Originally Posted by greg36f
I cannot argue this on a constitutional level. You will win and you are right. I am simply saying (possibly playing devils advocate and possibly because the question should be asked) that at what point do we say that someone did something so stupid, so ignorant, so irresponsible that we say enough is enough….I mean he had a loaded magazine in his pocket at a party where stuff gets out of control and people drink.
My earlier analogy was weak, but it kind of applies a little……If you have a green light and you see a speeding bus coming, would you pull out in just because you had “the right of way”….?
I am just asking, are there any limits to our support, because I think this one may be getting close to that edge,,,,
Just because you think something is stupid or irresponsible doesn't make it illegal. These unwritten "common sense" restrictions that people have on their head are the first step down a slippery slope. There are many legal things that people do that don't seem like a good idea to me. There are probably quite a few legal things that I do that don't make sense to others (smoking come to mind). That doesn't mean that we should be crying for legislation.
It starts with people who take their firearms in public getting persecuted, then it moves to people who own EBRs, then "sniper" (hunting) rifles, etc. Bottom line is that if this man had done the same thing in most parts of the US no LEO would have thought twice about it. We need to crush this problem in it's infancy if we are ever to see reasonable gun rights in CA.