Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:01 PM
Kapenagary Kapenagary is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Ca. Conservative judge's 2A opinion

Thought provoking?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:06 PM
Diablohtr Diablohtr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 162
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Its a sad farce coming from a US Judge IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:06 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,566
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

He gets points for not calling them "clips" but that is it.

His idea of "sensible" gun control is bans and confiscation of guns by the millions. This guy claims to be pro-2A, but out the other side of his mouth thinks that the little old civilians should always be outgunned by the state.

Last edited by stix213; 12-20-2012 at 3:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:07 PM
russ69's Avatar
russ69 russ69 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Even judges can be wrong, usually about half of them.
__________________
NRA PATRON LIFE
CRPA LIFE
ASRPA LIFE
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:12 PM
Dave A Dave A is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Formerly Placer County, Kalifornia
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I couldn't even read completely through it. When I got to where this supposed intelligent Judge alleged that the Aurora shooter emptied his 100 round magazine I lost interest in this reasoned approach. The reason of course is the magazine did not function properly and jammed as they tend to do. I guess there is still a gag order in place on the information on just how many rounds he managed to expend, probably to give more opportunity for people like this one to misinform the average citizen.

Lets focus on the tool and not the sick person, because we have proved we are totally inept in dealing with mental illness, the recognition of it and the appropriate treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:18 PM
211275 211275 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 334
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns. Why do the media and people like this continue to lie? Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds. I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:21 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:24 PM
ScottB ScottB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simi
Posts: 1,949
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.
I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:26 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 211275 View Post
Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds.
Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:26 PM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,158
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Emotion now, regret later. Government wins people lose. People's fault. Good people now can go to jail over magazines or how their rifles look.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

NRA Member
CGF Member
AKA Richard Cramden
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:28 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB View Post
I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.
Confiscation doesn't ensure absence of objects from that point on.

Otherwise, we would just declare "confiscation of illegal drugs," everybody would turn them in, and the country would be clean the next day.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:37 PM
REH's Avatar
REH REH is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Every time this "do you need that" comes up, I have to ask do we rally want a government telling us what we need? First it's guns, then magazine capacity, then your car because it's a gas guzzler, then your food, because it has too much sugar or salt. Let’s talk about your house. Is it self efficient? If not you will need solar panels. You want that?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:39 PM
Harrison_Bergeron Harrison_Bergeron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 1,975
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.
Is he touting a 2:1 ratio to prove his side's superior statistics? I cannot stand when people pull that nonsense. That a supposedly intelligent, and unbiased, person would try such a dirty tactic in such an important debate makes me very angry.

Quote:
So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.
I already think the man's scruples should be questioned, this bit makes me question whether he is fit to practice law. What he proposes here would violate how many Constitutional Amendments?

Last edited by Harrison_Bergeron; 12-20-2012 at 3:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:40 PM
SMR510's Avatar
SMR510 SMR510 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 874
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:45 PM
REH's Avatar
REH REH is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMR510 View Post
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?
I think some of the media inaccurately reported that.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:47 PM
Trenchfoot's Avatar
Trenchfoot Trenchfoot is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Little Manila
Posts: 7,293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It appeared to be a shotgun in the trunk
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:54 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,566
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenchfoot View Post
It appeared to be a shotgun in the trunk
Yeah latest info is shotgun was in the vehicle while the AR was used in the shooting, and a 10mm round from his glock ended his rambo revenge fantasy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:54 PM
acace acace is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 4
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 211275 View Post
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns.
You are incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-20-2012, 3:59 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMR510 View Post
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...
And this is precisely why we fight any attempts at registration, direct or indirect such as forcing PPT through FFL-s and creating a paper trail...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:07 PM
LMTluvr's Avatar
LMTluvr LMTluvr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Land of the free. NV.
Posts: 1,350
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

From a conservative view?
He's about as conservative Kim Jong .
Any judge or politician who encourages confiscation of a guaranteed right should be imprisoned as they've obviously become a domestic enemy to the constitution.
__________________
Slayer of abalone and lingcod.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:23 PM
211275 211275 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 334
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.
Good point however I wouldnt be advocating it, I just wouldn't have a major issue with it. It would certainly be better to limit the mag cap then to start banning rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:37 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 211275 View Post
Good point however I wouldnt be advocating it, I just wouldn't have a major issue with it. It would certainly be better to limit the mag cap then to start banning rifles.
I hear ya. However, it's not an either/or proposition. It's step 1, step 2, step 3...

We cannot give up ground on issues that make no sense. To get to a meaningful discussion, we have to reject things that are weak and cannot hold up in court. It's up to the other side to start accepting that the legal landscape has changed since 1994 and that this time around it's not just about what they can push politically.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:42 PM
MigNoche's Avatar
MigNoche MigNoche is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Coachella Valley
Posts: 1,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Check out this website....

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

We don't need more laws.

"* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"

"* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]"
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic114369_6.gif

Last edited by MigNoche; 12-20-2012 at 4:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:47 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns.
No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:48 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 189
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am curious about the 4th amendment issues surrounding the government seizing legally purchased guns. Here we have a federal judge calling for certain types of guns to be made retroactively illegal and seized from the general population. In the new Yee bill, they are going to be calling for ARs with bullet buttons to be made illegal, and I'm sure if at all possible, seized from the general population. Could they get away with it? Obviously if the case came before this self-proclaimed pro-2A judge he would have everyone turning in their guns in a heartbeat.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:49 PM
MigNoche's Avatar
MigNoche MigNoche is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Coachella Valley
Posts: 1,417
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.
The story has changed so many times. Is there a clear consensus yet on what actually happened?
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic114369_6.gif
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:55 PM
Trenchfoot's Avatar
Trenchfoot Trenchfoot is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Little Manila
Posts: 7,293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigNoche View Post
The story has changed so many times. Is there a clear consensus yet on what actually happened?
medical examiner's statement a couple of days ago said .223 was the primary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-20-2012, 4:59 PM
Casey's Avatar
Casey Casey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 289
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

A judge that doesn't know the difference between a democracy and a Republic should not be sitting on a bench let alone writing anti gun op ed pieces.
__________________
www.stevecaseydesign.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-20-2012, 5:10 PM
Hogstir Hogstir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah Bans always work so well. Prohibition was a great success I guess. All they are going to do is create a huge black market which the cartels and organized crime would exploit just like they did during prohibition. Don't think we have gun sniffing dogs so it would be fairly easy to smuggle into the US.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-20-2012, 5:14 PM
Cnynrat's Avatar
Cnynrat Cnynrat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,099
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This idiot is not a conservative.
__________________
Dave

Lifetime Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-20-2012, 5:18 PM
wizdumb wizdumb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 855
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Can this judge, or anyone else, guarantee that a riot will never again happen in any city I choose to live in this country? No? Then I'll be keeping my rifles and magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-20-2012, 5:23 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 211275 View Post
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns. Why do the media and people like this continue to lie? Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds. I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice
You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-20-2012, 5:26 PM
ScottB ScottB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simi
Posts: 1,949
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMR510 View Post
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?
If confiscation was ordered (and survived legal challenges, which I doubt it would), they would first offer compensation and that would get a lot of them. After that, every FFL has records that could be checked. RAWs, NFA weapons and handguns are registered in CA and at least several other states. Mags admittedly would be more difficult, but if they get the gun who needs the mag?

When was the last time you saw a detachable mag SKS?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-20-2012, 8:17 PM
mt4design's Avatar
mt4design mt4design is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Bay in So Cal
Posts: 613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.
Yep.

People do not realize that many Korean shop owners were living in the backs of their stores. Those stores were their homes. Google, "Korean shop keeper killed".

This judge actually scares me. I'm glad he's not on the Supreme Court and hope he retires sooner rather than later.

Mike
__________________

This is the USA. We don't elect kings, we rebel against them!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-20-2012, 8:23 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,740
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

There is a poll in there and we are down

60 odd/30odd
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-20-2012, 8:35 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,476
iTrader: 87 / 100%
Default Mr Judge, 2A conservative..........

Folks,



The fact is even in the most retched scenarios we as gun owners can imagine, confiscation would be a disaster. This Judge obvious has a rectal cranial inversion, the blood bath that would ensue would be on a scale never seen in the US. Insurrection would be an understatement.
Though most people would give up their weapons, there would be enough folks with nothing to lose. I went to a couple of gun stores to pick up a few things today and the talk is scarey. People are scared in a way I have never seen before in almost 30 years of gun ownership. A2
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-20-2012, 8:52 PM
Green Ice Dragon Green Ice Dragon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 141
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Once again, from my favorite reporter, a reality check!

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/...cond-amendment

For those that can't watch: The 2nd Amendment was for us to match the government in our ability to fight them by force, if it came to that. Not what type of weapon, not to hunt, not even to defend ourselves from a common thug. The latter are just bonuses that happen to come with the 2nd Amendment.

Last edited by Green Ice Dragon; 12-20-2012 at 8:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-21-2012, 1:22 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,170
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Well, we know not to bring 2a cases in front of this judge.

I guess this judge doesn't get it that the second amendment is a our final check on an out of control government and that having the second amendment means that there will be abuses just like there is with other rights.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-21-2012, 1:25 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Don't know why people would assume these so-called "conservative" people would be pro-gun. The saying goes " The left hates guns and the right hates rights." Generally Liberals should in theory be pro-gun but we all know Liberals these days aren't so Liberal.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-21-2012, 5:41 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapenagary View Post

Frightening. For all the reasons stated.

In spite of that, I'll chip in my 2 cents.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.

Yes, they would have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizdumb View Post
Can this judge, or anyone else, guarantee that a riot will never again happen in any city I choose to live in this country? No? Then I'll be keeping my rifles and magazines.

Which is why they look good now. And of course, there's the original reason for the 2A (defense against foreign attack or govt oppression), which is always a worry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

For the above reasons, I completely disagree on the "need" for standard & large capacity mags. The "need" isn't often, but the "need" is indeed there.

In addition, riots aren't the only problem. Gangs are just about everywhere. If you define a gang as "a bunch of thugs acting in concert" (like I do) then the possibility of having to face multiple attackers can occur just about anywhere, even in the Heartland. Also, I don't know what the next al-Qaeda Moment will look like, but there's a distinct possibility that it will also involve good people facing multiple attackers. No, it cannot be said that no one has a "need" for large capacity mags.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.

Quite so. We already know that a ban will be ineffective because we already HAD one. It didn't lower the crime rate at all, & the crime rate didn't go up when it was repealed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
I am curious about the 4th amendment issues surrounding the government seizing legally purchased guns. Here we have a federal judge calling for certain types of guns to be made retroactively illegal and seized from the general population. In the new Yee bill, they are going to be calling for ARs with bullet buttons to be made illegal, and I'm sure if at all possible, seized from the general population. Could they get away with it? Obviously if the case came before this self-proclaimed pro-2A judge he would have everyone turning in their guns in a heartbeat.

The 2A issues would likely stop such an effort in its tracks. So, limiting this to JUST 4A issues: It could be done. Confiscation can be done, but ONLY if the govt pays for what is confiscated. You'll note that not even DiFi wants to grab existing weapons or magazines. She is fully aware that doing so would cost HUGE amounts of money. Which the govt does not have at present. If the 2A issues don't stop people like our so-called "Conservative" judge, maybe the money aspect will.


There were several links to related stories. Most were 'more of the same' as what the OP linked to. But the one titled "Let gun-lovers lead the charge on gun control " was interesting.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4287461.story


The author acknowledges that there really is a disconnect between people like him & people like us. That there really is "a great deal of truth" to the claim that Obama & people like him would be OK if all guns were grabbed.

What he'd like (and, distressingly, what we all now see) is for gunnies (or, at least, so-called gunnies) to lead the charge against ARs & AKs. People like Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), who is blind to the reality that these guns really do have utility.

Since Mr. McGough has had his wish granted, & since he's likely to see even more of this, I think that THIS is an area we have to concentrate on.

If the choice is made to do more than preach to the choir (like, maybe in the social media?), suggested arguments: Point out that if the proposed ban won't grab exiting guns/mags (and it won't), it won't do diddly squat. And since it won't do diddly squat, why bother?

As for how often we have the "need" for large capacity mags; Every country in Europe requires that all cars have a fire extinguisher. Clearly, car fires don't happen to everyone. They don't happen every day. Or even very often. But they DO happen, & the proper response is for everyone to have the means to respond THEMSELVES.

The same logic applies to large capacity mags. Riots, al-Qaeda Moments & attacks by gangs don't happen every day. They don't happen to everyone. But, they DO happen, & until it can be guaranteed that they'll never happen again, everyone should have the means to respond. This is what I'm using on Facebook. Maybe others here can do the same?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:58 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.