Tweet
I had a rather entertaining conversation about the consequences of SB 249 earlier today, and just to bring my fury to its absolute apex, I thought I'd have a chat with an acquaintance of mine from school. He's a staffer for a State Senator. We'll call him Barnabus.
DasBoost, I hope you'll be reading this.
Barnabus: What's new?
C: Convince your boss to vote againt SB 249. I really don't want the hard earned money of myself and my friends to be confiscated.
Barnabus: I actually talked some with her about it this weekend. She will most likely be voting for it.
But if you are concerned call your state senator and assembly member and voice your opinion.
C: Of course, lol.
Sent letters to each.
Barnabus: Haha. I didn't expect anything less. We have had all our gun nuts calling.
C: Its not so much gun nuts. You know the bullet button is completely legal and actually was supported by the state atty gen right?
Barnabus: I think that is the best way to get through. Because letters can and frequently do get lost.
C: They were faxed
Barnaby: I think we should promote the use of non-lethal weapons. I also think that lethal weapons should have greater and greater control and regulation.
C: But it means more money spent by the taxpayer and the state. Money's that not there.
Regulation and registration doesn't keep violent crime from happening. The Canadians have been considering scrapping registration regs because it's done nothing to prevent armed crime.
Barnabus: Every situation is different. All I do know is that with three major shooting events in the last few weeks we need something to further regulate them.
And today's happened in Texas in one of the most gun friendly states in the country.
Arguments in favor of deregulating guns are proving to be less and less valid.
C: People die every year in car accidents, from medical malpractice, and from bad eating habits. Do we blame the DMV or the car? The scalpel? The spoon?
Restricting access to firearms doesn't prevent those who want to use them for destructive purposes from getting them.
Plus most of the weapons that the anti-gun lobby would like to restrict represent a small percentage of those used in criminal activity.
Barnabus: Yes we actually do. We sue McDonalds for making people fat. CalTrans has to pay for stupid drivers which gets passed down to you in the form of vehicle reg fees and there have been cases that have been tried and won blaming defective medical devices.
There is no need to carry around massive amounts of ammunition or have the ability to fire off 100s of rounds in a matter of seconds.
C: That's not malpractice, and you and I both know suing McDonalds for having a good business model is stupid
10-30 rounds is not massive, and access to automatic weapons is highly restricted.
Yet curiously, gangs still manage to get their hands on these weapons. Amazing.
So, instead of combating the issue of illegal arms trade, let's go after the law abiding citizen!
Barnabus: I just think that they are unnecessary, so regulate the crap out of them. And if the state can make money from it then why not.
At this point, I wanted to break something.
C: What about people who would become criminals as a result? Fine them? Send them to prison?
The state would make money at first, sure. But business would shut down and move. People would lose employment. Companies quit producing or operating in this state.
More innocent people, by the way, are killed by police in accidental cases annually than those who legally own weapons.
Barnabus: Yes chicken little...
And the sky will fall as well.
It became obvious at this point that he had absolutely no point to stand on, thus resulting in throwing petty insults my way. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
C: Lol, so you're completely dismissing the notion that this will run more business out of CA?
Barnabus: Hence is also the reason I believe that cops should not have lethal weapons. Taser guns can achieve the same effect (immobilizing the offender) without taking a life.
At this point, I told him he was being unrealistic and expressed my best wishes for his day. I'm glad our tax dollars pay for him to be stupid on a professional level.
DasBoost, I hope you'll be reading this.
Barnabus: What's new?
C: Convince your boss to vote againt SB 249. I really don't want the hard earned money of myself and my friends to be confiscated.
Barnabus: I actually talked some with her about it this weekend. She will most likely be voting for it.
But if you are concerned call your state senator and assembly member and voice your opinion.
C: Of course, lol.
Sent letters to each.
Barnabus: Haha. I didn't expect anything less. We have had all our gun nuts calling.
C: Its not so much gun nuts. You know the bullet button is completely legal and actually was supported by the state atty gen right?
Barnabus: I think that is the best way to get through. Because letters can and frequently do get lost.
C: They were faxed
Barnaby: I think we should promote the use of non-lethal weapons. I also think that lethal weapons should have greater and greater control and regulation.
C: But it means more money spent by the taxpayer and the state. Money's that not there.
Regulation and registration doesn't keep violent crime from happening. The Canadians have been considering scrapping registration regs because it's done nothing to prevent armed crime.
Barnabus: Every situation is different. All I do know is that with three major shooting events in the last few weeks we need something to further regulate them.
And today's happened in Texas in one of the most gun friendly states in the country.
Arguments in favor of deregulating guns are proving to be less and less valid.
C: People die every year in car accidents, from medical malpractice, and from bad eating habits. Do we blame the DMV or the car? The scalpel? The spoon?
Restricting access to firearms doesn't prevent those who want to use them for destructive purposes from getting them.
Plus most of the weapons that the anti-gun lobby would like to restrict represent a small percentage of those used in criminal activity.
Barnabus: Yes we actually do. We sue McDonalds for making people fat. CalTrans has to pay for stupid drivers which gets passed down to you in the form of vehicle reg fees and there have been cases that have been tried and won blaming defective medical devices.
There is no need to carry around massive amounts of ammunition or have the ability to fire off 100s of rounds in a matter of seconds.
C: That's not malpractice, and you and I both know suing McDonalds for having a good business model is stupid
10-30 rounds is not massive, and access to automatic weapons is highly restricted.
Yet curiously, gangs still manage to get their hands on these weapons. Amazing.
So, instead of combating the issue of illegal arms trade, let's go after the law abiding citizen!
Barnabus: I just think that they are unnecessary, so regulate the crap out of them. And if the state can make money from it then why not.
At this point, I wanted to break something.
C: What about people who would become criminals as a result? Fine them? Send them to prison?
The state would make money at first, sure. But business would shut down and move. People would lose employment. Companies quit producing or operating in this state.
More innocent people, by the way, are killed by police in accidental cases annually than those who legally own weapons.
Barnabus: Yes chicken little...
And the sky will fall as well.
It became obvious at this point that he had absolutely no point to stand on, thus resulting in throwing petty insults my way. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
C: Lol, so you're completely dismissing the notion that this will run more business out of CA?
Barnabus: Hence is also the reason I believe that cops should not have lethal weapons. Taser guns can achieve the same effect (immobilizing the offender) without taking a life.
At this point, I told him he was being unrealistic and expressed my best wishes for his day. I'm glad our tax dollars pay for him to be stupid on a professional level.
Ignorance must be bliss...
Comment