FA+
Shop
California gun owners. WE WON!
11 years ago
To those of you in california who are into guns and believe in a right to self defense. The peruta v san diego case that's been dragging on for ages. The attorney general, that bitch Kamela Harris was denied intervention so that means WE WON.
Barring some insanely unlikely legal shenanigans, march 6th california becomes a shall issue state for conceal carry licenses.
As somebody who's probably only around to provide you all with free porn because I had access to a gun at the right time (twice) I'm fucking ecstatic. This is something i care very strongly about.
So yeah, if you live in california, come march 6th if you aren't a felon or crazy person, you can apply for a conceal carry weapons permit for general self defense and you will be accepted.
Oh also cuz I just posted it and it's no longer on my front page upon posting this I have a commission slot open lol. Note me or contact me via IM if you want it. My contact info is in my profile.
CELEBRATE!
Barring some insanely unlikely legal shenanigans, march 6th california becomes a shall issue state for conceal carry licenses.
As somebody who's probably only around to provide you all with free porn because I had access to a gun at the right time (twice) I'm fucking ecstatic. This is something i care very strongly about.
So yeah, if you live in california, come march 6th if you aren't a felon or crazy person, you can apply for a conceal carry weapons permit for general self defense and you will be accepted.
Oh also cuz I just posted it and it's no longer on my front page upon posting this I have a commission slot open lol. Note me or contact me via IM if you want it. My contact info is in my profile.
CELEBRATE!
Thus to protect all we have and what we do care about, we must arm ourselves, with knowledge and yes, often, with impliments.
If we cannot have peace one way, I am glad we have the means to ensure peace of mind by knowing we can protect what little we have as well as our lives and not be condemmed for it by those higher ups in power.
I grew up in a somewhat shitty area, and i've had to present a gun twice to likely save my life.
Coming home to a crazed tweaker charging you with a knife will make you feel very strongly about the right to defend yourself by the most convenient and effective means possible.
Plus, what other parts of the bill of rights do we suspend just because you're not in your home or car?
Imagine if the first amendment was only applicable in your home. It makes no sense.
This shouldn't be framed as a liberal non liberal thing. It's a gun rights anti gun rights thing.
That doesn't mean that all conservatives want noah's ark taught as science in high school.
That's a fundamentalist christian vs science issue and a constitutional issue.
Problem with that is that the last time you guys got smacked down by the court system for teaching religion in classrooms (intelligent design) it didn't take much digging to see that the same people who funded and pushed "intelligent design are the same people who funded and pushed 6 day creation/noah's ark till IT got smacked down, and then "creation science" till IT got smacked down, and now "Intelligent Design." which has now been smacked down and ruled as teaching of religion and not science. Because it is religion and not science.
The only difference between the three versions of creationism that you guys have been told you can't teach in school is that they get watered down to try and circumvent court rulings. I mean ffs, the "intelligent design" textbook was literally word for word identical to the "creation science" textbook that was banned decades ago only they changed the word "god" to "intelligent agent.". They were literally the same book. They're the same people who print the books and are funded entirely by christian organizations.
There are no both sides to the origin theory because 6 day creation/creation science/intelligent design aren't theories and aren't science. The only scientific theory of biodiversity is evolution.
On top of that, it's not a "both sides" thing because every religion in the history of man kind has a creation myth. The hindu's think that krishna poured milk out and it congealed and formed the continents, the big religion in ancient japan (and still practiced by some) believed their head deity literally wacked off and ejaculated out the continents.
What you guys want is to teach something that has no mechanism and makes no testable predictions and is not falsifiable (aka, not even remotely science) and is literally repackaged religion to kids in a country where religion is not allowed in public institutions. Teaching demonstrably repackaged creationism in schools and demanding equal time is like demanding that you split the time of teaching about gravity with your theory that angels are just holding our feet to the ground.
Evolution is literally the most expansive theory of every theory we have. It unifies dozens of scientific disciplines, none of which make any sense without it but all fit perfectly together with it. There is no debate and there is no sides. There is only evolution as the explanation for biodiversity.
That's the only way any of this shit will get stuck in someone's head. Most videos you see proposing intelligent design have "average" people saying something along the lines of 'I just don't get evolution, it makes no sense, they try to talk to you like you're stupid and confuse you with a bunch of technical talk. But this, this makes sense to me. It's simple, it's obvious, I know in my heart that God loves me, so when I think about this version and that version, I know that God is giving me that feeling of confidence and understanding to know that he is the creator."
Reality is complicated and that complication is what makes the world so amazing and interesting to people with the intelligence to comprehend any of it. But to people too stupid (or children to young/inexperienced/uneducated) to grasp the complicated truths of reality, "a wizard did it" is simple and makes sense, so why deal with the headache of trying to learn anything else?
Yeah, I'd be one of THOSE wish-granting genies. XD
Though I know plenty of people who'd be totally down for that. :3
It basically comes down to mechanisms. We know the mechanisms of evolution very well, we can make predictions based on them that come true and we do all the time in many fields of medicine but also in many biological/paleontological fields.
Intelligent design has zero mechanism whatsoever and can be used for zero predictions. I'ts basically "This god like thing created all of us but we won't call him god because then the supreme court will smack us."
I think we just have a better understanding of the environmental forcers that are the major drivers of evolutionary change, and that if something is just incredibly well adapted for a fairly static environment, the majority of mutations that might occur simply don't benefit it enough for them to take hold in the population which would i guess indicate that punctuated equilibrium won.
I mean i don't think there is any real camp in biology that insists that evolution is just a steady slow process that occurs on it's own.
It's simply flawed to say "let them research what is right and wrong for themselves" when they lack the access to information AND the knowledge/experience and plain old developed cognitive abilities to do so.
There is no "both sides to the origin theory." Intelligent Design does not come from anything but religion. There is no scientific debate between evolution and omnipotent-creator. The argument is between Science and Not-Science. There is absolutely no argument among the grown professional experts who DO have the knowledge and experience and access to studies and information on the subject: evolution is reality, intelligent design is ONLY suggested by people wanting to leave the door open to religion's explanation. There is zero science behind it. Anyone in the scientific community supporting ID is an anomaly or an outcast.
So no, when the only way that a person can "make up their own mind" on the matter and choose IB over evolution is for them to lack everything that makes an informed and sound perspective that anyone else should give any credence to: that kinda tells you what is right and what is wrong.
The argument over "just teach both versions" in schools is not about letting children make up their own minds. It's about ending the state of affairs where Teachers - the people children generally understand to know at least a little more about this stuff than their parents - are telling kids something other than what the parents want them to believe.
If there were proponents of teaching flat-earth theory, or greek/roman creation mythology, or Freudian psychology, or blood-letting, or any of the many many MANY things people USED to view as factual reality before Science provided better and more accurate explanations for things - would you support those getting equal coverage in schools? Take any mode of thought people used to subscribe to that Science has firmly and unarguably dismissed as false, and would you suggest that it still deserves to be taught as equally possible in school, and allow children to pick whatever makes most sense to them - instead of teaching them what is determined by the overwhelming and undisputed consensus of far more intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable >and fully mentally developed< adults?
"A wizard did it" makes more sense to children than even the most over-simplified summary of evolution. Give a child two explanations - one that makes sense to them, and one that is incomprehensible BECAUSE THEY ARE A CHILD and lack the foundations of knowledge needed to comprehend it, and tell them "well which do you think sounds right?" they will almost certainly choose the one that is within their ability to grasp. This is why people tend to speak condescendingly to proponents of ID and other patently false concepts pushed by religion - because they are only supported by people who aren't capable of understanding the more complex reality, or by people who had the falsehoods indoctrinated into their core perceptions while they were too young, undeveloped, and inexperienced to have any defense against them.
Which is why letting people put this nonsense into the heads of children is, and always will be, a very bad thing.
What other part of education other than origin science would we do that for? Should we teach them a wrong form of calculus that makes no sense and the correct form and let them decide for themselves? How about that lets teach them that the pilgrims came from the ottoman empire and they came from england. It's nonsense.
Whatever excuses are used, it's religion, no matter how much they insist "no no, it isn't teaching religion, take away all the religious parts, and just teach them that the theory of >some< kind of unnamed omnipotent sentience - you don't have to call it "God" - maybe made everything with magic, and that's just as much a possibility as all this "science" stuff."
Take away all the religious specifics, and it's just "a wizard did it" yet they'll get pissed at you for framing it that way. They just don't like their kids coming home with "at school we learned -" stuff that contradicts their magic book and makes their fairy tales look so obviously fantastical and nonsensical by comparison.
I wonder how hard they'd push if you told them "intelligent agent" would still most rationally and plausibly allude to aliens influencing the direction of evolution way more than any deity.
The biggest problem with religion isn't about any specific belief. It's that it teaches people to think in such an utterly wrong way. Everything is more complicated than it needs to be when you have to deal with people involved in the discussion, but programmed to think in the ways religion requires in order to maintain hold in a mind. Even if someone cherry-picks all the best stuff, and doesn't hold any of the hateful, bigoted, evil beliefs, their minds are still ruined by being trained to process information in a way so contradicting to simple logic and reason. Even the simple notion of a perfectly correct punishment/reward system after death evening out the injustices of life and giving everyone precisely what they deserve significantly reduces the degree of offense and injustice people feel at wrongs that are committed. A bad guy gets away with something terrible, and that's awful and bad, but there's a limit to how much people will be bothered by it when they have full confidence that "they'll get theirs" once we're all in the ground. :/
There are thousands of issues in the political spectrum, not walking lock step with the fictional version of liberals you've apparently created does not make you not a liberal suddenly.
Basically what people call neoliberals were just republicans in the 80's. fiscally conservative but not insane, with watered down views on the social issues instead of the hard line stances they have now.
Pretty much that's half of what the liberal idelogy is pushing, personal freedom and the freedom to not have that freedom infringed on by society at large.
Yes, our gun laws are utterly retarded. But i'm moving to texas soon and will probably buy a sig 556 classic pistol with an ab15 arm brace. If i bring it back to california all i need to do is get a bullet button on it and ditch any over ten round mags for it.
Has hte world ended? No actually violent crime has dropped by like 50%.
not gonna claim i know that it happened because more people are armed, not going to claim that at all but the idea that allowing lawful ccw will lead to more violence clearly is not accurate.
In fact it's higher than california which has some of the most restrictive ccw policies and gun laws in the country.
Meanwhile, Washington which is a VERY lax state on gun laws and will give a ccw to basically anybody just for signing a form, a state where you can own class 3 weapons and silencers and any kind of gun you basically want, and their gun homicide rate is half of californias.
There really doesn't seem to be ANY correlation whatsoever between violent crime and gun restrictions or lack thereof.
I will just say it makes sense to me that people who would spend the time and money to go through that process would be committing few crimes.
When they can come up with a non lethal weapon with the capacity and accuracy and reliability and price of ammo for defense and training of a high quality handgun, i will be interested.
So you're telling me a single shot close range only weapon that can be defeated by baggy clothes let alone any barrier of any kind is more reliable and gives you the best odds for surviving a violent encounter than a handgun with 17 bullets in it that go through doors and walls and can be reloaded in less than a second....
You do realize that if your one shot with a taser misses or gets hung up on a baggy jacket or pants you're completely defenseless right? You do realize that in police shootings out of 20 shots fired maybe a few actually hit their target.
Why aren't we equipping our soldiers in iraq and afghanistan and police with tasers instead of guns if they're such a better option?
I'm sorry but this is nonsense.
A box of 50 rounds of top tier defense ammo costs about 23 to 35 bucks and a box of 50 rounds of range/practice ammo costs about 10 to 14 bucks.
A single shot with a taser costs about 40 dollars. One shot.
Its the data I care about. Should crime and deaths go down, it could be a model for other states. Should they go up, what do we do as a country?
I hope this is viewed as a nonpartisan comment.
Violent crime has gone down about 50% since then. Correlation = causation? I frankly don't know. What i do know is that if you argue that violence will increase, historical case study does not reflect that at all. Actually the opposite.
THere could be any number of factors for our current violent crime and homicide rates being at almost historic lows, what i know is that this massive expansion of gun rights we've experienced did not cause it to go up, neither did repealing the assault weapon and magazine ban.
If you care about data and want to avoid gun nut "data". The National Academy of Sciences did an exhaustive review of decades of gun control legislation and crime statistics on teh federal and state level. THey could not identify any positive or negative correlation whatsoever between any laws and any crime statistics.
http://i.imgur.com/eqpLg52.gif
note: accurate statistics pre-1900 aren't a thing, so ignore everything pre 1920's if you want.
Point being, guns aren't actually a major problem. Its just the media hyping up everything. However, Ferguson is having a ton of firearm sales prior to the decision of the courts. Hopefully that doesn't boil over.
Right when that big dip in homicides begins, that's when the brady handgun violence prevention act was signed by bill clinton in 1993.......funny how they left that out. They vaguely cite gun control laws that clearly had no effect on their argument but leave out the biggest one that arguably could be used to counter their argument just due to the sheer timing. I've seen that image on gun forums a million times and nobody is wondering where the hell the brady bill is.
frankly both sides are just horrendously dishonest.
I wrote a research paper in college about gun control, the sources of guns and the impacts on crime and what i think should and shouldn't be done about it and it was one of the hardest papers i've ever had to right. So much of what both sides were saying was just complete and utter bullshit, blatant misrepresentation of statistics, cherry picking data, using studies with laughably bad methodology and ignoring other studies contrary to those ones.
Did the brady bill cause a decline in homicides? I have no fucking idea, but it should be on there for the sake of intellectual honesty.
In any case, guns are a bit like ebola: It's a dramatic, messy death, but compared to the four million people who die every year in the USA from natural causes, from smoking, from diseases caused by industrial pollution, from workplace accidents, from medical mistakes, drug abuse etc, the roughly 30,000 preventable deaths (0.7% of all fatalities) from guns is not a huge factor in longevity calculations. It's true that guns are a force-multiplier for assholes, but so are cars.
Then again, i'm pretty sure they lump like unlawful transport or illegal carry by a non permit holder as "gun crime".
I carry illegally because I have reason to believe I have to. If i got caught i would add to gun crime statistics.
Oh well, I still enjoy guns either way.
Crime has gone way down as carry rights have exponentially expanded across the country but I don't think anybody can definitively say it's causation. I mean crime is still highest in the red states where everybody and their mom is packing.
What i think we can definitively say is that crime has not gone up with this expansion, so to insist that more lawful carry = more violence clearly doesn't hold water.
Good cause was what they used in the past to deny everybody and how can they discern moral character from people with no serious priors? If you have a serious prior, you can't own a gun at all.
It's 100 lawsuits waiting to happen and they know it.
So to actually deny someone for 'good moral character' they will have to deny someone, and back it up with something on 'the list' for good moral character. Unpaid parking tickets, warrants out for your arrest, unfulfilled liens on your house that aren't in legal dispute, refusal to pay child support, stuff like that.
If you don't have anything like that, they are setting themselves up for losing court cases and paying damages.
This is all ages ago. And from the way you put it, that sounds like a pretty vague definition that could probably be applied to almost anything. We'll see though. I'm excited we won this victory but i am realistic about the tools at their disposal if they REALLY want invite millions of dollars of lawsuits like San Diego did.
A lot of sheriff offices complied with our original ruling cuz they just didn't care and didn't want to piss away millions of dollars on something that would be in the end a waste of money, and i'm talking in very liberal counties like sacramento and orange county.
Several counties have denied apps for debt in collections for trivial amounts.
Hell the idea that CCW could be denied on the grounds of parking tickets or toll disputes is ludicrous but it will happen here. Peruta got incredibly lucky when it came to the judge panel. Most of the 9th circuit would not have ruled the way they did, unfortunately.
It's possible I'm just being overly pessimistic about gun rights in CA.
So again, it's something that can be fought and likely will have to be fought, but it's a much easier win.
It's all about demographics. I bet Kamela Harris pushed for intervenor status because she knew that when it comes time for reelection or moving up to a higher office her liberal opponent in a liberal state would run attack ads that said "Kamela Harris did nothing about more guns being on our streets around our children..." or some nonsense.
I say let him piss half the city's budget away, maybe it will send a message to the rest of them that when they took office they took an oath to uphold the constitution. Even the parts they don't like.
fyi, all you need to do is slap a bullet button on it and a 10 round mag while you're here and that will render it magically not an assault rifle.
And doesnt cali have an "approved" gun list like Mass does? Odds are, my carry gun isn't on it...
Basically get 10 round mags. Yes, it's really fucking stupid.
I"m gonna get a sig 556 when i go to texas. When i move back i just have to slap a bullet button and a 10 round mag on it and it will be perfectly legal.
Did we manage to oust Harris too? I never saw the results (but I did vote against that facist).
She did however win. She's probably thrilled with this decision, she knew she'd lose. She could either lose the battle on the state level or lose the war on the federal level.
Now she can wash her hands and say she tried.
I don't adhere to party lines... Two sides of the same corrupt coin, IMO.
Climate change, environmental conservation, gun control, affordable healthcare, death penalty, bodily autonomy (abortion), labor laws, corporate welfare, general welfare state, separation of church and state, equal protection by laws (gay marriage), military funding, education funding, tax code, sentencing laws etc.
All of those are incredibly important issues with actual real world impacts on all of america and are completely divided across party lines. To merely dismiss that divide and say they're all corrupt and basically the same is utter nonsense.
Everything we have that has benefited people in america from medicare, social security, desegregation, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc etc had one party supporting and one party opposed and people voted for the party that they felt had policy that was more closely aligned with their interests.
I'm utterly terrified of the republicans though.
I can assure you that if you ever find yourself in the situation i was in with a meth addict charging you with a knife when you're trapped in your house, you will wish you had a gun.
My landlord and her sister in law and her fiancee found themselves in my exact same situation too. I had a gun and lived, they didn't and both were murdered.
I really just don't get why anybody would want to be defenseless. What benefit is there to you as the individual to be defenseless when so many others are armed?
"The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other developed countries. In the U.S. in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[49] Gun homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010[50] even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.[50]"
An actual article with some stats: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-gu.....lity-1.1858107
Gn deaths have actualyl steadily decreased, so at least thats good. Gun ownership and obsession with the 2nd amendment are pervasive in American society, I think its sad Americans feel the need to always be so defensive, at this point perhaps gun laws wouldn't improve anything. But as a Canadian with out a gun, a slight interest in them, I can'y start to understand American zeal for guns, it comes off as unhealthy and strange to me.
So do tell me. When i came home and unbeknownst to me locked myself in my house with a meth addict with a knife who then charged me, then dove out the window like superman the moment i pulled a pistol on him. How did that escalate the situation and not prevent him from harming me with the knife which was clearly his intention?
When my landlord's sister in law and her fiancee found themselves in literally the exact same situation on long island, didn't have a gun and were stabbed to death, one decapitated by the guy, how could a gun not have been helpful to them?
What is the non cowardly and correct way to defend myself from the guy who charged me from across the room with a knife. I would seriously love to hear it. What was the better option than the gun? lol
It actually cracks me up when people say shit as fucking dumb as what you just said. It's always people who've simply never lived somewhere where there safety was ever an issue. Lots of people have already lived through situations where presenting or firing a gun likely saved their lives so the assertion that guns are cowardly and not good for preventing harm or death is hysterical.
I'm happy you have been entertained, I'm sorry these experiences have happened to you, people are allowed to have differing opinions, it doesn't necessarily make it dumb, perhaps I'm just naive or wishful in thinking. You do sound kind of defensive, I didn't really mean to be a dick, its just all sorts of hyteria on both sides of the gun issue, some where in the middle there lies balance.
I'm sorry but it's just nonsense. In any sort of professional setting where safety will be in danger from humans, police, military, security, you name it, we give them guns because there simply isn't anything more effective than a gun to render a threat, no longer a threat.
I mean really i've asked a dozen people who've said what you said that very same question. I lay out what actually happened to me and ask them what should a non coward do, or what would have been the correct thing to do. They say shit like "Take off your shoe and deflect the knife." or "Dive through the 2nd story plate glass window." or "Learn martial arts and disarm the knife.". It's just nonsense and things simply aren't like they are in action movies lol.
I'm not trying to be a dick but yes, when people say these things it bothers me. Cuz these people are making absurdly uninformed opinions about something they have never had to live through, and these people vote, and i'm subject to those laws these people vote on.
Having said that, if you WANT to go around carrying a gun in a concealed manner, my only protest it that you know how to properly use and care for it. A gun is a deadly weapon, more likely to kill that just about anything else in human history with so wide a disbursement. I am perfectly fine with ceding the responsibility of owning and caring for a gun to law enforcement and... I guess the more enthusiastic proponents of such. I am saying that as much as crime and murder and such are sensationalized, these accounts that you have of your landlord and his sister-in-law and you are mostly anecdotal. I mean, sure, that works for YOU but I'm willing to roll the dice on the large chance that I won't need a gun due to charging meth addicts.
There frankly aren't any other terribly good options for self defense in comparison. THe ONLY thing that conceivably might have worked would be a taser which likely would have been defeated by his baggy pants and sweatshirt, when your single taser round is exhausted, you are completely defenseless.
And what makes you think people who carry guns aren't about conflict avoidance? Owning a gun doesn't make you suddenly do reckless shit.
As for how often it happens? Well i'm one guy and i've had to pull a gun twice to prevent what would likely be death or kidnapping myself. I live in a house with a woman who have two family members who were murdered in the same situation i was in. My buddy josh from highschool got murdered and could have EASILY prevented it with a gun, but he was defenseless. So i don't know a lot of people but in just looking at zero or once time removed i know personally of 5 life and death violent incidents where a gun could have or did save the victim. Apparently these things can happen quite often.
That's more people than i know who's houses burned down or know somebody who's house burned down, yet everybody i know with a home has fire insurance.
Also, I do draw issue with your assertion that without some kind of weapon, you'd be completely unable to defend yourself in a situation with somebody unstable charging at you. A gun theoretically makes this easier, certainly, but I don't think the lack of one makes it so that you're guaranteed to be harmed by someone intending to do harm to you.
Even so, that's beside my original point. I don't like guns myself. They're extremely dangerous and should be handled with extreme care only by people knowledgeable in their use and potential. Guns make ME leery and at this point in my life, I have no desire to use or own one. If you want to, then alright.
And frankly, the sorts of situations where pulling a gun would be warranted, there just aren't any other great options. I mean it's not like the movies. A guy charges you with a knife and you pull out a knife, you don't engage in heated knife to knife combat. The guy who attacked you first will have the momentum and probably kill you. Tasers are insanely limited. Pepper spray? Discharging pepper spray indoors is like the absolute last thing you want to do when you're unarmed otherwise.
Even WIth a gun if the guy with the knife is within 21 feet of you, the odds are only slightly stacked in favor of the gun, that's why we have the Tueller Drill.
And thats' fine if you are afraid of guns and don't like guns. I just take issue with people who tell me i must be virtually defenseless and try to impose that on me via legislation.
I really really hope you aren't ever in a situation like i was in where you needed one, cuz if it can happen to me it can happen to anybody. And it when it does you don't expect it.
Lets you you can have Sanity by March 6th.
Also, "governor moonbeam" actually vetoed several really stupid gun laws. He let some other stupid ones pass but he's nowhere on the level of anti gun hysteria as feinstein and bloomberg.
And yes, a sanity march in the sf bay area for gun rights. That's going to happen.
And yes, Soros is about as likely to be instrumental in defeating this as the Koch brothers were instrumental in getting the mandate.
I mean you vote for the party that brought the case that dismantled a century of election finance laws and single handed allowed people like him and the Koch brothers to literally turn our political system into a system of legalized bribery where your voice in politics is directly tied to how much money you have, making only the soros's and Koch's being the ones who have any political voice at all.
Again, your party not only is responsible for George Soros, but you're the ones fighting the democrats who are trying to pass a constitutional amendment which would ban unlimited money in politics so elections can actually be publicly financed for the most part like they used to be.
If you vote republican you should be thrilled that your party granted him the right to dump hundreds of millions to buy our politicians. You guys made it possible.
I totally need a shooting buddy, mine's in the army now. I don't get to go near as often as i'd like but i usually head to either baypoint or san leandro to shoot, mostly baypoint.
San leandro has a steel shoot every saturday. Do you by any chance reload ammo? i want to get back into shooting steel and practical shooting but it costs so fricking much just due to the sheer volume of ammo you burn through.
Hit me up on aim or skype. aim = baserock love Skype = baserock_love and we'll figure something out.
Is this a state wide thing? Or is it like the CCW thing that only passed for Ventura and Orange counties last year?
Now if they would just get rid of the "saturday night special" handgun ban in Cali I can finally get the Chippa rhino or little Beretta cougar pocket pistol I have always wanted..
All we need now is a preemption law to require all counties and cities to adopt only the state laws, along with some sort of official stand your ground/castle doctrine laws.
Yay I would be able to go back to Los Angeles and not worry as much about getting mugged or gay bashed... Again.
When we get our final mandate this will FORCE every county in hte 9th's jurisdiction to include general self defense as a good reason to issue a conceal carry permit.
Not sure what saturday night special law there is, i've never heard of it but those two guns if they're illegal are only illegal cuz they're not on the "safe handgun roster" which is just a clever way to basically make a backdoor handgun ban by requiring companies to submit samples and pay a massive fee to have their guns deemed "safe" and then making the requirements for a "safe" handgun so absurd nobody bothers to submit them or can't submit them for testing. In fact come next year literally not a single handgun in the world will be "safe" enough for california unless we win yet another court case.
I shit you not. California passed a law that all handguns must include a specific feature to be deemed "safe" in california. IT's a feature that literally doesn't exist on any gun anywhere in the world. Since the feature doesn't exist, all handgun sales are about to be banned in california.
Though I can guarantee you with this law that the anti-gun Feinstein and gang will find some way to over-regulate into non-existence the ability to ever actually carry or use a weapon in self defense in public without having someway to make regular citizens fearful of ever doing it. Like I believe New York or one of the anti-gun states back east said it was okay to "conceal carry" but "open carry" was illegal, and the law was so broadly defined that they included pulling out your gun to justifiably defend yourself was a violation of the "open carry" law and could therefore throw your butt in jail for hurting or killing a poor criminal that just wanted to murder or rape you only a little bit.
"I shit you not. California passed a law that all handguns must include a specific feature to be deemed "safe" in california. IT's a feature that literally doesn't exist on any gun anywhere in the world. Since the feature doesn't exist, all handgun sales are about to be banned in California. "
Yeah that is the "micro stamping" bullshit they have been trying to pass for years. They think if you put a code on the firing pin of every gun that it will "somehow" transfer that legibly to the primer so they can "supposedly" solve crimes lol. Just like handgun registration all that will do is figure out who the original owner of a stolen gun is and be the first thing a criminal files off or modifies on said stolen gun, just like they have done since serial numbers were a thing to begin with. There is also another scary thought that any person that wants to frame someone for a crime could go pick up any of your spent casings from a local range and then leave them at a crime scene of their own doing.
There are so many things wrong with the idea that microstamping will stop any crime. Any more so than that a rifle with "military features" is inherently more dangerous than a standard hunting rifle. Not only would microstamping be easy to defeat (criminals will just buy revolvers), it will also greatly inflate the local black market for guns. No state lives in a bubble; it would be easy enough to go to any neighboring state, or buy it out of the back of some guy's trunk.
The problem is, it's all feel-good legislation that, to the casual person who doesn't think about it, believes it's the 'common sense' thing to do; yet when it's picked apart, you realize it solves nothing, and will solve crime no more than declaring it to be so.
People that know nothing about something should not be the people making laws/regulations for or against it.
I get in arguments all the time with people that know nothing about guns calling all semi-auto only rifles "Assault weapons" I have to tell them that only military and class3 ffl holders can get "actual" assault rifles that are select fire or full auto.
LOL and you don't need to goto a neighboring state, hell you don't even need to leave the city, it is freakishly easy to get a black market gun, my police ranger buddy says it is usually as easy as going to the local car wash with a "guns & ammo" periodical on your dashboard. Just goes to prove that regulating the law abiding citizens does NOTHING to stop criminals.
But I can't make heads or tales from the bullshit through both sides, and I think they KNEW that there would not be microstamped guns in production, and that requiring it would be a defacto handgun ban, and that was their goal from the get go.
But seriously, one side says it costs nothing ti implement, one side says it costs millions of dollars to implement, one side says it's proven and reliable technology, the other says it isnt. Bottom line to me is that microstamped guns don't exist lol. REquiring them in a single state is insane.
And there's nothing wrong with solving crime if it would actually work. There are too many ways the microstamping could be sidestepped or used to aid in crime; taking someone else's bullets/casings and dropping them at a scene, switching out the stamp, filing off the stamp, buying a black market pre-stamping gun...the list of things wrong with the idea far outweighs the minuscule chance of helping to solve a crime, and, as already said, is just another way that if they can't take away the right, ban the tools.
The ways it could be circumvented are frankly not a great argument imo because the amount of guns we see with no serials and damaged bores and altered firing pins is extremely small.
Yes, criminals could totally file off the microstamping on the extractor and firing ping, they could drop somebody elses shells there, they could do all sorts of things but they're not doing much of anything now to alter the guns traceability to a crime scene already. I don't think microstamping will suddenly make them start.
They're out there killing people and committing crimes for the most part because they're not very bright.
I"m not sure when it happened but i check about once a week and just today i noticed we won.
LOL The first thing my significant other and I said was, "Holy crap we can finally hold hands in public without fearing for our own safety anymore."
None of the views accepts that unless you live inside a police station or are very lucky law enforcement will not arrive right away
Also, you want to use the argument that the deffinition has not changed but times have changed both in the same argument. You may want to revise that a little.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warr.....ct_of_Columbia
The appeals court upheld that the duty to serve and protect is for the public at large, not for the individual.
I'm sure most are good but frankly i don't trust the cops as far as i can throw them from being harassed almost non stop by them as a kid and a young adult and by their sheer disinterest in helping you if they can't figure out a way to arrest you instead. When the guy who attacked me with a knife in my own house whom i pulled a gun on showed up the next day trying to lure me outside "to talk", it took the cops 45 minutes to show up.
Keep in mind they told me that prior to that incident (he had attempted to break into my home 3 times already.) they had warned him that he's banned from our complex and all i have to say is his name and my address and they'll rush over because he was a dangerous person who needed to be taken off the streets, but also the fact their station was only about 4 blocks from my house.
It still took them 45 minutes to show up, at which point he was of course long gone.
Regardless they DON'T have an obligation to protect you and from my experience, they don't.
But really. When has prohibition ever really worked?
How many billions and how many human lives have we pissed away in the war on drugs for drug use to only increase? The drugs people die from aren't grown or made here, they're manufactured and grown far away and smuggled in relentlessly. Nobody has trouble getting them.
I can't really fathom why the tiny part of the population (.07% iirc) that are out there committing gun crime or desperately want to kill people would be super eager to turn in their guns or why a they would overlook the chance to fill the void that was once filled by gun stores to supply guns to whoever want them.
I frankly don't know the answer. I just know if i didn't have access to a firearm i might likely be dead before any of you even met me. There will be awful people with guns. I refuse to be defenseless to them.
It's a lot more complicate to reglament instruction, licenses, training, even the odd psychological evaluation, than simply say "no gun for U" or "Guns at 50% in Wallmart aisle three"
I"m all down for finding out somebody's criminal history before selling them a gun in all circumstances but i don't think we should jump through insane hoops psych evaluation/training nonsense just to own something we're legally allowed to own.
I think both sides have their heads up their asses. The gun nuts are more often gun anarchists who don't have an issue with milk being regulated but for some reason guns can't be regulated at all.
THen we have the anti gun nuts who pass bullshit law after law after law after law not designed to accomplish anything but make it slightly harder for people to exercise a right that is a right, whether that side likes it or not. These are lawst hat have already been done on the state and federal level many times and they didn't impact crime at all, yet they keep passing them and tightening them.
The time to pass laws is when there is a problem, and when it's actually likely the law will have an impact.
Things like universal background checks which i support are a good example of GOOD gun laws everybody should support, that instead of targeting the 300 mllion people who aren't committing crimes, only targets the .07% of those who are.
And let's not even discuss what it takes to get and own a pistol in NYC; that's like separate country.
I know our states have a lot in common as far as gun legislation in the last couple years; our SAFE Act mirrors a lot of the BS you guys have had rammed through. Nice to see some manner of victory, and good on you for carrying.
Personally, given the spree shooting epidemic we're experiencing, i think it's probably in peoples best interest to not get acclimated to people wandering around with guns in public for no good reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrJMQupYxaw
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index......gation_of.html
And no, I'm not anti-cop, jus'sayin'.
Has anybody told your buddy about chainsaws? They work much better.
I would wager we'll hear about somebody defending themselves far far far sooner.
Source: United Nations
Australia: 30
Austria: 18
Canada: 173
Egypt: 453
England: 41
France: 35
Germany: 158
Greece: 29
Japan: 11
United States: 9,146
At the same time, we have the almost uniquely american phenomena of an enormous gang culture here. Most of those murders are confined to urban areas and it's them killing each other.
This isn't like the wild west with grannies getting gunned down in the streets.
meanwhile, other countries with extremely low violent crime have comparable access to guns. It's a complex issue.
Well canada has a shit load of guns per capita last i looked, so does switzerland, so do a few nordic countries where guns are a huge part of their culture and heritage like we consider it here, meanwhile they're not killing each other like we are.
And I don't attribute this mostly to gangs (also last i looked the aryan brotherhood was one of the most violent gangs in the US and they're very white and they're a very very large gang.), i have heard various claims of X percentage is attributed to gangs and if you remove gang crime from teh equation it puts us on par with many other developed nations. I haven't taken the time to fact check these arguments but even the most anti gun sources put about 28% of all of our homicides to gang violence.
My point is, something is up with america. We're not the only ones with a shit load of guns in our level of development but we're doing the worst things with them. We've tried every type of insane gun restriction imaginable on the federal and state level dozens of times and they simply don't affect crime rates that even the national academy of sciences could discern when they looked.
You should really watch the documentary Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal. It's not pro gun or anti gun propaganda. It's an older documentary that was made when the again, almost uniquely american phenomena of spree killings on a weekly basis began and they come up with a very very fascinating argument as to what changed i n american culture that might have caused this to start happening. It's really well done, if a bit disturbing.
There are many developed countries with similar access to gun s and similar levels of gun ownership and they're not killing people the way we are.
So perhaps we should figure out why that is and address it AND actually get off our asses and expand the background check system to all purchases and transfers. I'm not even sure what your point was with the homicide statistics.
Yes, lots of people are murdered by guns in the united states. I'm extremely aware of the gun crime and gun use statistics within the united states.
I've had a gun pulled on me. My friend was murdered by a gun. It's unfortunate he didn't have one because the way it went down, he would have had the upper hand and most likely lived.
There seems to be a LOT of homicides by guns in the U.S. - THOUSANDS more than in countries that ALLOW firearms. Based on that fact - that you and I can agree on, I think:
1. How would more guns improve that statistic?
2. Wouldn't the number of homicides go down at least a little if it were harder to own a firearm? (I figure allow firearms and ban ammo). For instance, people might knife each other, but more of those injuries would likely be survivable, right?
3. How do we reduce the number of people murdered by firearms?
4. Life seems fairly safe and free in countries that ban firearms or make it much harder to own than we do. What's wrong with their system? How is ours better?
And I think you're right about the societal ills, but it seems MUCH easier to ban guns and ammo then spend about 100 years getting them out of the hands of crooks and bad guys then to change the very fabric of our society itself, which would also take two or three generations (100 years).
BUT - I think you provided the best defense possible.
NOW: How about the people killed ACCIDENTLY by guns going off - mostly the kids of law abiding gun owners? That number has found to be VASTLY under reported, according the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/u.....d=all&_r=0
Here's a stat: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age. http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads.....ings-NYAGV.pdf
Acceptable losses? I think any product that likely to kill in the home would be recalled and banned, normally.
You cited 3800 deaths from accidental shootings over five years. About 3500 accidental drownings happen each and every year. Yet no one is talking about banning pools. Accidents happen, and they can be prevented with awareness and responsibility.
There are a lot of accidents and there are a lot of suicides. About a third of all gun deaths if memory serves. I would be all for a campaign for mandatory safety classes. I think every gun owner should be responsible enough to take one even if not mandatory. I think everyone should have access to adequate mental healthcare.
But you're right, banning guns completely is the easiest solution. That's great for people who don't like guns. It doesn't go over so well with the people who actually use and enjoy them. My guns will never hurt anyone, and I can't abide being deprived of the right to own them because .0001% of people abuse them. That's Prohibition logic. That's War On Drugs logic. It doesn't fly and I will never be convinced that it does and I will do everything in my power to keep that from happening. And so will a whole lot of others.
Limiting the maximum speed of cars to the maximum speed limit in the area would save thousands of lives, so why don't we do that? Do you see the reasoning there? Fast cars are dangerous and kill a lot of people and I don't like them and I don't think you should have one, so I'm going to take that from you. For the greater good.
Yeah, no.
Ever heard that old saying about how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Mexico has outlawed private gun ownership for decades and it has a gun murder rate 9 times higher than the united states.
Meanwhile, we got other developed countries with tons of guns, and plenty of access to them like canada, switzerland and finland, and they're not killing each other with them like we are. If there's ANYTHING i can see that's a correlation between violence, it's progressive policies. All of the countries I can think of with a gun culture and plenty of guns per capita but an almost nonexistent murder rate extremely progressive labor laws and strong social safety nets. Their people are happier, less impoverished and have a stronger upward mobility than we do. People aren't going to resort to illegal careers that might make them kill people or go off and slaughter people for no reason if they have hope of a decent future. More and more, we don't have that in america.
If a problem is causing to people to do things with a tool, banning the tool is idiotic, especially in a country with tens of thousands of miles of border with other countries. The idea that if we banned guns the criminals wouldn't be the only people with guns and that we wouldn't be flooded with people willing to sell us the guns we want is absurd.
So long as those restrictions stay in place, awesome.
I powerfully dislike guns and most vocal gun proponents, but everyone has a right to defend themselves. Anyone who wants to have a gun for self-defense purposes, and has not established by their own actions or mental incapacity that they would be a danger to others if they had one, should have every freedom to acquire and carry one.
I think a lot of people want to frame the whole gun debate as; Right wants everyone armed with military weaponry and Left wants nobody to have any guns at all. The reality seems to be much more along the lines of some people - mostly Left - only want restrictions on military-grade weaponry designed to kill many people easily and quickly, and to deny access to firearms to people who are known violent criminals and/or mentally unstable. Other people - mostly Right - are collectors/hobbyists/enthusiasts who want a freedom to purchase guns NOT as weapons for self-defense but as cool/fun/enjoyable toys to play with and collect, and don't want their ability to get the coolest 'most bad-ass' new gun impeded.
People get mad at me for phrasing it that way, "no, I fully understand and appreciate the danger of this weapon, I take it very seriously, I do not treat them as toys" but if you collect a thing because you have a non-utility interest in it, if you use an object for entertainment/enjoyment outside of it's actual purpose/utility (injuring/killing people who are an immediate threat to your health and safety), then that IS a toy for you, no matter how careful or responsible you are with it. A person who wishes to collect deadly viruses or diseases does not have a right to do so, no matter how responsible they may be, and so I think guns-as-collectors-items/toys also is not something anyone has any right or entitlement to.
I, like MOST advocates for gun control, am in no way opposed to people having access to firearms for self-defense, or for them to be able to have the weapon on them so it can actually be used to defend themselves.
Glad to hear California is making it easier for people to defend themselves. Not looking forward to whatever new nonsense this will inspire in the types of people who felt compelled to stroll around Target with assault rifles as a 'statement.'
As far as the right goes, even the NRA supported the National Instant Background Check System we have in place. And as far as the left only wanting to restrict military-grade weapons, their ire tends to be focused more on AR-15s than it does on surplus bolt-action rifles, which is about the only thing that's actually military grade that civilians are readily able to get a hold of. An actual M16 or M4 rifle is functionally different from a legal AR-15, though cosmetically they can be quite similar.
And the NIBCS we have now in place they support because it's shit and it's a dirty little secret that the NRA which is just a lobbying group for the gun industry don't want pressure being put on teh criminal gun market. They love that market. They get to sell guns to criminals and sell them to us to protect ourselves from the criminals.
There is no reason to not require an NIBCS check for all sales and transfers period.
The NRA has always stood firm that criminals shouldn't be allowed access to firearms. They've supported programs that make it harder or increase penalties for criminal possession of a firearm so long as they don't impede on everyone else's rights. That's really the way it seems like it ought to be, don't let a few bad apples ruin everything for everyone else. And the NRA is actually a lobby group for the individuals that enroll in it's membership; a very small portion of money is from companies. The NSSF actually is the group that lobbies on behalf of much of the gun industry.
The problem with passing a law requiring a NICS check for every transfer is that it's only going to happen in the cases where it's not needed. In the cases where it'd prevent unlawful ownership of a firearm, the involved parties are likely going to continue not following the laws that got them into that situation in the first place.
The NRA says a lot of things, i don't trust a single one of them. Lobbyists are about the least trustworthy people on the planet and the NRA has become pure and simple, a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers. Their actions speak a lot louder than their words and they pretty much blanket reject any gun control legislation even scaremongering over the manchin/toomey bill as a "pathway to federal registration and confiscation" iirc.
Also i don't know the exact legality of selling a gun on say, armsbroker, but basically you just get them to sign a handwritten waver that can be on a cocktail napkin and supposedly you are not at all responsible for who the guy is or what the gun does as long as you can claim you weren't aware they were a prohibited person. What I do know is that many many of those guns turn up at murder scenes and i haven't heard of anybody getting prosecuted for selling it. I only hear about people being prosecuted for that sort of thing when they basically are convicted of being a serial strawbuyer. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
Online sales of guns are still regulated just the same as other sales; if it crosses state lines it has to go through a dealer. Of it goes through a dealer, they're going to do a background check.
There have been cases, but the most prominent I think has been the Webster NY shooting where a felon convinced a friend to purchase s few firearms for him. She did, including a handgun, which had to be registered and she had s license to purchase. Despite that, he still used them in a particularly disgusting criminal manner. She's recently been sentenced to years in prison in NY, and will likely be facing time i in federal prison.
And if the NRA is supportive of background checks, why are they not supportive of filling in the loopholes that didn't exist when we created them?
I don't understand why background checks are a good thing for X sale but not Y sale. I've been through 3 background checks for all 3 of my guns. It takes literally 5 to 20 seconds.
The "loophole" of the ability of an individual to sell private property to another individual already existed prior to any background checks. The problem with requiring universal background checks, as I thought I had pointed out, is that it would be utterly useless without registration. And registration has already been used, around the world and even a few times within the US, to ease confiscation when the time rolls around. And, of course, the NRA is pretty opposed to confiscation.
I'm assuming you've gone through filling out a form 4473 and had them call in a NICS check, not a different background check, and I've had dozens of those, myself. None of them ever took anywhere near 20 seconds. I've been lucky that I haven't been delayed, but I know people that have had to wait for days because of someone with the same name who isn't eligible to own a firearm, but mine have taken, notwithstanding other factors, at least 15 minutes, sometimes at a gun show it's taken well over an hour. But then again, it's not because of time, anyways.
I know for a fact many guns from gun shows and arms list have turned up at murder scenes and in the hands of prohibited people and the ONLY time i've ever heard about people getting arrested for selling guns to criminals are serial straw buyers who knowingly bought a gun to sell to people they knew were prohibited people.
Like if a person commits cyber crime and is banned from owning an internet capable computer, they don't arrest the guy at staples who sells them a computer. They don't do the same for guns that i have EVER heard of. If you have information that proves me wrong, by all means.
My point is, you don't seem to object to the background check system we have in place. If background checks are fine, why would we NOT expand them to the new methods of selling guns? Why should ANY sale be exempt from a background check? It makes no fucking sense.
Guns that've been sold at gun shows make up only a small percentage of guns used in crime according to the FBI, who is very good at investigating these sorts of things.
And yes, as I've said, the DOJ hardly prosecutes the criminals they're catching with the current system as it is, so how would adding more criminals to that list help at all? And it's not just serial-straw-buyers, as I've pointed out.
The idea that that does absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them is nonsense. the argument that it's ANY inconvenience to ANYBODY to take this tiny step before selling somebody something that is literally designed to kill people is utterly insane.
You DO realize that this is legislation that not only has ZERO effect or inconvenience on buyers who should be allowed to own guns, but it's such a wanted legislation on the left that the NRA could use it as leverage to get a lot in return. They could repeal stupid gun laws in exchange for universal background checks.
People who know they're not supposed to have guns, those that intend to use them criminally, aren't going to get background checks. They'll find someone who's selling illegal guns and but one of those, same as they do now. It's pretty silly you'd say there's no inconvenience; it's require a financial, time, and resource inconvenience. It's much less convenient than, say, getting a non-driver ID card for free. And guns aren't necessarily designed to kill people; those that are aren't designed for murdering people. There's literally no market for guns designed for criminals.
I realize that, while there's no particular legislation in particular, that the idea of a"universal " background check, which is a stupid law in and if itself, would necessarily be accompanied by a slew of other stupid gun laws that may severely inhibit the ability to own guns in the future.
The NRA did not become the straw boogyman of today until the mid 1990's after the passage of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which was a crappy cosmetic fluff bill. Since then, it's basically been stereotyped as a racist, Republican lobbying group (despite women and minorities being on the BoD) by anti-gun groups, which is wholly ironic when you consider the late Charleton Heston was a spokesman for ages, and was one of the only white Hollywood actors during the Civil Rights Movement who marched with black leaders and risked taking a bullet or a necktie as a sympathizer, while Hollywood distanced themselves from "colored folk".
After those major gun control bills, the NRA took hardline stances against further concessions and became a brick wall for the most part because most of the main conceptual laws on gun control are already in place in the USA (the nukes, grenades, and WMD arguments). It did not effectively become a lobbying group until it formed the NRA-ILA in the mid 1970's after a lot of people were upset they threw their support behind the 1968 GCA and lost membership. Even then, it was not heavily active. Gun control issues didn't flare up until the late 1980's with the steep rise in drug-based crime and cartel/coke violence. The NRA-ILA was responsible for partially rolling back the 1968 GCA with the 1986 FOPA (and if you need to see how crooked Congress is, see how Charlie Rangel falsified a verbal vote on the floor, which is caught on video). The lobbying did not pick up pace heavily until the mid 1990's and early 2000's. With the AWB sunset in 2004, there was renewed fervor in extending it, and even enhancing it, and that's when the ILA really kicked it's pro-gun advertising into overdrive.
If one bothered to look deep enough, there is a demographic of absolutist gun owners that have created alternates to the NRA, such as the GCA, because they consider the NRA a turncoat organization for the aforementioned support of various gun control laws and initiatives. The NRA is also one of the main forces in pouring conservation dollars into wildlife and wildlife management. It's a bit ironic that most tax dollars funding federal wildlife and preservation programs are being funded by things like the Pittman–Robertson Act and gun owners. One branch of the NRA focuses on hunting programs and conservation entirely.
As always, complex organizations with long histories cannot be summed up with overly simplistic stereotypes that have only existed the last few decades. The NRA still receives a large majority of funding from paying members. The NRA has multiple independent organizations that focus on different things, The ILA deals with political lobbying so one should isolate it if we're talking about lobbying, because the money that goes into the NRA Foundation branch goes into youth programs, clubs, programs, and wildlife preservation and land management. The claim of "only about half of the membership dues are responsible for income flow" is an inaccurate picture because large companies like Midway USA run "round up" programs where you can round up purchases to the nearest dollar, and that difference is donated to the NRA. Dues and donations aren't one in the same, and their IRS 990 form is public donation for anyone who wishes to see where the money comes from. Again, being three different entities, one can't look at the lobbying branch and use it to dismiss the others. I'm also not sure if having half your income from membership dues for a political lobbying group is typical OR atypical. I'm pretty sure most lobbying groups, PACs, Super PACs, etc, get a majority of their money purely from large businesses and don't actively pool from individuals, period.
In any case, it puts me in a tough spot. I'm a minority NRA life member simply because there is no other large juggernaut that can fight for me, and I'm stuck with the organization endorsing a lot of misfit social conservatives because the NRA is a one-issue organization that seeks to keep out anti-gun legislators above all else. Groups like the SAF are great, but much more specialized and have a much smaller budget so they pick their court battles carefully.
There is no liability on private sales if you did not knowingly sell to a felon or someone of ill repute. My state passed a private background check law, but it's wholly unenforceable and actually makes things worse because if I pick up a friend's gun in his home, it's considered a transfer that requires an ATF 4473.
But it is disingenuous to point the blame at the scary black rifles. In 2011 there were 323 homicides in the US by rifle. Any rifle. 323. From grand-pappy's flintlock to a .22 LR. 323. The AR-15 pattern rifle is the single most popular rifle in America. There are millions of them in private hands alone. 323 homicides.
The loss of life in any rampage is a terrible tragedy, but there are those who sensationalize them toward their own ends. When .00001% of the people are the problem, taking the rights away from the other .99999% is not the solution.
That's why i'm a strong advocate of universal federal background checks. They take 5 seconds. There is no real good argument against them imo.
What meaning exists in this? So, basically, "fill out this form, oh, by the way, if I actually ran your paperwork through a background check, would you pass it?" "Sure, why not." "Okiedokie, here's your gun."
"Be able to pass a background check" as a requirement, but without having to actually run a background check, is meaningless. Filling out a form that isn't processed and >checked< is also nothing. Any person could fill out jibberish and if there is no check run on it before they are handed their gun, then there is absolutely no real difference from not even requiring a form to be filled out at all.
Anyone who believes the NRA is anything other than a shield/lobby for the gun manufacturers is tragically naive. If they approve of it, then it cannot possibly be worth half a shit.
I don't know which guns are worse than which other guns. If it has the capacity to kill a large number of people quickly, it's probably more than what is necessary for self-defense. It isn't reasonable to insist that anyone is likely to find themselves in a situation where they need to drop a dozen or more people at a time. Nobody needs to be able to walk down the street with a rifle strapped to their back, it doesn't matter which rifle it is.
The NRA represents it's members. The NSSF represents manufacturers.
Guns, as far as being ethically better or worse, aren't. They're simply inanimate objects, and have no free will of their own. While some people actually believe that so-called reasonable regulation such as banning large calibers, limiting capacity to 10 rounds, and prohibiting cosmetic features will prevent mass shootings, but the worst school shooting in the US was committed primarily with a 10-round .22 caliber Walther P-22 which has none of those cosmetic features.
They have become a lobbying group, pure and simple. They do what they're paid to do, and they get the most pay from the gun manufacturers and gun industry.
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/articl.....ly-4154872.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation.....le_Association
"Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.[32] According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers.""
I'm actually looking for the article i read years ago that dug around and found out that it's technically less than what's stated on their income taxes because a good sized percentage of their memberships are actually bought and paid for by the gun industry. Like for instance Taurus buys a 1 year membership for every single person that buys a taurus gun.
They get less than half their revenue from membership dues and as much as 15% of those memberships are paid for by gun retailers and manufacturers.
Regardless, they claim that "All" of their money comes from their members which is a complete and utter lie. They are an industry lobbying company that frankly doesn't even need members for a long time now.
Much if the money from manufacturers is used on ranges and youth education.
far as i'm concerned if you don't think we should expand our background check system to check EVERY gun purchase and transfer, you're fucking insane.
One wants for the most part, basically gun anarchy. The other just doesn't like guns so they just pass retarded law after retarded law that didn't do anything the last 30 times they were tried on a federal or state level but they pass it again anyways.
I compare the actual agenda of the anti gun faction of left politics to the anti abortion agenda of right politics. A lot of the laws both pass are basically not for any real public safety thing, but to try and make it as difficult to exercise a protected right they personally don't like as humanly possible. If you're not familiar with abortion clinic TRAP laws which are shutting down almost every abortion clinic in many southern states look em up. Arbitrary laws with no real expected impact or outcome yet make it insanely difficult to exercise the right in question.
California has their little tricks they do. One is adding more and more "mandatory safe features" to be on a gun to the point that come next year, not one single handgun in the world will be considered safe enough for the state of california.
The pro life people say they're requiring hospital admitting priviliges they know abortion clinics can't get "For women's safety".
The anti gun people say they're requiring features on handguns that don't exist to deem them safe for "For children's safety".
It's all bullshit. What i do know is that gun nuts try to literally fight me and scream at me and call me a fascist communist for advocating universal background checks.
The anti gun nuts call me a hick conservative (lol, me a conservative.....if only they knew) coward because I think the right to own guns is important.
When you're anywhere near Center, the Left sees you on the Right and the Right sees you on the Left.
Moving to LA in Jan, so this is good news.
What would you think of something like that, and why wouldn't it work? (I'm assuming you'll hate the idea, your other posts being an indicator.)
On top of even that. Prohibition has pretty much a 100% failure rate in the united states. If we ban guns, people are still going to want guns and people are going to find a way to sell them to them.
Also the 2nd amendment mentions two distinct entities that this right protects. Militias and the people. I'm not really worried about the mlitias.
I think we should have complete legality for all semi automatic rifles and handguns but it should not be legal to sell or transfer one to somebody unless they undergo an fbi background check and the list of people prohibited from owning guns should be the mentally ill, those who have been forcibly institutionalized for violence, people with restraining orders and violent felons.
And i guess i just don't really see your aim? pistols are favorites for crime because they can be concealed easily, if we banned pistols and only had rifles, we would have people openly carrying rifles all over the place like those chumps in starbucks and Target freaking everybody out and we'de have people who need to conceal a rifle to commit a crime chopping them down into innacurate overpowered hunks of junk that instead of embedding themselves in a wall, they'll go through any number of walls and any number of people.
for me it pretty much comes down to that i should be able to protect myself on par with what is out there victimizing people. A handgun for most scenarios is simply the ideal thing to have.
I apply the hand grenade test. If the capacity for misuse outweighs the potential practical use for self defense or hunting or sporting, then i have no problem with it being heavily regulated or banned.
A machine gun, like a hand grenade has almost zero practical benefit for self defense and is a detriment for bystanders and and has zero practical benefit for hunting. i have no problem with those being heavily restricted. What those guns are VERY good at is spraying a crowd of people with bullets. Thus, it fails the test.
THis goes for lots of bullets and types of weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, fully automatic weapons, explosives. I can't think of a practical necessity for incendiary bullets, armor piercing bullets etc.
What I don't support is enacting laws that ban guns based on arbitrary features that don't really do anything to enhance the lethality of the gun. I don't support laws that ban things that have already been banned a dozen times to zero effect on any actual crime statistics.
Like some aspects of the NFA laws are fine with me. I don't think we need to have a ton of machine guns floating around. Some aspects are stupid and were created to address a problem that hasn't been a problem for over half a century. It heavily restricts SBR's which is just a rifle like what we have all over the place with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. That does not in any way enhance the lethality of that weapon. They only enacted it because we had a mafia problem who happened to be really fond of the tommy gun.
I talked to Emmy Award-winning scientific documentary maker Kris Koenig and some of his production crew during and after the fundraising and research phases of his Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire documentary from several years ago. He created a documentary that went against the political party "play book" and sadly his efforts blacklisted him from all Hollywood contacts, burned all his bridges, and ruined his career making that documentary; it's really sad that the state of politics has come down to two juggernauts trying to paint "the others" as some caricature, while scrubbing their own image clean of the criticisms they assign others. I always find it amusing when I look at reliable polling institutions like Gallup, Rasmussen, or Pew, and see that a third of Democrats are anti-gay or a third of Republicans are pro-choice, but political parties pretend such a large minority doesn't exist amongst themselves.
Our state of Washington is fairly freedom-friendly on gun laws, but we get a sour egg here or two. We recently got suppressors and SBRs off the ban list in the last couple years, but we recently passed a "feel good" mandatory private background check law that is wholly unenforceable and written in such a manner that if I pick up another person's firearm, it's considered a transfer and subject to a background check. Fish and Wildlife Dept had a hard time figuring out how to do hunter safety courses because only deputized instructors are exempt from the legislation, so if they have civilians teaching or civilians in the course, civilians can't pass guns around, and when you do the test of crossing fences and handing off firearms to your hunting buddy to do it safely, it's considered a gun transfer and subject to an BATFE 4473.
The bill was sold on the threat that people were literally mail/phone/internet ordering guns to their doorstep without background checks, which has not been legal since the federal 1968 Gun Control Act, so there was never a time in American history you could order guns online to your doorstep. Much like how people pain the NRA as evil lobbyists, the anti-gun lobbyists are arguably just as bad in perpetuating such a false narrative to gather fear votes. Oddly enough, there wasn't a rash of mail-order gun crimes pre 1968 either, when you could order Solothurn 20mm anti-tank rifles out of the backs of magazines. The irony is -I- can order certain guns to my doorstep because I hold a federal C&R license, so yay for bypassing stupid state law.
One of the problems is the NICS program has stopped millions of purchases, but you can't prove a negative, so we'll never know how many murders and mass shootings NICS prevented. There is also a major problem of departments NOT communicating with others to pass relevant information. We had a school shooting here from a kid who took his father's guns, and his father, who was a Native, illegally purchased them and passed NICS specifically because tribal police, who flagged him for his criminal history, refused to work with American government to share information. As such, the FBI NICS did not flag him before the sale of the firearm, and the rest is history.
I wish we really could have a rational discussion if people are serious about solving gun problems, as an overwhelming majority of gun crimes come from cheap handguns during the commission of crimes by repeat criminals. Rifles and shotguns, which kill less than fists or sharp objects (pick any year of the FBI's UCR, specifically Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, or Table 20), end up being the focus of anti-gun legislation. I'm not suggesting handgun bans (CPL holder here) but if people who want to fix these problems were serious, maybe they could address the things that cause the most problems, or realize there is inherent risk with certain freedoms. However, it's really hard when people who have no qualifications to talk about firearms pass off the idea that stuff like M855 ammunition is "armor piercing" and needs to be banned.