PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else starting to like CA gun laws now?


Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 4:54 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

zinfull
12-17-2012, 6:32 PM
No I have never like CA laws, gun or anything else.

Arisaka
12-17-2012, 6:37 PM
I'll be the first to give you flak. Don't sell out man.

E Michael
12-17-2012, 6:39 PM
........ really?

Tarn_Helm
12-17-2012, 6:39 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

Answer: NO.

Comment: You have the mind of a child, seeking protection from some imaginary benevolent parentalistic government.
:facepalm:

Dr Rockso
12-17-2012, 6:39 PM
How? Even with CA laws I have boxes full of gear that, if I didn't give a **** about what was and wasn't a legal configuration, could trivially be made identical to any piece of hardware available in any other state. What AWB (California's, Connecticut's, or the expired federal ban) could have changed that?

Guntech
12-17-2012, 6:40 PM
These threads really need to get deleted this must be the fifth one by a member of the Brady campaign, its really getting pathetic and predictable.



Can I get a copy of the Childrens Grave Dancer Manifesto as written by Rahm Emmanuel.

Anyone like ca gun laws now?"
Nope, and I am sure you don't either, with Big5 selling full auto AK15's and AR-47's. I hear 7-11 is getting a shipment of rocket launchers this week. Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 6:44 PM
A less onerous universal background check system and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.

-Gene

GJC
12-17-2012, 6:44 PM
WOW :facepalm:

Krak
12-17-2012, 6:47 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

Seriously? The shooter didn't even use an AR. He used two hand guns.

SWalt
12-17-2012, 6:49 PM
Don't like CA laws one bit nor would want them instituted nation wide.

Oh....by the way.......how many Governments have mass murdered people? Way more victims than some psycho in CT

Luieburger
12-17-2012, 6:51 PM
Let's not be hasty. No laws have been passed yet. I'm confident still that they won't be. We'll survive this just like we survived confrontation in the past. Our side is right, their side is wrong, and we should not give any ground at all.

IVC
12-17-2012, 6:52 PM
Connecticut is top three on Brady's list of "safe states" with a pretty high score and an AW ban. A school is a 2A-free zone, where the 2A is completely repealed.

The antis own this tragedy and have to explain why their grand plans didn't work. You cannot ban guns more than they were banned at that school and you can almost not get closer to their utopian society than Connecticut. What part of CA law would rectify these logical fallacies?

IVC
12-17-2012, 6:53 PM
A less onerous universal background check system and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.

-Gene

As long as they are not used for backdoor registration.

Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 6:54 PM
How? Even with CA laws I have boxes full of gear that, if I didn't give a **** about what was and wasn't a legal configuration, could trivially be made identical to any piece of hardware available in any other state. What AWB (California's, Connecticut's, or the expired federal ban) could have changed that?

Good point (I do too btw) let me clarify for everyone else;

-I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, OR A TROLL. I OWN EVERYTHING IN MY SIGNATURE AND HAVE BEEN SHOOTING SINCE I WAS A KID BACK ON MY PARENTS FARM.

-I think I am just scared of a full on BAN of semi autos the same way full auto was banned.

-The California model at least lets us keep or ARs and AKs.

-Gosh...20 dead kids...

nrakid88
12-17-2012, 6:55 PM
Let's not be hasty. No laws have been passed yet. I'm confident still that they won't be. We'll survive this just like we survived confrontation in the past. Our side is right, their side is wrong, and we should not give any ground at all.

Most reassuring thing I have heard concerning this horrible event. However, the way things played out in Connecticut makes me wonder if righteousness prevails. Makes me think we could be right and fail none the less.

voiceofreason
12-17-2012, 6:59 PM
Brady & other anti-gun people should acknowledge that the GFSZs create environments that actually put our children at GREATER risk.

motodog57
12-17-2012, 7:00 PM
Let's not be hasty. No laws have been passed yet. I'm confident still that they won't be. We'll survive this just like we survived confrontation in the past. Our side is right, their side is wrong, and we should not give any ground at all.

not one inch

epilepticninja
12-17-2012, 7:04 PM
Seriously? The shooter didn't even use an AR. He used two hand guns.

Eh? I personally watched the Chief Medical Examiner say it was rifle (assuming .223) rounds from the AR that were used to kill.

AwakeAware1016
12-17-2012, 7:10 PM
Please 54, if you start to believe that a little is all they will take. You will become the enemy. "Common sense" gun laws already exist in CT. THY CHANGED NOTHING ABOUT THIS senseless act of violence.

SWalt
12-17-2012, 7:10 PM
Good point (I do too btw) let me clarify for everyone else;

-I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, OR A TROLL. I OWN EVERYTHING IN MY SIGNATURE AND HAVE BEEN SHOOTING SINCE I WAS A KID BACK ON MY PARENTS FARM.

-I think I am just scared of a full on BAN of semi autos the same way full auto was banned.

-The California model at least lets us keep or ARs and AKs.

-Gosh...20 dead kids...

OP......yes it is horrific event and almost incomprehensible, but the worst in the US was in 1927 in Bath Michigan. It was a bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 7:11 PM
Brady & other anti-gun people should acknowledge that the GFSZs create environments that actually put our children at GREATER risk.

Good point too, I think gun free zones should be monitored and patrolled at all times by the police.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 7:14 PM
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

Lone_Gunman
12-17-2012, 7:15 PM
http://data.whicdn.com/images/38600179/5fd68d2c8b25d7126df6f94833d893d5.600x400_large.nop ad

JeepMan
12-17-2012, 7:17 PM
We are going to get instant check of all transfers at the least. I hope to trade it for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

Don't think of giving an inch, thinking of trading inches, that's what politics is about.

Kid Stanislaus
12-17-2012, 7:18 PM
A less onerous universal background check system and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.-Gene

Golly Gene, I'm beginning to think that just about all of the state of California is 5150!

madjack956
12-17-2012, 7:23 PM
A less onerous universal background check system and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.

-Gene

A. Quit trying to suggest a sensible solution, it just confuses everyone.

B. It will never be close to good enough. :)

Kid Stanislaus
12-17-2012, 7:25 PM
I don't have the figures for he number of kids who die yearly in swimming pools and bicycle accidents but I'm sure deaths by gunfire pale in comparison.

Rob7.62
12-17-2012, 7:25 PM
No amount of gun laws would of prevented this. The guy didn't even own the guns but still acquired them. Connecticut was rated #5 in gun laws by the Brady campaign also. The end point murderers don't fallow laws.

Rambo, John J.
12-17-2012, 7:26 PM
Vepr 54R. CA gun laws suck. CA has that approved list of "safe" handguns that the manufacturers have to pay for the test. There is an expiration date on it and then they have to pay for the test again. Isn't it "safe" if it already passed the test the first time around?

Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 7:32 PM
Vepr 54R. CA gun laws suck. CA has that approved list of "safe" handguns that the manufacturers have to pay for the test. There is an expiration date on it and then they have to pay for the test again. Isn't it "safe" if it already passed the test the first time around?

True, this part of CA gun laws sucks. It is nothing more than a greedy money grab by the bastards in Sac that makes us pay more than other states.

glocksmith
12-17-2012, 7:35 PM
What a sad, naive comment.

ZirconJohn
12-17-2012, 7:40 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

SERIOUSLY...!?! Hey... even Brady posers :rolleyes: NEED to get reprimanded for inane comments such as this... :mad:

M5QGkOGZubQ&list

12voltguy
12-17-2012, 7:41 PM
We are going to get instant check of all transfers at the least. I hope to trade it for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

Don't think of giving an inch, thinking of trading inches, that's what politics is about.

we have done it before, & then they try to get back what they traded, or have got it back
1 sample
in 86 we no longer had to sign and show id to buy bullets
we gave up mg's

last year they tried to get that law back...........

dave_cg
12-17-2012, 8:06 PM
... and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.

-Gene

Is there any reason why 5150 shouldn't be the law of the land? Getting people that need mental health treatment into the system and getting them the help they need is a problem that goes far beyond guns. I'm asking seriously -- what flaws in 5150 should be patched up before it goes coast to coast?

Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 8:07 PM
aw **** it, mod please delete this thread.

JeepMan
12-17-2012, 8:11 PM
I understand the sentiment to never give. I do. But you all are dreaming if you think we are not going to have to deal with legislation on this issue, and that some of the people we are counting on in the House are not going to fold under the immense pressure of a re-elected Obama (remember, we lost?) and a terrible tragedy of national scope.

I just sent my favorite, most reliable folks more money, have you?

GrizzlyGuy
12-17-2012, 8:12 PM
A less onerous universal background check system and California's 5150 system could help a lot of folks with very little real impact on the law abiding.

-Gene

Interesting. While taking a shower this evening I did a thought experiment: if I were somehow the Grand Pubah of the gun rights world, and I had absolutely-positively no other choice than to appease the antis with something... what would that something be? I came up with:

1) Our 5150 and related laws adopted nationwide.
2) Our requirement that all PPTs go through an FFL and background check (other than intra-family transfers) adopted nationwide.

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of appeasement. However, it is a politically tenable position that addresses many of the concerns of the antis and moderates who have now been "shocked" from our side to theirs. And (selfishly) it wouldn't hurt us at all here in CA since we're stuck with those laws whether we like them or not.

JeepMan
12-17-2012, 8:15 PM
aw **** it, mod please delete this thread.

Don't worry about haters, I understand your sentiment. This is the place for free exchange of ideas, don't feel like you have to muzzle yourself.

We ought not be like the Marxists that demand 100% unanimity of thought or face expulsion.

liv4spd
12-17-2012, 8:17 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

Nope.

I feel terrible for the families of the victims in Connecticut, same as you. That being said, stripping away 2A rights is NOT the solution.

IVC
12-17-2012, 8:17 PM
The problem with 5150 and similar laws is the implementation. Akin to "may issue" and "good moral character." Who decides and under which guidance?

Say we have a national 5150 system in place, then a sitting president in few years decides to use an EO, BATFE regulation or even AMA recommendation to change the conditions for 5150 to "anyone who needs a gun is paranoid."

IVC
12-17-2012, 8:26 PM
1) Our 5150 and related laws adopted nationwide.
2) Our requirement that all PPTs go through an FFL and background check (other than intra-family transfers) adopted nationwide.

This is widely accepted as a meaningful common ground since if implemented nationally, it would easily pass the constitutional muster and a challenge would fail.

The real problem with both of those points, though, is that (1) is open to arbitrary interpretation of mental illness which can be manipulated without due process, and (2) is a prerequisite to registration where all/most guns over time are entered into "the system."

Registration is something that we should avoid if at all possible. For example, one of the big stumbling blocks for the anti-gunners' AW effort today is the lack of the database and the inability to perform an effective confiscation.

JeepMan
12-17-2012, 8:33 PM
I'm very suspicious of confiscation, having experienced the California SKS debacle, however NICS on all PPT's does not (nor should it) equate to registration.

Glock Fan
12-17-2012, 8:40 PM
Ya, more laws. exactly what everyone needs. Stupid

IVC
12-17-2012, 8:40 PM
I'm very suspicious of confiscation, having experienced the California SKS debacle, however NICS on all PPT's does not (nor should it) equate to registration.

That's the catch 22. It shouldn't, but it does. The smart antis are pushing for NICS checks for PPT transactions precisely in order to utilize the existing form 4473 to create a lasting record. Gaining access to those records later is just a matter of technicality.

Consider the registration in "border states" through the forced reporting of 5+ purchases, courtesy of BATFE underground regulation (not subject to congressional approval and actually in the direct contradiction to the enacted legislation).

Vepr 54R
12-17-2012, 8:41 PM
Don't worry about haters, I understand your sentiment. This is the place for free exchange of ideas, don't feel like you have to muzzle yourself.

We ought not be like the Marxists that demand 100% unanimity of thought or face expulsion.

Thank you for the kind words, I think what I was really getting at was the reality that SOMETHING will be changing soon. None of us know what, but something is coming down the pipe. I would rather have current CA gun laws than absolutely NO semi automatics. This is the cold new reality, get used to it folks.

Also, if an AWB prevents at least SOME of these incidents I would be happy to deal with a BB.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/16/remembering-the-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

KLF
12-17-2012, 8:47 PM
Hey VEPR, please consider the middle of the road scenerio: if you are observed with something that looks like a high-cap magazine, are you cool with law enforcement taking that as just cause to inspect you for further wrongdoing? Can they insist you come talk downtown? Are you cool with paying impound to recover your vehicle, and how about the search warrant to see if you have illegal arms in your domicile? What about that parts bin full of useless part that may or may not be able to yield several SHTF hi cap magazines? Are you willing to pay a fine, lose property, take on a felony charge, or go to jail because of these things? I'm confident that in the end, after several thousands of dollars in legal costs, time served, and employment lost, most will recover their good names. That's the cost of true enforcement. It's a lot. It's expensive unless you really, really play along, and it only works if everyone walks the line. Most murderers of children don't walk the line. Neither do the forces that inspired our 2nd Amendment. Where there's a will there's a way. That old cliche builds lives but also tears then down.

JeepMan
12-17-2012, 8:49 PM
That's the catch 22. It shouldn't, but it does. The smart antis are pushing for NICS checks for PPT transactions precisely in order to utilize the existing form 4473 to create a lasting record. Gaining access to those records later is just a matter of technicality.

Consider the registration in "border states" through the forced reporting of 5+ purchases, courtesy of BATFE underground regulation (not subject to congressional approval and actually in the direct contradiction to the enacted legislation).

You know as well as I do that all politicians require constant supervision. There is no win here, there is only constant vigilance.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 8:53 PM
Interesting. While taking a shower this evening I did a thought experiment: if I were somehow the Grand Pubah of the gun rights world, and I had absolutely-positively no other choice than to appease the antis with something... what would that something be? I came up with:

1) Our 5150 and related laws adopted nationwide.
2) Our requirement that all PPTs go through an FFL and background check (other than intra-family transfers) adopted nationwide.

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of appeasement. However, it is a politically tenable position that addresses many of the concerns of the antis and moderates who have now been "shocked" from our side to theirs. And (selfishly) it wouldn't hurt us at all here in CA since we're stuck with those laws whether we like them or not.

There are two improvements that can be made. The showing the state should have to make after a 5150 is release short of the 72 hour hold - which almost always means that someone is really seriously mentally ill - should be clear and convincing evidence that the person remains a danger to self or others. This is a rare problem as usually a judge will hold that if you didn't get kept for the full 72, the experts/doctors have decided you're truly not a risk.

Background checks could be online, instant, and not keep track of the firearm serial numbers online but instead offline in records that sellers would be required to keep. Modern technology and the internet mean we could have universal background checks that don't require FFLs or more than a few minutes for buyer and seller at an ATF website.

-Gene

DenaliPark
12-17-2012, 8:54 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

Its easy to see how you Kalifornians got it stuck to you, how you sat back and watched as the absolute worst specimens of human evolution, crushed you under foot. Seriously, with friends like you, who needs enemies? ;)

zfields
12-17-2012, 8:55 PM
Thank you for the kind words, I think what I was really getting at was the reality that SOMETHING will be changing soon. None of us know what, but something is coming down the pipe. I would rather have current CA gun laws than absolutely NO semi automatics. This is the cold new reality, get used to it folks.

Also, if an AWB prevents at least SOME of these incidents I would be happy to deal with a BB.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/16/remembering-the-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

Sell your guns. Or better yet turn them in.

Sent from my Incredible 2

safewaysecurity
12-17-2012, 8:56 PM
I don't know why so many of you support backgroundchecks on private sales... to me that's crazy and unenforceable and we all know that. Also not to mention that background checks are a gimmick. Many states don't report a lot of things tonthe feds and over 99% of denials are false positives. Ask any gun store owner in Cali, theyll tell you most denails are because people tried to buy a gun before the 30 day handgun window passed.

igorts
12-17-2012, 8:56 PM
I hope we wont get here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JzyTger0w8

PBRStreetgang
12-17-2012, 9:02 PM
Nope.

I feel terrible for the families of the victims in Connecticut, same as you. That being said, stripping away 2A rights is NOT the solution.

Aboslutely agree. What is sad is the sick left wingers jump on this like a bulldog on a porkchop. Feinstein started up about her "new gun control bill" while the police were still climbing all over the crime scene. It was disgusting to see her grab the microphone to further her cause that way.

dms1
12-17-2012, 9:18 PM
I will go against the grain here, but I think if you own guns they should be required to be stored in a lock box or safe. That is the only law i would support.

-hanko
12-17-2012, 9:23 PM
Its easy to see how you Kalifornians got it stuck to you, how you sat back and watched as the absolute worst specimens of human evolution, crushed you under foot. Seriously, with friends like you, who needs enemies? ;)
Re: the ppt thing...

I grew up in CA...interesting that after *****ing and moaning as to the restrictive nature of CA's weapons laws, you're now recommending same for the majority of the country. :confused:

Sell your guns. Or better yet turn them in.
Correct. Ignore the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.;)

Continued appeasement generally results in less freedom, in case no one's noticed.

A reasonable expectation would be an expansion of the "no paper" transactions.

-hanko

igorts
12-17-2012, 9:27 PM
I will go against the grain here, but I think if you own guns they should be required to be stored in a lock box or safe. That is the only law i would support.

It's been a law for years, you cant leave gunshop without one or a safe at home paper signed.

Fellblade
12-17-2012, 9:30 PM
The only benefit I could see to the nation suffering with CA's firearm laws is more chances for the higher courts to strike them down.

Safety1st
12-17-2012, 10:22 PM
-The California model at least lets us keep or ARs and AKs.



For how long?

The California model does not guarantee anything. Their goal is to eliminate civilian ownership of semi-auto rifles and handguns, period.

Why do people think accepting more restrictions will guarantee firearm ownership? It doesn't work that way. Ever notice how things like "temporary tax measures" and "temporary emergency powers" always become permanent?

IVC
12-17-2012, 10:26 PM
I will go against the grain here, but I think if you own guns they should be required to be stored in a lock box or safe. That is the only law i would support.

Only if there is an exception for the home defense guns which must be at a ready.

IVC
12-17-2012, 10:33 PM
I don't know why so many of you support backgroundchecks on private sales... to me that's crazy and unenforceable and we all know that. Also not to mention that background checks are a gimmick.

In the states that don't require FFL for PPT the seller will always ask the buyer for his driver's license to ensure he is selling to an in-state person. Do you see a problem there?

Adding a background check that can be performed between the same two persons without forcing them to go to an FFL and pay a fee is no more complicated or restrictive than checking the DL. However, there is a huge benefit to the seller who can now be assured that he is not selling to a prohibited person. Any law abiding citizen would have a serious vested interest in going to the NICS web site, punching some data and getting a receipt that clears him in the future if the gun is misused.

The main sticking point is ensuring that traces are not used for registry and that people are not forced to travel and pay a fee at an FFL. Otherwise, it's a great bargaining chip.

hoffmang
12-17-2012, 10:46 PM
Adding a background check that can be performed between the same two persons without forcing them to go to an FFL and pay a fee is no more complicated or restrictive than checking the DL.

It can also be made privacy protective by requiring only the sharing of an email address and requiring the seller to make sure the name on a photo ID matches the name on the background check clearance.

-Gene

IVC
12-17-2012, 11:16 PM
It can also be made privacy protective by requiring only the sharing of an email address and requiring the seller to make sure the name on a photo ID matches the name on the background check clearance.

-Gene

The level of detail you are going into makes me believe that there is more to the story. Is there anything you could share?

MattyB
12-17-2012, 11:45 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

That shooting affected me as well. I have a niece that is 4 and a nephew that is 2. Im not their parents but they are my babies and what happened is grotesque and sickening.

As reprehensible as the CT shooting was, our gun laws are illegal IMO. No gun law will keep a deranged murderer from carrying out their twisted goals.

Might I add, a wise man said that, "Those willing to give up their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

Keep that in mind when the clouded security you feel from a subjective gun characteristic ban comes to rear its ugly head. You obviously think that our laws are more restrictive than CT and you would be very wrong. They are even worse in CT and you see what happened. Laws don't stop criminals, they deter those that are not.

Might as well just get rid of your ARs if you own em because your mindset will guarantee it will happen with or without your permission.

EmptyMags
12-17-2012, 11:58 PM
Nope.

safewaysecurity
12-18-2012, 12:13 AM
Thank you for the kind words, I think what I was really getting at was the reality that SOMETHING will be changing soon. None of us know what, but something is coming down the pipe. I would rather have current CA gun laws than absolutely NO semi automatics. This is the cold new reality, get used to it folks.

Also, if an AWB prevents at least SOME of these incidents I would be happy to deal with a BB.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/16/remembering-the-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

Think about what you are saying for a second. You are saying you would be happy accepting a BB if that would save lives.. any gun owner with a basic understanding of logic would know that a bullet button does not stop you from doing anything. Anyone of us could if we wanted to switch our our BBs for a standard mag release and convert our rebuilt kits into "high caps" all under a few minutes if we wanted to. But we don't because we are not criminals and we are not the ones causing this mayhem. The ones that want to cause mayhem WILL find a way.

People have to realize that as technology progresses further and further we will probably end up having CNC machines in our homes the size of our printers that will be able to print a fully operational firearm within minutes. Heck you can already buy 3D printers for a few hundred bucks and print yourself some AR lowers all day. The future is EASIER access to guns and less control. Now that might scare the crap out of the statists and control freaks but everyone needs to deal with the fact that in the near future power will be decentralized. Things like Bitcoin and 3D printing and peer to peer file transfers are the catalysts for that.

myk
12-18-2012, 12:15 AM
Also, if an AWB prevents at least SOME of these incidents I would be happy to deal with a BB.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/16/remembering-the-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

How in God's name would a BB prevent a killing of any sort? As if a killer is going to sit there and say: "aw shucks. I really wanted to walk into The Immaculate Conception Church on 4th avenue and lay waste to as many people as I can, but because I have this bullet button with 10 round only magazine I'm just going to go eat some Cheetos and play Halo instead."

KILLERS WILL KILL, my friend. With knives, bats, bare hands, and yes, weapons with bullet buttons and 10 round magazines. On that note, "bad people" will always get their hands on weapons. You can regulate law abiding, innocent citizens until they're completely defenseless, but people intent on committing violence with a firearm WILL FIND A WAY TO DO IT, gun laws or not...

North Bay Guy
12-18-2012, 12:15 AM
Not in the least bit. Ca's gun law has done nothing to reduce gun crime or gun violence.

safewaysecurity
12-18-2012, 12:18 AM
In the states that don't require FFL for PPT the seller will always ask the buyer for his driver's license to ensure he is selling to an in-state person. Do you see a problem there?

Adding a background check that can be performed between the same two persons without forcing them to go to an FFL and pay a fee is no more complicated or restrictive than checking the DL. However, there is a huge benefit to the seller who can now be assured that he is not selling to a prohibited person. Any law abiding citizen would have a serious vested interest in going to the NICS web site, punching some data and getting a receipt that clears him in the future if the gun is misused.

The main sticking point is ensuring that traces are not used for registry and that people are not forced to travel and pay a fee at an FFL. Otherwise, it's a great bargaining chip.

I actually do see a problem there. First of all it's NOT illegal on a federal level to sell a rifle or shotgun to a person from another state, that's for handguns. Also a firearm is just another piece of property and you should be able to hand it to whomever you choose without the government getting involved. This 40% BS number that the Brady Campaign keeps throwing around was ( from what I understand ) a study done in 1991 before they passed the federal background check law. Now that the law requires background check in all 50 states for sales performed by FFLs the actualy number of guns sold without a background check is probably under 10% is my guess.

otalps
12-18-2012, 12:31 AM
Answer: NO.

Comment: You have the mind of a child, seeking protection from some imaginary benevolent parentalistic government.
:facepalm:

QFT

durandal
12-18-2012, 12:51 AM
Give me a break. Murderers so motivated can use a car or a molotov or a knife or an axe or a baseball bat if they dont have firearms.

A murderer can kill a lot of people with improvised weapons. You cant control that with vague regulations like gun free zones or gun bans.. Stupid laws that claim to protect you only offer a criminal the vague threat of eventual prosecution as a defense. Did that stop the Nazis?? No, the blood of allied soldiers, armed with RIFLES stopped them.

you can only stop criminals with the immediate use of deadly force (or the threat of use of force if they are willing to surrender)

That means, you must shoot a criminal before he kills you or someone else. Sorry if thats too stressful or distasteful. I know most americans would rather delegate that task to someone else and make rhetorical complaints about safety.

Theres some ignorant, orwellian doublethink going on in your logic. I think hes a plant boys.

IVC
12-18-2012, 1:04 AM
KILLERS WILL KILL, my friend. With knives, bats, bare hands, and yes, weapons with bullet buttons and 10 round magazines.

You can't fix stupid, but you can stop stupid.

safewaysecurity
12-18-2012, 1:11 AM
You can't fix stupid, but you can stop stupid.

You can't stop stupid either unless you kill it or put it in a cage.

GOEX FFF
12-18-2012, 1:52 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.


Did you know OP, that stealing firearms (which was the case in CT, stealing guns from the Mother) is a federal crime? Crazy right? But really...it is! But humm...that didn't really seem to work in preventing that in this case.

Did you know OP, there is also a law that makes murdering people illegal??
Even penalties stiff enough to earn you the death penalty?
It's true!! I'm not making that up. Can you believe it!? Now that's gotta be an effective one right?...I mean right? A state Government can kill you for killing someone else! But humm...that law, while having grounds for punishment by death, didn't really seem to work in this case now either, did it?...bIZ-aRE.

Did you know OP, that schools are actually designated "Gun-Free Zones".
That means NO guns are allowed there by common good people. Nada...Zip...Zilch. You will even go to jail if you bring a firearm on school grounds with out authorization!! I'm TOTALLY serious! Schools even have big signs on thier front entrance walls that say "No Weapons allowed" and doing so is a federal crime! But humm...wait....that too didn't seem to stop a criminal from doing it and killing children while not having to worry about being shot back at.


Did you know OP, that plotting a murder can result in your arrest and you can go prison for it!?...but wait...dang it.. that one didn't seem to have any effect on this either. :facepalm:


So, tell us OP, what "CA law" regardless of what other laws, bans, regulations, systematization or proclamation of existing law on firearms you think will work nationwide above all else mentioned, that would stop deranged criminals from carrying out their violent acts and this kind of tragedy from happening again?

I'm not going to question your emotions. This horrific event was planned and carried out by the hand of the lowest disgrace for a human being.
And any normal person with any shred of decency would be right to be sickened by it.
But often, initial emotions can cloud ones perspectives on reality, of what was the real cause for something like this to happen. Because in this "instant gratification" era we currently live in, it makes one "feel good" about having something to easily blame, (in this case like many, a firearm) rather than to struggle to put the pieces of the puzzle together of what made a mentally-ill killer carry out this heinous act. It's all too easy for the mind to jump and blame the "object" used.The fallacy of this is that in this case NO gun-control law would have or will ever stop it.

Punishing guns and the other 80 million gun-owners who didn't kill anyone for some lunatic's actions, by imposing laws on good people makes as much sense my sig line states -

Gun-Control: "A theory like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars"

It's totally bass-ackwards to helping the problem.

Eldraque
12-18-2012, 1:59 AM
requesting thread delete. should be no gun laws. period.

Wrangler John
12-18-2012, 5:20 AM
Typical liberal mindset: One mentally defective murderer does something heinous, so lets ban the instrument he used from everyone's possession, even though that instrument would have prevented the atrocity had it not already been banned from possession by those responsible for safety within the school.

If doing the same thing while repeatedly expecting a different outcome is a symptom of mental illness, then we can assume that the anti-gun lobby is mentally ill.

At a public school near my home there is a sign on the chain link fence (there is no gate) that reads: "All visitors must check-in at the office. No firearms or weapons allowed." I am truly relieved that the children are rendered completely safe by such lettering on a painted plywood surface. Brilliant!

I remember when the Superior Court Judges in San Mateo County began whining about their safety (rightly so) that the county made a special tunnel they could use to get to the courthouse from a secure portion of the parking garage, then they put in place airport type security at the entrances to the building. Now the question is, aren't children as important as judges? Sure it will cost, but isn't it worth the expense?

Wyatt Burp
12-18-2012, 5:28 AM
You might feel guilt ridden and feel responsible for the murderous actions of some zit faced punk on the other side of the continent but I don't. I know a lot of people mentioned this already probably but how can you put that evillllll impliment of death in your avatar? Do me a favor. Just put all your guns in the classifieds, take some hormone pills, and join the needlepoint forum. And give us a list of all the other stuff you want to ban because OTHER PEOPLE abuse them.

sandman21
12-18-2012, 5:34 AM
How exactly would nationwide 5150 and background checks on PPT have prevented this?

sd_shooter
12-18-2012, 5:39 AM
CT guns laws already mirror CA gun laws. Did it help?

The kid stole his mom's guns and shot her before the spree. He's not one of the good guys who wants to obey laws...

Vepr 54R
12-18-2012, 6:43 AM
For all of you who say "CT requires a BB and it didn't prevent this tragedy" you are saying exactly what the anti gunners are going to say. They will then say that ALL Semi autos need to be banned.

The REALITY is that some stricter gun laws are coming, weather you like it or not and current CA law lets us keep our VEPRs, AKs and ARs. (please re-read this sencence)

And for all of you going full retard and telling me to sell my hardware, go F yourself. If you can't adequately defend yourself with the firearms available under CA law, then you have NO business handling a firearm.

And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.

spetsnaz
12-18-2012, 6:45 AM
Ya i don't think so

-hanko
12-18-2012, 6:47 AM
Sell your guns. Or better yet turn them in.

Sent from my Incredible 2
This.

35 million frogs not recognizing the water is getting warmer.

-hanko

Mitch
12-18-2012, 6:47 AM
Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

And you somehow think that was about guns?

Tell me, after the Oklahoma City bombing, did you think that was all about explosives?

ScottB
12-18-2012, 6:51 AM
You guys aren't paying attention. In CA they already have the hardware laws. Now they will go after storage laws, stiffer background investigations before purchase and owner licensing, perhaps with annual renewals and police sign-offs. Yee has mentioned all of these things and more.

In CA there is nobody to stop them them now. We can all pack up and move, but either way, they'll call it a win.

JeepMan
12-18-2012, 6:51 AM
Have any of the posters on this thread sent money to your favorite 2a org yet?

'Cause the momentum is building against us, and we are going to need to buy more than a few Congressman.

My challenge for you people is to send at least $100 by Jan.1.

JM

ScottB
12-18-2012, 6:53 AM
Have any of the posters on this thread sent money to your favorite 2a org yet?

'Cause the momentum is building against us, and we are going to need to buy more than a few Congressman.

My challenge for you people is to send at least $100 by Jan.1.

JM

Good idea. Maybe you can provide the address of the bed they are all hiding under

Capybara
12-18-2012, 6:54 AM
So you are saying you hope that soon there will be no more free states? Oh brother, you have definitely drank the Kool Aid. Name a gun law or invent a gun law that prevents a supposedly safe and responsible mother who shoots from making the fatal decision to give her mentally ill son access to her guns. That's what I thought, there isn't one. Everyone is looking for the simple, easy answer and there isn't one.

I couldn't agree more with some of the other posters, this incident rests squarely on the shoulders of the antis but do you think that are going to take credit for implementing the Gun Free Killing Zones? Hell no, we are the convenient scapegoats, why would the antis take responsibility or ownership of their horrible decisions and laws when they have us to take their fall?

The answer is more/better gun owners education, better mental health support services and more responsible gun owners, paired with better security in Gun Free Killing Zones. But none of these will stop these tragedies, the horse left the barn decades ago. 300 million guns in America, experts estimate 80-100 million may be undocumented, unlicensed or in the hands of criminals. Even if you snap your fingers and magically ban the 200 million legally owned guns, what about the other 80-100 million? What about psychotic, mentally ill people who are determined to hurt or kill innocent people? Gun laws don't touch them.

Wishing our Draconian, backwards, illogical and ineffective gun laws on the rest of free America is incredibly short sighted, you must be an anti. You cannot negotiate with gun grabbers unless your negotiation is to lay down, roll over and let them disarm you. That is their end game, why not just cut to the chase?

1d0ntkn0w
12-18-2012, 6:59 AM
I'm waiting to see the list of meds this turd was on.

-hanko
12-18-2012, 7:03 AM
For all of you who say "CT requires a BB and it didn't prevent this tragedy" you are saying exactly what the anti gunners are going to say. They will then say that ALL Semi autos need to be banned.

The REALITY is that some stricter gun laws are coming, weather you like it or not and current CA law lets us keep our VEPRs, AKs and ARs. (please re-read this sencence)

And for all of you going full retard and telling me to sell my hardware, go F yourself. If you can't adequately defend yourself with the firearms available under CA law, then you have NO business handling a firearm.

And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.
You're naive and apparently have no concept of what a God-given right is.

Your "VERY secure" state is actually close to the national median in murder rate.

I have used a weapon in self-defense, but that's neither here nor there.

Ignorant post.:rolleyes:

-hanko

NoJoke
12-18-2012, 7:05 AM
aw **** it, mod please delete this thread.

Take the heat - your OP point is probably pondered by more than yourself - and the discussion is good. It requires someone to go through the mental gymnastics on why gun laws don't ever change what happened.

In short, irrational evil cannot be rationalized. Simply stated, evil exists.

myteddybear
12-18-2012, 7:10 AM
Its the psychopath who kills not the guns

skyscraper
12-18-2012, 7:20 AM
Sell your guns. Or better yet turn them in.

Sent from my Incredible 2

Why does he need to do this? Because he disagrees with your stance?

CitaDeL
12-18-2012, 7:24 AM
aw **** it, mod please delete this thread.

Motion seconded.

Anyone who believes that tragedy can be averted by banning an object must also believe that prohibition worked out well in attempting to dry up a couple of drunks.

longhairchris
12-18-2012, 7:28 AM
To answer the original question, no. Laws don't stop motivated nutjobs.

Sunday
12-18-2012, 7:37 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.What about the latest plane .bus ,car or train crash? What about all the civilians killed in the middle east? What about the kids that drowned last summer swimming? What about the college kid who died of the alcohol overdose last week? Been to the Vietnam memorial wall and read the names? Man you are so easily manipulated by the media.

Brundelfly
12-18-2012, 7:45 AM
Yeah no kidding. Everyone here is a gun toting American insisting you Can't take my rights(freedom of speach, right to bear arms, yeah...those) way, and yet say something against the grain here, and everyone says you should shut up or they will kick you out of the club house. Seriously, WTF? people?

A bit hypocritical don't ya think?

Brundelfly
12-18-2012, 7:46 AM
Ofcourse,

I dont agree with the "I LOVE CALIFORNIA GUN LAWs Guy" either, so lets beat him up, THEN kick him out of the club house.







(Im kidding, I swear!! )

Glock22Fan
12-18-2012, 7:50 AM
I will go against the grain here, but I think if you own guns they should be required to be stored in a lock box or safe. That is the only law i would support.

No problem with my hunting rifles, but my personal defense firearms work better when I can get at them, especially the one on my hip. Someone kicks the front door down, and I have to get past him to get to the safe.

Of course, when nobody is home, that's a different matter.

sparky1979
12-18-2012, 7:50 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking like this. And you should be banned from posting here immediately.
U

skyscraper
12-18-2012, 7:54 AM
You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking like this. And you should be banned from posting here immediately.
U

Lol

Glock22Fan
12-18-2012, 7:56 AM
For all of you who say "CT requires a BB and it didn't prevent this tragedy" you are saying exactly what the anti gunners are going to say. They will then say that ALL Semi autos need to be banned.

The REALITY is that some stricter gun laws are coming, weather you like it or not and current CA law lets us keep our VEPRs, AKs and ARs. (please re-read this sencence)

And for all of you going full retard and telling me to sell my hardware, go F yourself. If you can't adequately defend yourself with the firearms available under CA law, then you have NO business handling a firearm.

And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.

Drop your pants and bend over if that's really what you want to do. Personally, I'll fight to not lose anything.

violator22348
12-18-2012, 7:58 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

I hear what you're saying and I agree---somewhat---.

But you should think it through to the ultimate question: would any of our CA laws have made a difference in Newtown?. Only one that I can think of---the law requiring trigger locks or a safe. The gun-nut psycho mother of the psycho apparently had neither, since her lunatic son had three of her guns in his possession. And the reason I refer to the mother as a gun-nut is because she was obsessed with 'end of the world' nonsense, had only been into guns about a year, and all she talked about was guns....I hate those types. They make it a nightmare for the rest of us.

And there lies our problem: we know that 26 people were shot dead by one guy using one gun. What we can never prove is how many, if any, kids might be alive today had some other law been in place.

In my opinion, a major change needs to take place in the background investigations. Crazy people, violent people, ADHD types need to be weeded out.

But CA has some really stupid laws: bayomet lugs? I have yet to see a drive-by bayoneting. Flash hiders?..really?

Yeah, this shooting really hit me hard, too. It's healthy to re-evaluate your position on the 2nd amendment. It must always remain a right, but we need to be honest with ourselves.

robcoe
12-18-2012, 8:01 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

No, bye

violator22348
12-18-2012, 8:04 AM
You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking like this. And you should be banned from posting here immediately.
U

^spoken like a classic San Francisco liberal, or a certain man from Munich. ^

We shouldn't BAN anybody for disagreeing. Speech is important here, regardless of whether or not YOU like it.

SigAlert
12-18-2012, 8:10 AM
OP......yes it is horrific event and almost incomprehensible, but the worst in the US was in 1927 in Bath Michigan. It was a bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster


I had no idea. I've been saying all weekend, "crazy finds a way". Looks like it already did.

guntrust
12-18-2012, 8:15 AM
The only good thing about CA CCW is that, if you are lucky enough to live in a county that issues, you can use an unrestricted permit to carry at a school.

myk
12-18-2012, 8:24 AM
I hear what you're saying and I agree---somewhat---.

But you should think it through to the ultimate question: would any of our CA laws have made a difference in Newtown?. Only one that I can think of---the law requiring trigger locks or a safe. The gun-nut psycho mother of the psycho apparently had neither, since her lunatic son had three of her guns in his possession. And the reason I refer to the mother as a gun-nut is because she was obsessed with 'end of the world' nonsense, had only been into guns about a year, and all she talked about was guns....I hate those types. They make it a nightmare for the rest of us.



1. How do you know the guns weren't secured with trigger locks, and that the guns also weren't secured in a safe? Do you have documentation or a link that verifies this? Don't you think it's possible that the keys or the 'combo to the safe or the keys to the trigger locks may have been coerced from the woman?

2. Where do you come off calling this person that YOU DON'T KNOW a gun-nut psycho? Again, do you have any references to cite your claims? Are you a psychologist/psychotherapist that has spent time evaluating this woman and her circumstances? How do you know this woman was obsessed with "end of the world" nonsense, had only been to firearms for a year, etc? Again, do you have anything to back up your statements?

3. Is there something wrong with talking about guns all of the time? Isn't that what we do here on Calguns, AR15.com, M4Carbine.com, etc, etc, etc?

4. If you can't provide any reference material to verify your radical statements, please do not try to act like you are a part of our cause, because you most certainly are not, and the nightmare you speak of is being perpetuated by none other than yourself and your ilk...

Extra411
12-18-2012, 8:35 AM
OP, I understand you are approaching this subject seeking a compromise - that it's better to give something than to lose everything.

However, I believe in terms of our civil rights, giving up anything is a myopic approach. The proponents of gun laws will not stop until the complete disintegration of what is our constitutional right.

This isn't going to be the last time some deranged person goes postal. Other events will follow. It is an inevitability. If you are willing to concede every time such an incident occur, eventually you will be left with nothing, and by then it'll be too late for you to wonder what you could've done differently.

Glock22Fan
12-18-2012, 8:40 AM
OP......yes it is horrific event and almost incomprehensible, but the worst in the US was in 1927 in Bath Michigan. It was a bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

One of the worst school atrocities in England was a student who made a flame thrower by pressurising gasoline in a fire extinguisher. Fire extinguisher bans, anyone?

morfeeis
12-18-2012, 8:52 AM
Answer: NO.

Comment: You have the mind of a child, seeking protection from some imaginary benevolent parentalistic government.
:facepalm:

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

http://data.whicdn.com/images/38600179/5fd68d2c8b25d7126df6f94833d893d5.600x400_large.nop ad


All that i could have said has already been said.

IVC
12-18-2012, 9:07 AM
You can't stop stupid either unless you kill it or put it in a cage.

Precisely :thumbsup:

The 2A ensures we can do the former, the courts and LEO-s take care of the latter.

Capybara
12-18-2012, 9:08 AM
I don't think a lot of gun enthusiasts really understand the anti mindset. I do, more than half of my family are antis and I hear their blather on a daily basis. We are all discussing potential laws that impact hi cap magazines, assault weapons, ammo restrictions, etc. when in the mind of the anti gunner, they think "all guns are evil, nobody except the the government should have them, the government will use their guns to protect me and my family. If we can only get rid of all guns, everything will be better, we will live in the land of sunshine and rainbows, get those guns, take those guns from those evil gun people before another of them goes ballistic and kills a bunch ore innocent kids."

Even though the outcome was vastly different, we are in a similar mindset to the Jews in Germany in the late 1930s, thinking that we could negotiate, obey the laws, even though they were discriminatory and unfair and just try to get along in society. Forget the AWB, forget hi-capacity magazines, I am convinced that total disarmament is coming, it is just a matter of how it will happen and when it will happen. Will it be the black helicopters and military doing it as some believe or will it be the gradual 3-5 year erosion of all of our 2A rights coupled with the societal rejection of gun owners as social pariahs?

I guess the question is, how long can we stand upright before a 100 foot tidal wave of unconstitutional bills, discrimination, executive privilege, lies, disinformation and propaganda knocks us over and drowns us?

Dave07997S
12-18-2012, 9:09 AM
Seriously? The shooter didn't even use an AR. He used two hand guns.

I think they updated this to the fact he used a Bushmaster M4gery.

Dave

IVC
12-18-2012, 9:17 AM
I actually do see a problem there. First of all it's NOT illegal on a federal level to sell a rifle or shotgun to a person from another state, that's for handguns. Also a firearm is just another piece of property and you should be able to hand it to whomever you choose without the government getting involved.

Agree up to a point (BTW, long gun sales have to follow laws from *both* states, so we from CA cannot purchase PPT out of state), but the devil is in the detail.

Here is an example. Alcohol is also "private property," but you would be foolish to sell it to someone without checking their age. It's not what they do with it later, it's about you having a way to ensure you are not committing a crime. Checking ID at a bar is hardly a burden or giving up rights, since the government is not a part of the transaction.

Now consider having the ability to check the buyer of a gun on the spot using NICS database directly, without government direct involvement, without having to go to the FFL, without any fees. All it does is it gives you a tool to make sure you are not committing a crime, it's quick, it's efficient, and most importantly, it doesn't include government directly.

The trick with background checks in the form of "gun show loophole" as derogatorily advocated by the antis is that they want to move the whole process of a PPT to the FFL, collect a fee and create a record. This is a big no no and we should never accept it. But, getting a way to do it outside "the system" would not only benefit each seller, but would also remove this "registration through PPT at FFL" option from the table forever.

TATER313
12-18-2012, 9:24 AM
we live with them and fight not to lose anymore rights, Im not happy with them, but they can get worse. even with are laws and Dros process, it does not keep the weapons out of criminals, and nut jobs hands. We would be able to deter some crimes if we were able to carry.

SWalt
12-18-2012, 10:24 AM
For all of you who say "CT requires a BB and it didn't prevent this tragedy" you are saying exactly what the anti gunners are going to say. They will then say that ALL Semi autos need to be banned.

The REALITY is that some stricter gun laws are coming, weather you like it or not and current CA law lets us keep our VEPRs, AKs and ARs. (please re-read this sencence)

And for all of you going full retard and telling me to sell my hardware, go F yourself. If you can't adequately defend yourself with the firearms available under CA law, then you have NO business handling a firearm.

And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.

Tell that to every woman who has been raped, every person who has been assaulted or murdered. All it takes is turning the wrong corner at the wrong time and you too can be a victim.

OP....I understand where you are coming from, but compromise isn't the answer. No one knows for sure what will happen. Best we have are hints of what may happen. Having watched "gun control" for years, the futile efforts to "prevent" tragedy have come to not. There have been mad men in the past, and there will be mad men in the future. As some have said on here, the only thing compromise will do is ensure the next time a tragedy happens, it will only be already set up for additional laws to be enacted and more rights taken away. This has happened time and time again and hasn't prevented tragedies from happening. It never will. Offering a fall back position is just giving up and saying its ok to have our rights peddled away. Those here who have offered a less tactful way of telling you "no, CA laws aren't the answer" know that.

Glock22Fan
12-18-2012, 10:55 AM
Tell that to every woman who has been raped, every person who has been assaulted or murdered. All it takes is turning the wrong corner at the wrong time and you too can be a victim.

OP....I understand where you are coming from, but compromise isn't the answer. No one knows for sure what will happen. Best we have are hints of what may happen. Having watched "gun control" for years, the futile efforts to "prevent" tragedy have come to not. There have been mad men in the past, and there will be mad men in the future. As some have said on here, the only thing compromise will do is ensure the next time a tragedy happens, it will only be already set up for additional laws to be enacted and more rights taken away. This has happened time and time again and hasn't prevented tragedies from happening. It never will. Offering a fall back position is just giving up and saying its ok to have our rights peddled away. Those here who have offered a less tactful way of telling you "no, CA laws aren't the answer" know that.

Agree, a million times over, and more.

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 10:59 AM
To the OP.

This just hit me pretty hard... I know you must know that no matter what laws you pass, no matter what regulation is put in place, you will never be able to stop what happened.

OP I want to tell you a little story, it is true, and personal... every time I think about it, I get a huge knot in my stomach, I want to vomit, and I get really really sad.

The year was 2001 and I was turning 19 in 5 days. It was late Febuary, and I was in the the Santa Barbara area after completing my basic training in Cape May, NJ with the US Coast Guard. I was on leave and had spent the last 6 months as a non-rate in the fleet while I was awaiting a spot in "A" school. Just days prior had received notice that I would be shipping off to North Charleston, NC in July to attend the Maritime Enforcement "A" School. I was excited and wanted to celebrate. So doing what most 19 years olds in Santa Barbara do, I went into Isla Vista to join up with some of my friends who were attending UCSB and get our party on. Night started off normally, we drank at a friends house until about 10:30 and then made our way outside to head towards Del Playa street where the crowds would be out, the women would be wearing little, and the alcohol would flow like honey.

Well sure enough by 10:45 DP (del playa st) was packed... We were making our way to DP via the street behind called Sabado Tarde... cars can barely drive down this road at night when the party goers are out in force like they are on a Friday night. I remember that my buddy and I were attempting to hit on a couple blondes as we were walking toward our next party. She was telling me that her friend and her were going to the "Tiki" house but that they were only going to be there a few minuets to grab a few friends. My buddy was telling her friend that they should join us at our friends house at 6773 for a "party, my boy here is going to be going off to become a badass in the military. Its gonna be epic, we have 3 kegs and 10 handles of the captain!." We exchanged numbers, and they promised to call when they met up with their friends. We never made it to the party... As Ashley and her friend crossed the road, I heard the screeching tires followed by the crunching sound of metal on metal, glass breaking, and someone screaming in the distance. It was then I looked up, saw the crowd dispersing quickly... people screaming, and then headlights. My buddy Ryan grabbed my shirt and yanked me to the curb in-between two cars... not two seconds later a black car comes shredding by the car I was just standing near had it not been for my buddy yanking me to the curb. The car sped by at what must have been 40+. As I looked up I saw the first person get hit.

He didn't see it coming, his back was toward the impeding car and moments later he was lying in the street 30 feet from where his shoes were at the point of impact. The screaming and crashing noises continued for another 10 seconds. Immediately the voice of my Company Commander was ringing in my ears. Both Ryan and myself were running toward the first person in the street. I arrived at the first victim who was in really bad shape, I attempted to give CPR, but not much could be done, the victim was deceased. Once I realized this my stomach dropped, i got really quiet. The rest of the night became a bit of a blur. I remember a Sheriff's deputy coming to help, asking me if I was OK... He kept asking me if I knew the victims name.

I was interview by a detective, at which point they asked me if I had someone to take me home.

I tell you this story OP because while this sicko did not kill nearly as many people as our Friday attacks, he managed to kill 4, injure many others and emotionally scar hundreds forever. He did this without pulling a trigger, picking up a gun, or using any conventional weapon.

In my Military Career, I went on to perform a number of roles, during my time in "A" school, a bunch of other sickos decided to crash a couple planes into some buildings killing thousands and changing most people lives as we know it. I was one of the first class designations to come out of the Military Enforcement school to know were were going to be deployed overseas in the sh*t right after school. Our instructors told us so. Not long after we became a part of the DHS and my role as a LEDET changed a bit more... I have had to take lives to ensure the freedom of others. It is a tough thing to think about, and I definitely struggled with some of the things I saw and did while on deployment. That being said, nothing to this day has haunted me as much as that Friday night.

To say that more regulation will be an acceptable outcome of this tragic event is asinine and childish. David Attias committed mass murder that Friday night, even though it was illegal to drive under the influence, to murder, to dive at over twice the speed limit... he still did it. More regulation will never stop these tragic events. We need to look into identifying the psychotic behavior of these criminals before they commit the crimes.

Sorry for the long winded response, but this thread just really got me going.

tbhracing
12-18-2012, 11:02 AM
No, I do NOT like California gun laws now.

OleCuss
12-18-2012, 11:05 AM
Dakine surf:

Thank you for the story (a powerful one) and for your service.

PEBKAC
12-18-2012, 11:09 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)
No.

OleCuss
12-18-2012, 11:11 AM
Some nutjob slaughtered a bunch of innocents. The obvious answer is to disarm and gut the freedoms of the good, law-abiding citizens?

Important to remember that the biggest slaughter of innocent schoolkids was done without firearms at all?

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 11:16 AM
Dakine surf:

Thank you for the story (a powerful one) and for your service.

Appreciated... my only hope is that out of this tragedy and others, we see that the deranged and mentally ill are to blame. Hopefully we can spot them before they go one to kill more.

Vepr 54R
12-18-2012, 11:16 AM
To the OP.

This just hit me pretty hard... I know you must know that no matter what laws you pass, no matter what regulation is put in place, you will never be able to stop what happened.

OP I want to tell you a little story, it is true, and personal... every time I think about it, I get a huge knot in my stomach, I want to vomit, and I get really really sad.

The year was 2001 and I was turning 19 in 5 days. It was late Febuary, and I was in the the Santa Barbara area after completing my basic training in Cape May, NJ with the US Coast Guard. I was on leave and had spent the last 6 months as a non-rate in the fleet while I was awaiting a spot in "A" school. Just days prior had received notice that I would be shipping off to North Charleston, NC in July to attend the Maritime Enforcement "A" School. I was excited and wanted to celebrate. So doing what most 19 years olds in Santa Barbara do, I went into Isla Vista to join up with some of my friends who were attending UCSB and get our party on. Night started off normally, we drank at a friends house until about 10:30 and then made our way outside to head towards Del Playa street where the crowds would be out, the women would be wearing little, and the alcohol would flow like honey.

Well sure enough by 10:45 DP (del playa st) was packed... We were making our way to DP via the street behind called Sabado Tarde... cars can barely drive down this road at night when the party goers are out in force like they are on a Friday night. I remember that my buddy and I were attempting to hit on a couple blondes as we were walking toward our next party. She was telling me that her friend and her were going to the "Tiki" house but that they were only going to be there a few minuets to grab a few friends. My buddy was telling her friend that they should join us at our friends house at 6773 for a "party, my boy here is going to be going off to become a badass in the military. Its gonna be epic, we have 3 kegs and 10 handles of the captain!." We exchanged numbers, and they promised to call when they met up with their friends. We never made it to the party... As Ashley and her friend crossed the road, I heard the screeching tires followed by the crunching sound of metal on metal, glass breaking, and someone screaming in the distance. It was then I looked up, saw the crowd dispersing quickly... people screaming, and then headlights. My buddy Ryan grabbed my shirt and yanked me to the curb in-between two cars... not two seconds later a black car comes shredding by the car I was just standing near had it not been for my buddy yanking me to the curb. The car sped by at what must have been 40+. As I looked up I saw the first person get hit.

He didn't see it coming, his back was toward the impeding car and moments later he was lying in the street 30 feet from where his shoes were at the point of impact. The screaming and crashing noises continued for another 10 seconds. Immediately the voice of my Company Commander was ringing in my ears. Both Ryan and myself were running toward the first person in the street. I arrived at the first victim who was in really bad shape, I attempted to give CPR, but not much couple be done, the victim was deceased. Once I realized this my stomach dropped, i got really quiet. The rest of the night became a bit of a blur. I remember a Sheriff's deputy coming to help, asking me if I was OK... He kept asking me if I knew the victims name.

I was interview by a detective, at which point they asked me if I had someone to take me home.

I tell you this story OP because while this sicko did not kill nearly as many people as our Friday attacks, he managed to kill 4, injure many others and emotionally scar hundreds forever. He did this without pulling a trigger, picking up a gun, or using any conventional weapon.

In my Military Career, I went on to perform a number of roles, during my time in "A" school, a bunch of other sickos decided to crash a couple plans into some buildings killing thousands and changing most people lives as we know it. I was one of the first class designations to come out of the Military Enforcement school to know were were going to be deployed overseas in the sh*t right after school. Our instructors told us so. Not long after we became a part of the DHS and my role as a LEDET changed a bit more... I have had to take lives to ensure the freedom of others. It is a tough thing to think about, and I definitely struggled with some of the things I saw and did while on deployment. That being said, nothing to this day has haunted me as much as that Friday night.

To say that more regulation will be an acceptable outcome of this tragic event is asinine and childish. David Attias committed mass murder that Friday night, even though it was illegal to drive under the influence, to murder, to dive at over twice the speed limit... he still did it. More regulation will never stop these tragic events. We need to look into identifying the psychotic behavior of these criminals before they commit the crimes.

Sorry for the long winded response, but this thread just really got me going.

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't have any laws because people will break them?

This is total hogwash especially coming from a veteran.

LoadedM333
12-18-2012, 11:17 AM
Just like everyone said, no laws will prevent this. Allowing teachers to carry like one School in Texas will at least give them a chance to defend.

decepticon6551
12-18-2012, 11:18 AM
Hell no, that monster broke countless federal & state laws on Friday, mostly in a GFZ. If anything, less restrictions on the law abiding would be a better deterrent.
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for thisLong as you knew what you were getting into...

decepticon6551
12-18-2012, 11:20 AM
Amen
Appreciated... my only hope is that out of this tragedy and others, we see that the deranged and mentally ill are to blame. Hopefully we can spot them before they go one to kill more.


And thank you for your story

OP I want to tell you a little story, it is true, and personal...

billmaykafer
12-18-2012, 11:23 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

you need to sell all of your guns and go whimper in a corner.:oji:

billmaykafer
12-18-2012, 11:30 AM
what is your feeling about abortion? 20 children is less than daily loss to abortion.

bambam8d1
12-18-2012, 11:33 AM
wow.. it blows my mind. When are people going to realize that if somebody is going to go shoot up a bunch of innocent people for no reason... they are not going to care if their weapons are legal to have. Look at the places with the tightest gun restrictions. Ca, NY, Chicago... some of the highest crime rates. The criminals who are going to use weapons to commit crimes and whatnot are not going to care about following gun laws if they are going to use them to break other laws... like the saying goes. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have gun. And where does that leave us to protect ourselves..

Vepr 54R
12-18-2012, 11:33 AM
what is your feeling about abortion? 20 children is less than daily loss to abortion.

One and done, a woman would be allowed to have one abortion, but then must have her tubes tied as she is not parent material.

newbee1111
12-18-2012, 11:33 AM
California gun laws are arbitrary, pointless and accomplish nothing.

Some rifles are banned based on a list cosmetic features while nearly identical rifles are perfectly legal to use for full capacity magazines if you happen to be lucky enough to have them. Some specific models are banned but identical clones are not. Oh and some people can have the banned rifle and use full capacity magazines anyways.

Some handguns can't be sold in the state due to what COLOR the finish is because the manufacturer didn't feel like paying a extra fee to add it to our arbitrary safe handgun list but you can buy that same handgun from a cop and its perfectly fine.

Our safe handgun law specifically excludes single action revolvers when authentic old style cowboy style guns are the most prevalent to fire accidentally when dropped because for some reason cowboy cosplayers have a direct line to shaping legislation in our state.

The state can't tell you what the difference between whats a muzzle brake and a flash hider other than its a serious felony to stick one on your semi-auto rifle.

You can legally own a dozen guns but you are going to have to wait 10 days before picking up another one because the state doesn't want you going crazy and doing something bad in that week and a half. Does anyone know what problem the 30 day wait was supposed to try to fix in the first place?

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't have any laws because people will break them?

This is total hogwash especially coming from a veteran.

I think you missed the point of my story... Any amount of regulation is not going to stop these people... They will always find a way to kill. I would be willing to bet that had Attias had a gun he would have used it, but he didn't, he had a car. The point is to show that instead of blaming the tool we need to look into the person. After that Friday night in Isla Vista, there was not a national movement to ban all black saabs because they are killing machines and have the ability to kill many people quickly. That would be ridiculous because many millions of saabs are used everyday, peacefully. Exactly the same as a glock, sig, or a bushmaster.

In the military we were under many regulations... One biggie that come to my mind is the UCMJ... it outlined how myself and my men were to behave, treat our prisoners, and the punishments that would be served to us in the event we did break the laws. To take from my story that I want anarchy because no regulation or law will help because criminals will still commit crime is absurd.

My point was to say that after living through an event like that, I understand that trying to blame the tool and regulate it will do nothing...

Also saying that I should support regulation because of my veteran status is what is Hogwash... I put my *** on the line everyday for 8 years, in very crappy situations... I got shot at, and repeatedly attacked, and generally shipped off to places that sucked, away from my family to protect the freedoms of this country. To protect you and your family, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the ability for us to live in this country. Your last comment here is offensive and asinine.

ACfixer
12-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Thank you for the kind words, I think what I was really getting at was the reality that SOMETHING will be changing soon. None of us know what, but something is coming down the pipe. I would rather have current CA gun laws than absolutely NO semi automatics. This is the cold new reality, get used to it folks.

Also, if an AWB prevents at least SOME of these incidents I would be happy to deal with a BB.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/16/remembering-the-victims-of-the-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting/

No sir, I WON'T "get used to it". You can bend over and take whatever screwing the want to offer you, that's your choice.

You tell me how an AWB would prevent an incident like this? Pull your head out my man.

As Cal laws stand now, if I were attacked by a gang member in my home that obviously has no regard for ANY law... Since I DO follow laws my firepower is restricted in dealing with a criminal. I can't shoot more than ten times nor can I change magazines in my rifle without a "tool". If I were a crook it would take ten seconds to remove the bullet button and make my magazines hold 30 rounds. You have serious issues Mr. 54.

bambam8d1
12-18-2012, 11:36 AM
And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.

How many times have you been in a car accident or had your house catch fire? Do you still put your seatbelt on everytime you get in the car or have an extinguisher in your home?

elSquid
12-18-2012, 11:37 AM
Here you go Vepr - more CA gun laws for you to like. Just announced today:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=658575

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-12-18-yee-introduces-assault-weapon-bill-supports-de-leon-ammunition-and-lieu-school-safet

SACRAMENTO – Today, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced a bill intended to close major loopholes in California’s assault weapon ban and announced two other gun control measures he plans to introduce this session.

SB 47 is modeled after a bill he introduced last year but that was held by the State Assembly. The bill prohibited semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s from having devices known as “bullet buttons” and “mag magnets,” which allow the gun to be easily reloaded with multiple rounds of ammunition. SB 47 will also prohibit add-on kits that allow high-capacity magazines.


-- Michael

robcoe
12-18-2012, 11:38 AM
So OP, thanks to people like you we are now going to be stuck having to buy ID cards and get yearly renewals in order to posses guns, not just buy them.

Thanks a lot.

Do the rest of us a favor, move out of California, you're not helping.

This is what acquiescing to these nut-balls(like you are promoting) gets you, one license with yearly fees to be in possession of a gun, another separate one with more yearly fees to buy ammunition, all so you can have a gun that must have either a trigger lock installed or be in a safe when your not at a shooting range so it is useless if you do have to defend yourself.

And in case you are going to claim I made that up, read the new laws introduced by your buddies DeLeon and Yee today.

ACfixer
12-18-2012, 11:47 AM
Yeah boy, these new laws would really prevent some nutcase from going off eh? OP, as a gun owner I really think you should be ashamed of yourself for your views.

Being forced to keep my guns under lock and key at all times would prevent what? It would prevent me from being able to quickly arm myself and defend my family in this ever worsening criminal climate due to other fantastic bills like AB-109. We let more criminals out early, then place restrictions on law abiding gun owners and their ability to deal with them.

God help us.

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 12:18 PM
For all of you who say "CT requires a BB and it didn't prevent this tragedy" you are saying exactly what the anti gunners are going to say. They will then say that ALL Semi autos need to be banned.

The REALITY is that some stricter gun laws are coming, weather you like it or not and current CA law lets us keep our VEPRs, AKs and ARs. (please re-read this sencence)

And for all of you going full retard and telling me to sell my hardware, go F yourself. If you can't adequately defend yourself with the firearms available under CA law, then you have NO business handling a firearm.

And finally, before I stop posting on this monster that I created, who here has actually used a firearm in self defense? We live in a VERY secure state, and some of you seem awfully paranoid.

CA gun laws > no semi autos.

This makes me believe that you have no business owning a firearm. How does regulating the number of bullets i can put into my gun because I live within a certain proximity to the beach keep anyone safer? Do you really think this state is very safe. I live in one of the lowest violet crime areas in CA for a metropolitan area, yet just a month or so ago, a guy was stabbed 15 times by his newly released from prison friend. This happened not 3 blocks from where I live... I heard the helicopters overhead all night because I live up on the edge of the beach where he was hiding. I was actually going to take my dog for a walk as that was happening, but luckily checked the police scanner before I left. And on Friday night (yes the 15th of December) Another person was stabbed on State St. here.

Yeah boy, these new laws would really prevent some nutcase from going off eh? OP, as a gun owner I really think you should be ashamed of yourself for your views.

Being forced to keep my guns under lock and key at all times would prevent what? It would prevent me from being able to quickly arm myself and defend my family in this ever worsening criminal climate due to other fantastic bills like AB-109. We let more criminals out early, then place restrictions on law abiding gun owners and their ability to deal with them.

God help us.

This^

FYI- The POS David Attias That I spoke of in my story was released a few months ago... the judge stated that he was no longer a threat to society... what a crock of sh*t... He killed 4 people and spent less than 10 years in a hospital. Sometimes I wish he did have a gun that night, he probably would have off'd himself and we wouldn't have this guy back on the streets

Glock22Fan
12-18-2012, 12:28 PM
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't have any laws because people will break them?

This is total hogwash especially coming from a veteran.

Your response is total hogwash.

He wasn't saying that at all. We have laws so that if people break them we can punish them. Laws making murder illegal will never stop murder, and equally a lack of laws preventing murder will not cause normal citizens to go around slaughtering their fellow citizens.

OTOH, laws that punish the innocent, while failing to impede the not innocent are pointless, as are the ones you are promoting. Forum rules prevent me from saying what I think of your inability to distinguish between the two, but you may rest assured that it is not complementary.

pHredd9mm
12-18-2012, 12:30 PM
NO!
The OP can turn his firearms in to the police to be destroyed and I will fell much safer!

curtisfong
12-18-2012, 12:33 PM
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't have any laws because people will break them?


If you are going to pass a law that restricts a fundamental right, you'd better be ready to prove efficacy, junior.

This is total hogwash especially coming from a veteran.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't understand the nature of the freedom that our veterans fought to preserve, let alone the constitution.

Seriously, I'm ashamed of you and your ignorance. You disgust me.

A gun owner should know better. Heck, instead of a HSC, people like you should be tested for Constitutional literacy.

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 12:45 PM
A gun owner should know better. Heck, instead of a HSC, people like you should be tested for Constitutional literacy.

Such a great statement and idea... in fact OP, I have a pocket constitution you can have... PM me your address and I will send it to you, sounds like you need to brush up.

oddball
12-18-2012, 12:49 PM
It is threads/ OPs like this that give CA gun owners a bad reputation, the laughing stock of the national firearms community. Little wonder why out of state sellers and retailers hate dealing with us.

Fellblade
12-18-2012, 12:50 PM
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't have any laws because people will break them?

This is total hogwash especially coming from a veteran.

I think you have that totally wrong. That statement is the problem with our polarized "everything is black&white" society.
Laws do not prevent actions. Period. People can and will do whatever they want.
Laws DO outline the consequences for actions. Before a person takes an action they must make a choice. "Should I do this? If so, this will happen if I'm caught." At that point it's back to the individual, if they're willing to risk the consequences to associated with that action.

Any "gun" laws should deal with consequences, not prevention. These should exist. Mandatory harsh sentencing for use of a firearm in a crime. Under no circumstances should attorneys be allowed to dismiss or reduce those charges just to get their client a better deal.

Will that stop bad people from doing bad things? Doubtful. But it will stop good people from being judged and limited based on what a different person might do.

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 1:57 PM
It is threads like this that make me think of one of favorite quotes by one of our founding fathers...

“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” - John Adams

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The definition of infringed according to Merriam-Webster is

Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

This then leads us to the definition of encroach...

Definition of ENCROACH

1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

Which is exactly what we have done in CA... Gradually given up rights

Our founders are rolling in their graves

decepticon6551
12-18-2012, 2:24 PM
Good point (I do too btw) let me clarify for everyone else;

-I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, OR A TROLL. I OWN EVERYTHING IN MY SIGNATURE AND HAVE BEEN SHOOTING SINCE I WAS A KID BACK ON MY PARENTS FARM.

-I think I am just scared of a full on BAN of semi autos the same way full auto was banned.

-The California model at least lets us keep or ARs and AKs.

-Gosh...20 dead kids...
__________________
Sig 1911 Nitron Rail, Glock 21C, Browning Buckmark, Vepr-54R, Mosin, Remington 770, Remington 870 ESM, Bushmaster AR15-A2, Ruger 10/22
I've been giving this post a lot of thought...

How much for the Nitron & the Bushwhacker? :laugh:

Tmptch
12-18-2012, 4:28 PM
So please explain how California gun laws would have changed anything about Sandy Hook?

What would you like see done to prevent this?

When Timothy McVeigh killed 168 innocent people (19 children 6 and under) without firing a single shot, he did not even have a gun, did you want to outlaw rental trucks and fertilizer?

On the same day as Sandy hook an average of 45 innocent lives were snatched due to Alcohol related trauma i.e. accidents, physical violence etc., do you want limit alcohol to 2 drinks a week?

So please explain how because a nut job steals some guns and commits a tragedy why should I now be limited on how to protect my family?

Blue Ridge Reef
12-18-2012, 5:39 PM
No. I do not want California gun laws here in North Carolina one damn bit. I don't want them in California, either. I have grieved for days for those poor massacred babies in CT, their families, even thought about the unopened Christmas presents. But if you feel any sort of responsibility or guilt for owning guns over a lunatic kid's horrific actions, I just don't understand that emotion.

RRangel
12-18-2012, 6:22 PM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

Connecticut already does have a California style "assault weapon" ban. You make your statement because you're what I would call a selfish fair weather Second Amendment supporter.

There were restrictions in place in Connecticut but that didn't matter. Just like "gun-free" zones don't matter.

There is also no empirical evidence supporting such laws or magazine restrictions. Yet fools want feel good legislation, that harms the nation and creates more crime, because thugs realize they have an advantage.

Fate
12-18-2012, 6:43 PM
I prefer having hemorrhoids at a prostate exam to CA gun laws.

socalbud
12-18-2012, 6:51 PM
Some nutjob slaughtered a bunch of innocents. The obvious answer is to disarm and gut the freedoms of the good, law-abiding citizens?

Important to remember that the biggest slaughter of innocent schoolkids was done without firearms at all?

I heard Adam Lanza was a good law abiding citizen once.

And per thread, no, CA gun roster is absurd...absolutely absurd. I actually don't care if there is an assault weapons ban, but this CA handgun roster is a joke.

SilverTauron
12-18-2012, 6:56 PM
I heard Adam Lanza was a good law abiding citizen once.

.

So was Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden, neither of whom used a gun to kill THOUSANDS together.

Not 30 people in a school. We're talking acts of terrorism -and not one rifle was used. Hmnph.

Yet, airplanes still fly our skies. Trucks still whizz by on interstates, and boxcutters require no background check nor are subject to a roster.

Your regressive and obvious paranoia is neither welcome nor healthy.

SanPedroShooter
12-18-2012, 7:04 PM
It is threads like this that make me think of one of favorite quotes by one of our founding fathers...

“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” - John Adams

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The definition of infringed according to Merriam-Webster is

Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

This then leads us to the definition of encroach...

Definition of ENCROACH

1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

Which is exactly what we have done in CA... Gradually given up rights

Our founders are rolling in their graves


This is a terrible thread with some great responses.

There was a USCG thread this morning with a few vets going back and forth. It sounds like you should have been there.

Semper Paratus.

Dakine_surf
12-18-2012, 7:56 PM
This is a terrible thread with some great responses.

There was a USCG thread this morning with a few vets going back and forth. It sounds like you should have been there.

Semper Paratus.

Any chance you know the thread? I would love to see if any of my buddies are on there.

Semper Paratus my friend

From Aztec Shore to Arctic Zone,
To Europe and Far East,
The Flag is carried by our ships
In times of war and peace;
And never have we struck it yet,
In spite of foemen's might,
Who cheered our crews and cheered again
For showing how to fight.

Vepr 54R
12-18-2012, 8:20 PM
OK, I am going to say this one last time.

-CA gun laws aren't that great, but better than just about every other country (school me if I am wrong here)

-What is coming next year will certainly be MUCH worse (please read this statement 20 times)

-I think they may even go after semi auto pistols. (again, 20X please)

-For those of you that say "CA gun laws wouldn't have stopped him" or "CT laws are the same as CA" you are probably right, but you can still buy (neutered) ARs and AKs now. You won't after Feinstein gets her way and she probably will.

-Given whats coming, CA laws don't look so bad. We should be arguing for a compromise with Feinstein, we should try and implement the CA model countrywide. If you keep arguing these same tired 2A arguments you aren't getting anything but BANNED from buying new ARs. (If you absorb only one thing, please let it be the previous sentence)



Something beyond terrible just happened, the Government WILL be reacting to this. We need to be arguing for compromise and not be bull headed punks.

oddball
12-18-2012, 8:31 PM
You're an embarrassment for gun owners EVERYWHERE in this country.

As long as you have "YOURS", you don't give a s@@@ about anybody else.

I DEMAND my semi-auto rifles. WHO ARE YOU TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW BETTER ON WHO SHOULD HAVE WHAT?

God, people like you give us California gun owners a really bad rep.:mad::mad:

Absolutely amazing. Flabbergasting.

Vepr 54R
12-18-2012, 8:38 PM
You're an embarrassment for gun owners EVERYWHERE in this country.

As long as you have "YOURS", you don't give a s@@@ about anybody else.

I DEMAND my semi-auto rifles. WHO ARE YOU TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW BETTER ON WHO SHOULD HAVE WHAT?

God, people like you give us California gun owners a really bad rep.:mad::mad:

Absolutely amazing. Flabbergasting.

Did you actually read what I just typed? I want you to still be able to buy an AR or AK. Where did you get the idea I want them banned?

IVC
12-18-2012, 8:52 PM
Something beyond terrible just happened, the Government WILL be reacting to this. We need to be arguing for compromise and not be bull headed punks.

Unlike most of the "regular business" government does, where it's all about public support and political posturing, we are talking about a right that is (1) in the Constitution, and (2) has two very specific recent SCOTUS precedents.

The fight is definitely worth the effort and if they want an all out war on guns, they'll have it. There will be massive political consequences, not only because the courts will get involved, but also because there are almost 100M gun owners, which is 50% MORE than the number of votes ANY president ever got. And all gun owners can vote.

You don't falter at the first sight of the enemy. Remember, we didn't start it, but if we get pushed against the wall, we'll finish it both politically and in courts.

Brendan
12-18-2012, 9:28 PM
Don't like CA laws one bit nor would want them instituted nation wide.

Oh....by the way.......how many Governments have mass murdered people? Way more victims than some psycho in CT

262,000,000 & that is just from 1900-1999, which is known as "democide." Kind of close to the whole population of the US.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/aks-in-the-hands-of-soldiers.jpg

DIRTMAN556
12-18-2012, 9:44 PM
OK, I am going to say this one last time.

-CA gun laws aren't that great, but better than just about every other country (school me if I am wrong here)

-What is coming next year will certainly be MUCH worse (please read this statement 20 times)

-I think they may even go after semi auto pistols. (again, 20X please)

-For those of you that say "CA gun laws wouldn't have stopped him" or "CT laws are the same as CA" you are probably right, but you can still buy (neutered) ARs and AKs now. You won't after Feinstein gets her way and she probably will.

-Given whats coming, CA laws don't look so bad. We should be arguing for a compromise with Feinstein, we should try and implement the CA model countrywide. If you keep arguing these same tired 2A arguments you aren't getting anything but BANNED from buying new ARs. (If you absorb only one thing, please let it be the previous sentence)



Something beyond terrible just happened, the Government WILL be reacting to this. We need to be arguing for compromise and not be bull headed punks.

Alright let's calm down here. Emotions are running.

Viper, I think you're missing the point everyone against you is trying to make. First off, I completely understand what you mean about California laws not being so bad since next year they will be really bad.

Fine. I get it.

What you seem to be naively missing is that if you give them an inch, they'll take a foot. The trickle-down effect would work like this. Say next year the country adopts California gun laws. Well guess what is going to happen in California? Another layer will blanket existing laws. As a hypothetical example, if you could even purchase a rifle. The national law says 10-round magazines. California says no magazines at all. Only one in the chamber. Yes this is an extreme example, but it is to illustrate why there can be no compromise.

Gun laws only punish law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

robcoe
12-18-2012, 10:03 PM
OK, I am going to say this one last time.

-CA gun laws aren't that great, but better than just about every other country (school me if I am wrong here)

-What is coming next year will certainly be MUCH worse (please read this statement 20 times)

-I think they may even go after semi auto pistols. (again, 20X please)

-For those of you that say "CA gun laws wouldn't have stopped him" or "CT laws are the same as CA" you are probably right, but you can still buy (neutered) ARs and AKs now. You won't after Feinstein gets her way and she probably will.

-Given whats coming, CA laws don't look so bad. We should be arguing for a compromise with Feinstein, we should try and implement the CA model countrywide. If you keep arguing these same tired 2A arguments you aren't getting anything but BANNED from buying new ARs. (If you absorb only one thing, please let it be the previous sentence)



Something beyond terrible just happened, the Government WILL be reacting to this. We need to be arguing for compromise and not be bull headed punks.

Here's the problem, you are not dealing with people who have any desire to be rational, Feinsteine herself said if she could figure out how to ban all guns, she would.

To quote her

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

The type of person who says that will never stop, you MIGHT get to keep what you have, for a while, but she will never be satisfied with any "compromise"

When you are dealing with that mentality there is no compromise, because they will never compromise, yes she might settle for just banning what are now called "assault weapons" this time, but that is a fictional term and can be modified to mean whatever is convienent at the time. You have seen the results of going along with that just this week with Yee, he is reintroducing a bill to now expand what is banned under the definition of "assault weapon" and to require a permit with yearly fees to even remain in posession of any gun you already have(and if you think they wont start tacking on other "administrative fees" to that, I have a bridge to sell you), not just "assault weapons" any gun. Today, they extend California's AWB to cover the entire country, next year after another shooting they find a "loophole" and ban all semi-auto guns, then another "loophole" and ban all guns with removeable magazines, then another shooting and close the "loophole" that allows guns to hold more than one round at a time.

All you will get from saying "isn't this better than a big fight right now" is a slow assured death.

In the current fight, we gain NOTHING from compromise, and zelots like Feinstein get closer to their ultimate goal of banning all guns.

In advocating for a California style AWB you are making the same devils bargin that previous groups like cowboy compitition shooters, trap and skeet shooter and hunters made in the past, the "they are leaving me with what I have so I won't oppose them" error. The problem here is that once they ban or restrict into nothingness "assault weapons" groups like the Brady Campaign(which relies on a constant push for more restictions to keep money coming in), and gun control zelots like DeLeon, Yee and Feinstein will just decide to "close a loophole" to remove what YOU have, but it will already be to far gone to stop.

So, to sum up for the TL;DR people

Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

madjack956
12-18-2012, 10:31 PM
I borrowed this from another thread on the web.

Dianne Feinstein is an anti-gun Senator who still somehow found the fortitude to obtain for herself a concealed firearms carry permit, a privilege she wants to deny others... Do as I say Not as I do...
"Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. [...] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. [...] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
-Dianne Feinstein...See More

SWalt
12-18-2012, 10:31 PM
Here's the problem, you are not dealing with people who have any desire to be rational, Feinsteine herself said if she could figure out how to ban all guns, she would.

To quote her


"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

The type of person who says that will never stop, you MIGHT get to keep what you have, for a while, but she will never be satisfied with any "compromise"

When you are dealing with that mentality there is no compromise, because they will never compromise, yes she might settle for just banning what are now called "assault weapons" this time, but that is a fictional term and can be modified to mean whatever is convienent at the time. You have seen the results of going along with that just this week with Yee, he is reintroducing a bill to now expand what is banned under the definition of "assault weapon" and to require a permit with yearly fees to even remain in posession of any gun you already have(and if you think they wont start tacking on other "administrative fees" to that, I have a bridge to sell you), not just "assault weapons" any gun. Today, they extend California's AWB to cover the entire country, next year after another shooting they find a "loophole" and ban all semi-auto guns, then another "loophole" and ban all guns with removeable magazines, then another shooting and close the "loophole" that allows guns to hold more than one round at a time.

All you will get from saying "isn't this better than a big fight right now" is a slow assured death.

In the current fight, we gain NOTHING from compromise, and zelots like Feinstein get closer to their ultimate goal of banning all guns.

In advocating for a California style AWB you are making the same devils bargin that previous groups like cowboy compitition shooters, trap and skeet shooter and hunters made in the past, the "they are leaving me with what I have so I won't oppose them" error. The problem here is that once they ban or restrict into nothingness "assault weapons" groups like the Brady Campaign(which relies on a constant push for more restictions to keep money coming in), and gun control zelots like DeLeon, Yee and Feinstein will just decide to "close a loophole" to remove what YOU have, but it will already be to far gone to stop.

So, to sum up for the TL;DR people

Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

Very well said

socaldsal
12-18-2012, 10:39 PM
I have low opinions of anything Feinstein says. I have even lower opinions of her herself. I won't support anything that she thinks is a good idea. Even if it were good rational advice coming from her, I would do the opposite out of spite.

SWalt
12-18-2012, 10:54 PM
262,000,000 & that is just from 1900-1999, which is known as "democide." Kind of close to the whole population of the US.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/aks-in-the-hands-of-soldiers.jpg

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure about the authors methodology but it is over 100,000,000 for sure.

But this is the root of the 2nd Amendment. The power of the state must be kept in check. I don't think the OP even considers this.

Fate
12-18-2012, 11:58 PM
-Given whats coming, CA laws don't look so bad. We should be arguing for a compromise with Feinstein, we should try and implement the CA model countrywide. If you keep arguing these same tired 2A arguments you aren't getting anything but BANNED from buying new ARs. (If you absorb only one thing, please let it be the previous sentence)

Eff Feinstein and eff compromise.

myk
12-19-2012, 12:04 AM
I have low opinions of anything Feinstein says. I have even lower opinions of her herself. I won't support anything that she thinks is a good idea. Even if it were good rational advice coming from her, I would do the opposite out of spite.

Well she's a damn hypocrite anyway, and I can't STAND that:
vQMwpbSjC1A

So she can carry and conceal, ready to rock and roll but the rest of us just have to wait 10-15 minutes before the cops get there...:chris:

Extra411
12-19-2012, 12:46 AM
OK, I am going to say this one last time.

-CA gun laws aren't that great, but better than just about every other country (school me if I am wrong here)

-What is coming next year will certainly be MUCH worse (please read this statement 20 times)

-I think they may even go after semi auto pistols. (again, 20X please)

-For those of you that say "CA gun laws wouldn't have stopped him" or "CT laws are the same as CA" you are probably right, but you can still buy (neutered) ARs and AKs now. You won't after Feinstein gets her way and she probably will.

-Given whats coming, CA laws don't look so bad. We should be arguing for a compromise with Feinstein, we should try and implement the CA model countrywide. If you keep arguing these same tired 2A arguments you aren't getting anything but BANNED from buying new ARs. (If you absorb only one thing, please let it be the previous sentence)



Something beyond terrible just happened, the Government WILL be reacting to this. We need to be arguing for compromise and not be bull headed punks.

Many people have told you why your approach to compromise is undesirable in the long run. Yet you insist on treading this path of destructive thinking.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I'm going to bring up the following:
Before the official commencement of world war II, there was a period of appeasement to Hitler. Many foolish people, particularly on the British side, believed that if they bend to Hitler's desires they would be able to contain him. They did not oppose Germany's annexation of Austria. They literally served up pieces of Czechoslovakia to him in the Munich Agreement (you might want to read up on this interesting piece of history), with no input from the Czechs. Chamberlain had the nerve to make the "peace for our time" speech afterwards, high off of his own diplomatic accomplishment. Some of the French actually believed that it's better to have Hitler than Bolshevism. All of them would eventually realize Hitler's hunger is insatiable. Not only did Hitler violate the Munich Agreement right away and took over the remainder of Czech, but he immediately moved on to Poland, and the rest is history.

British prime minister Chamberlain was initially praised for his diplomacy and appeasement policies to Germany. But in hindsight, he was a poor and weak leader, and his appeasement approach almost caused the downfall of his own country and the rest of Europe.

I hope this may provide some sustenance for your thoughts. While I wouldn't go so far as to liken gun-control groups with the third Reich, it is my belief that at the very least they too, cannot be appeased. Their gluttony cannot be satisfied. They will not stop until firearm ownership is a mere footnote in the American history, and a lore passed down by great grandparents. In times of hardship, it is even more important to have strength and conviction, and the willingness to stand for principles and liberty, so that the ideals that found this country will continue to benefit future generations of Americans.

Robidouxs
12-19-2012, 1:24 AM
Why do we need any changes to any laws? Death will happen regardless of the laws on the books, it is a constant that will be with us forever. Now, if you have the option of stopping someone from killing others why would you just sit back and watch the show unfold? I don't understand all of this media hype over just some dead children; I read stories where the death level range from the hundreds to thousands from factory fires, earthquakes, and civil unrest and the media barely cares.

a1fabweld
12-19-2012, 6:15 AM
I am sure to take a fair ammount of flak for this, but I actually hope CA gun laws get adopted nationwide. (just not a full ban on ARs and AKs)

Sandy Hook is the first mass shooting that really affected me.

We have enough F'ing laws. My hope is that the rest of the free country doesn't become infected with useless gun laws such as we have here in the "Golden State".:rolleyes:

oddball
12-19-2012, 8:39 AM
Did you actually read what I just typed? I want you to still be able to buy an AR or AK. Where did you get the idea I want them banned?

You have a short memory. here's your response to a thread on trading in EBRs to the govt. for CCWs-

Hey SocalBud, I actually like your idea (probably won't happen though). BTW I tried to post something earlier that acknowledges a coming AWB and got hammered too.

I know the squealers when I see 'em.

Citizen X
12-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Jeepman - "(remember, we lost?) "

No we didn't. Mitt Romney lost! No friend of gun owners by the way. The Republicans won control of the House again. Since they are supposed to be our friends shouldn't they act like friends and defend our fundamental civil rights without compromise? Also, your comment about "haters" is way out of line and sounds like liberal, reactionary BS. Criticism isn't hatred and he did expect it didn't he.