, 6:37 PM
to the guys who say they won't give up the guns, if this bill passes, you will be a felon if you don't comply, you won't be able to use/keep your weapon legally. You will be a criminal. There is only one answer and our founding fathers knew it. The government must fear the people.

the good from this is then we dont need mag locks or 10 rd mags
since it would be illegal anyways cant get into anymore trouble if you take those features away

hawk1
08-07-2012, 6:42 PM
...
I sometimes wonder about the reading comprehension of some people around here.

And no, Hawk1, I seriously doubt that I am going to war in my lifetime. However, if pressed into service, I would choose one of my AR10 or FN FAL rifles instead of an AR15 plinker. Just a personal choice.

And I sometimes wonder about peoples thinking when they say what you said.

You hold to some belief that shotguns and bolt actions couldn't be touched.
Your words, not mine.

383green
08-07-2012, 8:41 PM
Never forget this: Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.

chris
08-07-2012, 8:46 PM
For all the "moderates" and "duck hunters" who say we gunnies are paranoid, read this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg


If that doesn't confirm for you THEY'RE AFTER ALL GUNS, not just EBRs then you have a hole in your head.

(For reference, Adam Keigwin is Sen Leland Yee's aide and is driving SB249.)

bill it was never a doubt in my mind that they want all of our guns. SB249 is a clear indication of it.

Never forget this: Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.

it has and always will be about total control of you!

Don29palms
08-07-2012, 9:26 PM
"Gun control" is explicitly about the goal of banning the possession of firearms in private hands.

This can be easily understood by observing a gun control politician's reaction to any legislation which clarifies existing law or improves processes. Frantic opposition as opposed to rational discussion.

Many years ago, I too fell for the lie of "moderate" gun control. I still think reasonable firearms regulations* are a good idea.

However, in a political climate where any reasonable regulation is immediately twisted out of all recognition, I have come to side with the NRA.

"Not one inch."

* Reasonable firearms regulations: not nearly as many as we have now. Start with making the 10 day waiting period apply only to the first firearm purchased. Achieves all of the same alleged public safety goals, less inconvenience for firearms owners. But watch "moderate" politicians froth if you suggest it.

You're already giving more than an inch.

frankm
08-07-2012, 9:31 PM
Never forget this: Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.

Control of those who would resist them.

Buy EBR's now. Any EBR.

odysseus
08-07-2012, 9:32 PM
Reading those Keigwan posts on here, it shows an almost child-like immaturity and ignorance on the subject. That is somewhat revealing...

curtisfong
08-07-2012, 9:51 PM
More than revealing. It should disturb you that Adam is controlling Yee, who is a befuddled, clueless, doddering fool.

And, as Adam is proud to point out, he has never gotten a single vote from anybody in CA. He is a complete, utter moron *with no mandate*, setting policy.

IETonyR
08-07-2012, 10:09 PM
a certain staffer is really starting to overplay his hand... big boss may not like.

More than revealing. It should disturb you that Adam is controlling Yee, who is a befuddled, clueless, doddering fool.

And, as Adam is proud to point out, he has never gotten a single vote from anybody in CA. He is a complete, utter moron *with no mandate*, setting policy.

This may be Yee's tactic. Since he is an elected official, he has to be careful about what he says or puts in print. On the other hand, Adam can spew anything he wants without repercussion because he does not have an electorate or constituents to answer to.

77bawls
08-07-2012, 11:02 PM
In case there was ever any question, here's additional proof:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1843/akeigwinbanallrifles001.jpg

They really don't like those pistol grips. :confused:

curtisfong
08-07-2012, 11:14 PM
But a pistol grip converts a rifle into a high-powered military style weapon!

Adam, you really are as dumb as a box of hair.

OlderThanDirt
08-07-2012, 11:54 PM
And I sometimes wonder about peoples thinking when they say what you said.

You hold to some belief that shotguns and bolt actions couldn't be touched.
Your words, not mine.

I never said they couldn't be touched, but implied it would be far tougher legislation to pass and be held constitutional, which is the case. I would expect bolt action to be the last thing banned, which would also be the end of the second amendment. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Going after AR and AK owners is one thing, but drawing the old farts and hunters into the battle is politically perilous.

DannyInSoCal
08-08-2012, 12:11 AM
Keigwin?

Aren't those the exercises broads do to make themselves tighter...?

sjwolf
08-08-2012, 12:20 AM
I really wish some one would ask Keigwin about barrel shrouds

MontClaire
08-08-2012, 12:22 AM
Why are we always defend ourselves from their bills and never attack with our own?

jdberger
08-08-2012, 12:46 AM
More proof (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/sb-249-ca-sen-leland-yee-gun-control-bill_n_1752190.html?utm_hp_ref=tw):

Adam Keigwin, Senator Yee’s spokesperson, added that this is only one of many steps needed to reduce gun violence.

Other steps needed, according to Keigwin, include mandatory psychological treatment such as anti-depressant drugs, which would decrease the likelihood of a person in a volatile state from committing a violent crime.

Keigwin stressed that while Democratic lawmakers such as Yee support second-amendment rights including ownership of hunting rifles and other single shot weapons. The type of weapons on the market today are too harmful to be available to anyone," he said.

“Our founding fathers could not have imagined the weapons that exist today,” said Keigwin

b.faust
08-08-2012, 12:53 AM
Why are we always defend ourselves from their bills and never attack with our own?

I'd like to attack with an "End Gut and Amend" bill.

Here's a good read:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/california-legislators-gut-and-amend-is-gutless-and-abusive/

68Datsun510
08-08-2012, 12:55 AM
Too harmful to whome, i ask???

kcbrown
08-08-2012, 12:56 AM
Many years ago, I too fell for the lie of "moderate" gun control. I still think reasonable firearms regulations* are a good idea.

However, in a political climate where any reasonable regulation is immediately twisted out of all recognition, I have come to side with the NRA.

"Not one inch."

* Reasonable firearms regulations: not nearly as many as we have now. Start with making the 10 day waiting period apply only to the first firearm purchased. Achieves all of the same alleged public safety goals, less inconvenience for firearms owners. But watch "moderate" politicians froth if you suggest it.


In any context, there is only one good definition of a "reasonable firearms regulation" from where I stand: a regulation that is empirically proven to be absolutely necessary to prevent significant and widespread loss of life or liberty and for which there is no better (i.e., less costly to liberty) solution.

Put another way: you never infringe on a fundamental right in any way unless you have no other option on the table. Any other standard is unreasonable.

otalps
08-08-2012, 1:56 AM
You are part of the problem. Your mentality is 100% of the problem. You're on a gun forum and you are whining that people may (may is the operative word here) be doing with something which is legal in 46 other states but may be illegal here. The problem isn't the people, it is the law. We have enough hall monitors in Sacramento and don't need any more here.

Truth. Shoving an eleventh round in a mag is obviously the sign of a criminal.

“Our founding fathers could not have imagined the weapons that exist today,” said Keigwin

I can't imagine our founding fathers could have imagined a twit like keigwin could be in the position he is today. Tar and feathering of wannabe tyrants should have never gone out of style.

In any context, there is only one good definition of a "reasonable firearms regulation" from where I stand: a regulation that is empirically proven to be absolutely necessary to prevent significant and widespread loss of life or liberty and for which there is no better (i.e., less costly to liberty) solution.

Put another way: you never infringe on a fundamental right in any way unless you have no other option on the table. Any other standard is unreasonable.

The only reasonable gun law is to not shoot at people.

cdtx2001
08-08-2012, 2:07 AM
I can't imagine our founding fathers could have imagined a twit like keigwin could be in the position he is today. Tar and feathering of wannabe tyrants should have never gone out of style.



The only reasonable gun law is to not shoot at people, that aren't shooting at you first....

Run him out on a pole THEN tar and feather him. That's what you did to an unwanted politician.


As for your reasonable gun law, fixed it for ya.

otalps
08-08-2012, 2:17 AM
Run him out on a pole THEN tar and feather him. That's what you did to an unwanted politician.


As for your reasonable gun law, fixed it for ya.

Good fix. :thumbsup:

Hallucinosis
08-08-2012, 3:14 AM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

That sounds like something Keigwan would say.

Novator
08-08-2012, 10:13 AM
I actually agree with Keigwan on this. I think (key word is think with no evidence to back it up other than my own observations) that very few if any of the people that buy mag rebuild kits do not actually rebuild any mags at all, but instead use it as an end run on the high cap ban and illegally assemble it into a new high cap magazine.

There probably are a few guys out there legally using parts to replace old worn out parts, but again I think they are the minority. The worst thing I've seen at a gunshow has to be the 30 rd sks mag rebuild kit, the one that is "fixed" to the rifle. Under no circumstance would that be legal to put on an sks, yet they sell it and morons buy them.

I didn't know telepaths existed and you could read other people's minds. I own multiple rebuild kits for my guns without having any "hi-cap" magazines. The kits will be/are only assembled when:

1. Shooting outside of CA (or the other nanny states with 10 round restrictions)

2. Finally PCSing out of this ridiculous state and away from is draconian laws

3. The miraculous day when CA realizes the sheer impotence of this illogical law

I'm sure the vast majority of rebuild kit owners agree with me as we have no desire be or even appear as criminals no matter haw bad we feel the laws are.

Shenaniguns
08-08-2012, 11:05 AM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.


Awesome that YOU think everyone else should think like YOU...

I hate to tell you that you're opinion is just your own and that nothing you posted is factual as there are many factors that YOU do not take into account.

A-J
08-08-2012, 12:42 PM
The other problem could be that the law is too complicated for your average person to understand; so the byproduct of complexity is misinformation. In the case of CA gun laws, that lack of understanding due to complexity is apparent with the legislature and law enforcement too.

Not long ago I read a post by a LEO where the poster said that a long gun had to be transported locked up, unloaded and with the ammo stored separately in CA.

Not bashing, just pointing out that even the enforcers are not always clear on what the law says, let alone the idiots who write the laws (politicians).


"Compromise" to an anti means "give me what I demand now and I'll leave you alone for a while."

dfletcher
08-08-2012, 1:06 PM
“Our founding fathers could not have imagined the weapons that exist today,” said Keigwin"

Following that mentality I suppose free speech covers only what one can yell across a public square or scribble in a newspaper. President Obama would be surprised to learn he is Commander in Chief of only the Navy and the Army too.

Only the inane resort to such cherry picking. They'd never under any circumstances go "whole cloth" back to the time of the Founding Fathers.

Knife Edge
08-08-2012, 1:11 PM
That's it... Uprising in the streets, roll the tanks!!

No 2-A for these poor souls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 1:15 PM
For all the "moderates" and "duck hunters" who say we gunnies are paranoid, read this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg


If that doesn't confirm for you THEY'RE AFTER ALL GUNS, not just EBRs then you have a hole in your head.

(For reference, Adam Keigwin is Sen Leland Yee's aide and is driving SB249.)

Where can I get some of that shotgun ammo? My 12 ga only fires 9 "30 ish" cal projectiles. I'd like the one that fires 3 dozen.

repubconserv
08-08-2012, 1:28 PM
Where can I get some of that shotgun ammo? My 12 ga only fires 9 "30 ish" cal projectiles. I'd like the one that fires 3 dozen.

Get some 3" or 3.5" shells and you can get up to 18 30ish cal pellets in there (make sure your chamber can accommodate)

OlderThanDirt
08-08-2012, 2:00 PM
Awesome that YOU think everyone else should think like YOU...

I hate to tell you that you're opinion is just your own and that nothing you posted is factual as there are many factors that YOU do not take into account.

Huh? I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'll type slowly so you can understand. Matt Gray points out that a 30.06 hunting rifle and a shotgun are also effective. He makes a valid point. However, banning "high powered" hunting rifles and shotguns will piss off all the hunters that sit on the sideline when it comes to AR/AK laws. It also defeats their own argument that somehow AR/AK rifles are any more dangerous than what most non-gun owners consider conventional weapons. There is also the problem with Heller and McDonald. Therefore...wait for it...good luck with a comprehensive gun ban that includes hunting rifles, shotguns, much less AR/AK rifles that are considered to be in common use.

ewarmour
08-08-2012, 2:14 PM
Let me help Yee and his boys get straight to their point:

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle firearm that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine. and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) Any A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept more than 3 rounds. a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

robcoe
08-08-2012, 2:18 PM
Let me help Yee and his boys get straight to their point:

Actually it would be more like

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle firearm that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine. and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) Any A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept more than 3 rounds. a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Anchors
08-08-2012, 2:33 PM
I know lobbying doesn't really work without some compromising and tact, which is why the GOA doesn't get much traction, but this post:

I have a feeling their plan is: Ask for everything. Fight tooth and nail for it. Settle for slightly less but still win.

Reminded me of a famous quote that I enjoy on the nature of compromise (which I learned is always a lose-lose solution in a communications class I was required to take).

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit..."

-Ayn Rand

The best part in bold.

creekside
08-08-2012, 4:20 PM
In any context, there is only one good definition of a "reasonable firearms regulation" from where I stand: a regulation that is empirically proven to be absolutely necessary to prevent significant and widespread loss of life or liberty and for which there is no better (i.e., less costly to liberty) solution.

Put another way: you never infringe on a fundamental right in any way unless you have no other option on the table. Any other standard is unreasonable.

Legislators often act without proof. It's not like we can separate the state into "experiment" groups and "control" groups.

However, the overwhelming majority of the evidence is that if the issue is crime control, the firearms to regulate are clearly handguns.

Regulations on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have nothing to do with crime. So where is the compelling state interest?

hawk1
08-08-2012, 5:09 PM
Huh? I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'll type slowly so you can understand. Matt Gray points out that a 30.06 hunting rifle and a shotgun are also effective. He makes a valid point. However, banning "high powered" hunting rifles and shotguns will piss off all the hunters that sit on the sideline when it comes to AR/AK laws. It also defeats their own argument that somehow AR/AK rifles are any more dangerous than what most non-gun owners consider conventional weapons. There is also the problem with Heller and McDonald. Therefore...wait for it...good luck with a comprehensive gun ban that includes hunting rifles, shotguns, much less AR/AK rifles that are considered to be in common use.

Go ahead and hang on to that thought. At that point, "all the hunters" that are left, will do squat for you and themselves...

All I can think of.

http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/head_in_the_sand.jpg

SgtMerc
08-08-2012, 6:34 PM
Actually these tards do have a few things right. An AR15 is not my firearm of choice for anything but plinking (I don't anticipate going to war in my lifetime). Nothing beats a shotgun for home defense (and avoiding shooting through the intruder AND your neighbor's house). And nothing beats my bolt-action hunting rifles if I would want to reach out and touch something (like bacon on the hoof). Good luck banning those.

You realize this was the entire reason we have a second amendment, right? To fight a war against an oppressive government.

If you're not willing to fight for something, you don't deserve it in the first place.

Dutch3
08-08-2012, 7:55 PM
If the talk was about banning golf courses and golf clubs, Keigwin's panties would be in a knot.

Golf clubs are dangerous when somebody can legally carry around a WHOLE BAG full of them. Especially those 9 irons.

Fore!

jdberger
08-08-2012, 10:08 PM
If the talk was about banning golf courses and golf clubs, Keigwin's panties would be in a knot.

Golf clubs are dangerous when somebody can legally carry around a WHOLE BAG full of them. Especially those 9 irons.

Fore!

Lots of folks killed with golf clubs/balls (http://www.google.com/search?q=killed+with+golf+club&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&sclient=psy-ab&q=killed+with+golf+club+ball&oq=killed+with+golf+club+ball&gs_l=serp.3..33i29l4.30844.33984.0.37797.5.5.0.0.0 .0.281.923.0j3j2.5.0.epbsh..0.0...1c.3v4JqHDrOzY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5fe01bbfba5ec27f&biw=1350&bih=649). Probably even more killed on courses or with carts.

OlderThanDirt
08-08-2012, 11:04 PM
Go ahead and hang on to that thought. At that point, "all the hunters" that are left, will do squat for you and themselves...

All I can think of.

http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/head_in_the_sand.jpg

Well, you might be right about large numbers of hunters, especially since most hunters I know hunt out of state now anyway.

OlderThanDirt
08-08-2012, 11:21 PM
You realize this was the entire reason we have a second amendment, right? To fight a war against an oppressive government.

If you're not willing to fight for something, you don't deserve it in the first place.

Can you read? I clearly said I did not anticipate going to war in my lifetime. I didn't say anything about my willingness or lack thereof. I'm also well aware of the intent of the second amendment. All one has to do is read the Federalist Papers to get an understanding of the intent of our founding fathers and their distrust of government. Regardless, I still don't anticipate having to wage a war against an oppressive government in my lifetime, although with my new titanium parts I'm more ready than I was six months ago.

kcbrown
08-09-2012, 12:10 AM
Huh? I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'll type slowly so you can understand. Matt Gray points out that a 30.06 hunting rifle and a shotgun are also effective. He makes a valid point. However, banning "high powered" hunting rifles and shotguns will piss off all the hunters that sit on the sideline when it comes to AR/AK laws. It also defeats their own argument that somehow AR/AK rifles are any more dangerous than what most non-gun owners consider conventional weapons. There is also the problem with Heller and McDonald. Therefore...wait for it...good luck with a comprehensive gun ban that includes hunting rifles, shotguns, much less AR/AK rifles that are considered to be in common use.

The legislature passed the "hunting dog ban" law despite the supposed "power" that hunters have.

The amount of influence hunters have in the legislature is quite clearly a myth. The legislature will pass a ban on "high powered" hunting rifles and shotguns, and the hunters will be powerless to stop it.

That's what happens when you sacrifice some people's 2A rights just because doing so "doesn't affect" you.


The only way to fight this is maybe at the governor's desk or, failing that, the courts. We need to put up the strongest fight against this that we can muster, but I have little reason to believe that such efforts will succeed in the end.

Kinsel83
08-09-2012, 5:22 AM
Not to detract from SB249, but Yee et al.'s next target:

Magazine rebuild kits.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/346/screenshot001kqu.jpg

Unfortunately, there's always another target. These losers never stop trying to take whats ours. It's coming to a head one day.

Patriot Man
08-09-2012, 6:09 AM
Never forget this: Gun control is not about guns. It is about control.

Bingo, the box around us keeps closing in, and we tell ourselves, we didn't really need that space anyway...

hawk1
08-09-2012, 8:07 AM
The legislature passed the "hunting dog ban" law despite the supposed "power" that hunters have.

The amount of influence hunters have in the legislature is quite clearly a myth. The legislature will pass a ban on "high powered" hunting rifles and shotguns, and the hunters will be powerless to stop it.

That's what happens when you sacrifice some people's 2A rights just because doing so "doesn't affect" you.


The only way to fight this is maybe at the governor's desk or, failing that, the courts. We need to put up the strongest fight against this that we can muster, but I have little reason to believe that such efforts will succeed in the end.

Pfft, "most hunters, he knows, hunt out of state now anyways"...:rolleyes:

I'm really amazed as to how people literally stick their heads in the sand and continue to claim it won't affect them. <shakes head>

Beldin
08-09-2012, 9:10 AM
Why are we always defend ourselves from their bills and never attack with our own?

Freedon should never need a bill or a law...

CDFingers
08-09-2012, 9:17 AM
Pish posh. That's not proof that "they" want your guns. I see two guys there. There are some voters behind them, but that's not enough to be "they."

It's FUD.

CDFingers

domino
08-09-2012, 9:35 AM
"according to County of Hawaii Police Lt. Ed Tanaka, shortly before 4 p.m. Dec. 19, 1992, Yee walked out the KTA Superstore in Kona's Keauhow Shopping Village -- with an 8-ounce bottle of Tropical Blend Tan Magnifier oil in the front pocket of his shorts.

A store security officer stopped him, and the police were called.

Yee told the arresting officer it was a mistake, but he wound up being hauled down to police headquarters anyway, where he was booked and photographed on suspicion of petty misdemeanor shoplifting.

An official at the Kona District Court tells us that authorities didn't prosecute the case because Yee -- who was serving on the San Francisco School Board at the time -- subsequently disappeared, apparently having returned to San Francisco without notifying law enforcement in Hawaii."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Mug-Shot-Doesn-t-Flatter-Supervisor-3326339.php#ixzz22tcX8bab

So not only does he rip off the people in this state but he steals from other states too...What great character this guy has. I dont think he would even be able to get a CCW lol..... He is a crook and I think some of you on here are right. Our biggest predictor of the future is our past. History shows that you can only push the people to the edge so much before the people stand up and deliver a message that wont be forgotten by future politicians as well as current ones.

domino
08-09-2012, 9:46 AM
I'd like to attack with an "End Gut and Amend" bill.

Here's a good read:

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/california-legislators-gut-and-amend-is-gutless-and-abusive/

I would also like this and I would also say attack them by making them a PART TIME LEGISLATOR! Then they dont have too much time sitting around wasting our tax paying money. Heck then he could not only go and steal sunscreen from other states, he could actually travel more and break more laws here and there whenever he feels he is above the law.

PART TIME LEGISLATOR !!!!!!!

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 10:04 AM
Term limits are also an issue.

Also, the fact that the CA legislature is utterly corrupt.... which probably can't be fixed.

Interfan
08-09-2012, 10:15 AM
Unfortunately, there's always another target. These losers never stop trying to take whats ours. It's coming to a head one day.

The problem it that there is always another target for these extremists. If it is not guns, it is magazines, or ammo, or anything else that they see as a vehicle for headlines for a cause that they see as politically advantageous. The approach to this extremism is to expose it for what it is - a power grab. Facts, good sense, and truth will never get in the way of a a politician's ambition or lust for glory. Gun rights are just the tip of the spear in the battle over the erosion of individual liberties protected by the Constitution.

What is next? Banning alcohol because there have been incidents of people driving drunk or being violent? Or banning women from going out in public alone, so they won't be raped? Or killing homosexuals because some extreme views say that their lifestyle is contrary to those views? The problem with extremism is that at some point you find yourself at the wrong end of it or it affects your friends, family, livelihood, religion, or your own ideology. Demolition of personal freedom at the expense of someone seen as marginal seems to be a common theme with oppressive regimes, and these guys see gun owners like the Taliban see women and homosexuals - marginal and easily oppressed.

The approach to combating them needs to focus on a few things that they need to live: money, press, and allies.

These elements are the fundamental ingredients to power wielded by politicians like Yee or DeLeon. Cut off the money or alienate their donors and they are dead in the water. Expose their ideas in the press as extremist and un-American, and they lose their soapbox, so their agenda is worthless. Yes, I know the press tends to side with these types of politicians for their own agenda, but if the story is too good to pass up, ratings and ad sales speak determine what is "newsworthy". Attack their allies using the same methods and they will cling to their own careers and power while sacrificing and disavowing other politicians.

Since "big labor" is the largest donor to most Democrats, how can pressure be put on their leadership by the rank and file that will be criminalized by these laws? Since the news media gives these guys a voice, how can pressure be put on the advertisers so that they will threaten to pull ads? Focus also on their allies and anyone who votes in favor of SB249 in its current form and put the pressure where it counts.

Interfan
08-09-2012, 10:39 AM
Fitting quote from Martin Niemöller about the Nazis:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

For all the soccermoms out there who look at "assault weapons" and their owners as politically sacrificial, it is too easy to forget what a slippery slope that can be.

17+1
08-09-2012, 10:47 AM
For all the "moderates" and "duck hunters" who say we gunnies are paranoid, read this:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7488798206_720825e845_b.jpg


If that doesn't confirm for you THEY'RE AFTER ALL GUNS, not just EBRs then you have a hole in your head.

(For reference, Adam Keigwin is Sen Leland Yee's aide and is driving SB249.)

Looked up his linkedin...he was a community organizer during college. Just like some other hack bureaucrat we all know and love.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-keigwin/5/46a/355

POLICESTATE
08-09-2012, 10:56 AM
Looked up his linkedin...he was a community organizer during college. Just like some other hack bureaucrat we all know and love.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-keigwin/5/46a/355

Many of the socialists and communists in government today (masquerading as democrats, the party they have hi-jacked) start out the same way. It seems you gain prominence in things if you actively participate in promoting their agenda (or as it's normally referred to "interests")

Interfan
08-09-2012, 11:06 AM
Looked up his linkedin...he was a community organizer during college. Just like some other hack bureaucrat we all know and love.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-keigwin/5/46a/355

So he is a confirmed Marxist/Leninist. "Community Organizer" is basically something from the Soviet system and often a tool or front man of the NKVD. Under the Soviet system, the "Community Organizers" were responsible for confiscation of private property and ideological indoctrination when areas were brought under Bolshevik control. If you disagreed with them, you were killed or sent to a gulag.

This isn't something that is compatible with American Democracy. At what point did Communist ideology enter the US mainstream? This is ridiculous.

frankm
08-09-2012, 11:14 AM
The Democratic Party is now controlled by Socialist/Communist elements. They seek destruction of our way of life and replacement with European-style socialism at a minimum. This is reason alone to never vote Democrat. Even hard-core liberals should know that. Liberals must abandon the left if they want to be free. Yes, it may be "inconvenient", but it's down to it now.

POLICESTATE
08-09-2012, 11:14 AM
So he is a confirmed Marxist/Leninist. "Community Organizer" is basically something from the Soviet system and often a tool or front man of the NKVD. Under the Soviet system, the "Community Organizers" were responsible for confiscation of private property and ideological indoctrination when areas were brought under Bolshevik control. If you disagreed with them, you were killed or sent to a gulag.

This isn't something that is compatible with American Democracy. At what point did Communist ideology enter the US mainstream? This is ridiculous.

To answer that you could start here http://agendadocumentary.com/

1BigPea
08-09-2012, 11:16 AM
Looked up his linkedin...he was a community organizer during college. Just like some other hack bureaucrat we all know and love.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-keigwin/5/46a/355

Ha...look at the one "recommendation" he got.

“Adam is my favorite kind of media rep: a real guy who advocates strongly without ever getting ugly. In the high-pressure world of politics and media, he's one of the select folks who really shines.” December 15, 2008
3rd Adriel H., Political Editor, San Francisco Examiner"

Yeah, never gets ugly. Well Adriel, the Adam you once knew is now is one of the ugliest media hacks out there.

wjc
08-09-2012, 4:50 PM
Term limits are also an issue.

Also, the fact that the CA legislature is utterly corrupt.... which probably can't be fixed.

Sure it can. Vote the bums out!

erik_26
08-09-2012, 8:14 PM
My biggest concern is people actually think that we can have laws on guns.

That is simply not the case. People need to refuse to accept those gun laws on the books and simply refer to the 2nd amendment when concerning control.

"....' shall not be infringed."

Can not be any clearer.

This country was founded on defiance. The abolishment of slavery was founded on defiance. Women's rights were earned on defiance, civil rights.... you guessed it, defiance.

The same needs to be done with guns.

Chunky_lover
08-09-2012, 8:18 PM
My biggest concern is people actually think that we can have laws on guns.

That is simply not the case. People need to refuse to accept those gun laws on the books and simply refer to the 2nd amendment when concerning control.

"....' shall not be infringed."

Can not be any clearer.

This country was founded on defiance. The abolishment of slavery was founded on defiance. Women's rights were earned on defiance, civil rights.... you guessed it, defiance.

The same needs to be done with guns.



the problem I see is we also have to deal with the state, and their rules for whatever reason
like the 2nd amendment and others dont fully apply

now maybe in the past most layed down to something they thought was a law
but now we need to stand up and dismiss any extra unconstitutional laws they sneak in nowadays and live our lives like we really are free

I follow my own laws plain and simple

vincewarde
08-09-2012, 9:03 PM
I just took a hunter safety course this past weekend and the disconnect was palpable in the amount of FUD being provided by the instructor. The instructor really believed that magazines more than 5 rounds were illegal and that the mag magnet was something that wasn't already illegal.

I had the same problem. By the end of the class he was asking me gun questions. He was great on the gun stuff. I saw him about a year later and he hit me up to team teach with me handling the gun stuff :)

vincewarde
08-09-2012, 9:12 PM
We will see them in court. This issue has national implications. Maybe the possibility of loosing and possibly having to pay hefty damages and attorney's fees will cause him to use his veto pen.