CA effectively bans semiautomatic handgun sales by 2015

[TreVader]

Your spouse just passed away, you go see a psychologist to get some counseling, the state finds out about your counseling and they send the storm troopers A.K.A the police to confiscate any guns and forbid you to own any guns, no gun for you.

You were arrested for a marijuana joint but it was tossed out because you proved it was your friends, no gun for you.

Your brother whom you rarely see in another state is in rehab, no gun for you.

TreVader loses an argument with you, he calls the police says you are a crazy person, no gun for you

Owning guns should not be a right. Guns are not even close to what they were when the 2nd amendment was envisioned!

IF the second amendment is correct, then you should be able to bear the arms that were available when it was conceived. I would be totally cool if you gun nuts had smoothbore muskets! Or do you need to kill things (people) faster than that?


I'll tell you, it would immediately make somebody think twice about shooting up a school if the gun they carried weighed 30lbs, was 6ft long, took 2 min to reload, and couldn't hit anything more than 50 yards away.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You know, and gun grabber nutters wonder why pro self-defense people refuse to budge on ANY of these discussions in other states.

What you modern progressives push in CA and NY is exactly why you aren't able to get anything done anywhere else. What a stupid law. Yet another example of something that only hinders law-abiding citizens.

Do they REALLY think a criminal is going to go legally buy a microstamped gun, associate their name with it on record with the state, then turn around and use it for crime??!


It baffles me, how stupid this is.... Yet it's completely supported by modern progressives.

 

[TreVader]

You know, and gun grabber nutters wonder why pro self-defense people refuse to budge on ANY of these stuff in other states.

What you modern progressives push in CA and NY is exactly why you aren't able to get anything done anywhere else. What a stupid law. Yet another example of something that only hinders law-abiding citizens.

Do they REALLY think a criminal is going to go legally buy a microstamped gun, associate their name with it on record with the state, then turn around and use it for crime??!


It baffles me, how stupid this is.... Yet it's completely supported by modern progressives.

I love how you call it "pro self defense" when, ironically, a person in the US is 10x as likely to shoot themselves as to shoot an attacker.

 

[brandonb]

The sensationalism surrounding the law is designed to increase sales. Hicks are such simpletons. They expect the world to end every time they put a law saying "you can no longer buy hand grenades". OH NO! BUT I USE HAND GRENADES TO FISH! HOW WILL I FEED MY FAMILY WITHOUT HAND GRENADES!

So if you want to protect your rights, and want to own a gun, or to have one at all. You are now a hick? Creating an association between gun = hick. To scare and to intimidate? Since most people don't want to be considered a hick, they shouldn't buy a gun or want one around them at all.

Much like if you are a republican that means you are a bigoted Christian? Turning something into a dirty word. Or liberal = mental illness from Ann Coulter.

Just wondering if we're on the same page here. It was confusing.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I love how you call it "pro self defense" when, ironically, a person in the US is 10x as likely to shoot themselves as to shoot an attacker.

And how does that affect my rights to bear arms?

 

[ivwshane]

Srsly?

Just google gun restrictions etc and you'll get a large list.

I'll tell you about one that has affected me. In NC if you want to purchase a handgun you must personally appear at the Sheriff's office and pay a fee and fill out paperwork to get a permit to purchase. Without the permit a gun dealer cannot sell you a handgun. It takes about a week or so to get your permit. They'll call you and you must go back to the Sheriff's office and pick it up.

Now, some may say this is for background checks. But, uh, doesn't the federal govt already do a background check before you can buy a handgun? Of course they do.

But here's the best part: A permit allows you to buy ONLY one handgun. Now why would that be? I mean, if you passed the background check you should be able to buy more than one handgun at a time. Why must we have to pay and get a separate permit for each dang gun?

Just to make it a PITA.

Fern

And this was passed by the dems in your state, how exactly?

 

[bshole]

I see a time coming where a gun will not fire at a person unless the microntroller in the firearm has been given permission to fire at that person. The government would be in a charge of giving the permission to fire. Once the technology is in place, guns could be given to everybody because then truly they would only pose a threat to bad people. I say the technology is about 50 years out but it will surely get here. Then this whole gun debate will go away. The government will simply destroy all the current guns and replace them with government controlled firearms. It is win-win for everybody.

 

[chucky2]

I see a time coming where a gun will not fire at a person unless the microntroller in the firearm has been given permission to fire at that person. The government would be in a charge of giving the permission to fire. Once the technology is in place, guns could be given to everybody because then truly they would only pose a threat to bad people. I say the technology is about 50 years out but it will surely get here. Then this whole gun debate will go away. The government will simply destroy all the current guns and replace them with government controlled firearms. It is win-win for everybody.

You know, if it was direct connect programmable by the user, and was reliable enough to be employed by the police and gov for their uses, and was unable to be defeated w/o direct connect programming (to prevent over the air deactivation), I'd be fine with this. All of those caveats would have to apply though.

EDIT: Whoops, re-read your post after I responded. The bolded would have to go. I was reading your post as like a fingerprint or DNA based safety.

 

[schneiderguy]

What kind of idiot are you? I was referring to the article and the sensationalism surrounding this law. The law is designed to protects idiots (like you) from shooting your various idiot family members when you mistake them for burglars, that or ending your own pathetic lives.

The sensationalism surrounding the law is designed to increase sales. Hicks are such simpletons. They expect the world to end every time they put a law saying "you can no longer buy hand grenades". OH NO! BUT I USE HAND GRENADES TO FISH! HOW WILL I FEED MY FAMILY WITHOUT HAND GRENADES!

How does microstamping prevent someone from shooting their family?

 

[BUnit1701]

I see a time coming where a gun will not fire at a person unless the microntroller in the firearm has been given permission to fire at that person. The government would be in a charge of giving the permission to fire. Once the technology is in place, guns could be given to everybody because then truly they would only pose a threat to bad people. I say the technology is about 50 years out but it will surely get here. Then this whole gun debate will go away. The government will simply destroy all the current guns and replace them with government controlled firearms. It is win-win for everybody.

You seem to misunderstand why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place...

 

[schneiderguy]

Owning guns should not be a right. Guns are not even close to what they were when the 2nd amendment was envisioned!

IF the second amendment is correct, then you should be able to bear the arms that were available when it was conceived. I would be totally cool if you gun nuts had smoothbore muskets! Or do you need to kill things (people) faster than that?

Ridiculous argument. Should Internet and TV communication be protected under the 1st Amendment? Why do you need to disseminate information faster than sending a letter on a horse drawn carriage?

I'll tell you, it would immediately make somebody think twice about shooting up a school if the gun they carried weighed 30lbs, was 6ft long, took 2 min to reload, and couldn't hit anything more than 50 yards away.

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

 

[Triumph]

I love how you call it "pro self defense" when, ironically, a person in the US is 10x as likely to shoot themselves as to shoot an attacker.

If your stat is true, 99.9% of those are suicides. Which doesn't bother me much. Are you worried about killing yourself?

 

[Phanuel]

I see a time coming where a gun will not fire at a person unless the microntroller in the firearm has been given permission to fire at that person. The government would be in a charge of giving the permission to fire. Once the technology is in place, guns could be given to everybody because then truly they would only pose a threat to bad people. I say the technology is about 50 years out but it will surely get here. Then this whole gun debate will go away. The government will simply destroy all the current guns and replace them with government controlled firearms. It is win-win for everybody.

And the government knows who all the bad people are right now? So I could just walk around in public squeezing the trigger at random people until it goes *bang* and go, "Yee haw, took out a bad guy that time!"?

 

[bshole]

And the government knows who all the bad people are right now? So I could just walk around in public squeezing the trigger at random people until it goes *bang* and go, "Yee haw, took out a bad guy that time!"?

Pretty cool huh? I think it would be awesome. It would apply to cops too. No more opening up on innocent people. The gun would be incapable of firing if innocent bystanders were in the line of fire. Like I said, we don't have the tech now to do it effectively, but in 50 years we most assuredly will.

 

[CanOWorms]

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the militia is well-regulated. This law is unconstitutional becomes it's not well regulated. It's too lax. Harsher regulations are constitutionally required. For example, a gun must be un-assembled with each part in separate states. That's well-regulated.

The Supreme Court just can't read the plain text of the Constitution. They like to stick in an encyclopedia between the words so that it gets construed in favor of one group's cultural privileges.

 

[TreVader]

Ridiculous argument. Should Internet and TV communication be protected under the 1st Amendment? Why do you need to disseminate information faster than sending a letter on a horse drawn carriage?



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

So shooting bullets is equivalent to communicating? I'm not so sure the people on the receiving end of those bullets, were they still alive to talk about it, would agree. They're not the same thing. The 1st amendment is talking about an inherent quality (speech/communication) vs items/property(arms/guns).


And as far as that air rifle is concerned, if it's so goddamn deadly why are we even in this thread? You have no need for M-16s, you have this air rifle, which you are obviously saying is plenty dangerous. So STFU

 

[FerrelGeek]

And here CA goes again - providing ammo (pun intended) for the anti-pot crowd.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I love how you call it "pro self defense" when, ironically, a person in the US is 10x as likely to shoot themselves as to shoot an attacker.

Actually shoot an attacker? You may well be right, I've never seen valid studies to be sure. However, it isn't actually shooting that matters, it's merely using the weapon defensively. By THAT standard firearms are used defensively as much or more as they're used offensively.

 

[Incorruptible]

Owning guns should not be a right. Guns are not even close to what they were when the 2nd amendment was envisioned!

IF the second amendment is correct, then you should be able to bear the arms that were available when it was conceived. I would be totally cool if you gun nuts had smoothbore muskets! Or do you need to kill things (people) faster than that?


I'll tell you, it would immediately make somebody think twice about shooting up a school if the gun they carried weighed 30lbs, was 6ft long, took 2 min to reload, and couldn't hit anything more than 50 yards away.

You're a coward. People have the right to bear arms and own a gun, it's in the Constitution.

Funny how idiots like you don't want these same restrictions on free speech.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I see a time coming where a gun will not fire at a person unless the microntroller in the firearm has been given permission to fire at that person. The government would be in a charge of giving the permission to fire. Once the technology is in place, guns could be given to everybody because then truly they would only pose a threat to bad people. I say the technology is about 50 years out but it will surely get here. Then this whole gun debate will go away. The government will simply destroy all the current guns and replace them with government controlled firearms. It is win-win for everybody.

Wow...

 

[schneiderguy]

So shooting bullets is equivalent to communicating? I'm not so sure the people on the receiving end of those bullets, were they still alive to talk about it, would agree. They're not the same thing. The 1st amendment is talking about an inherent quality (speech/communication) vs items/property(arms/guns).

Your argument was that the 2nd Amendment is not relevant because guns are so much different today than they were in the 18th century. The same is true of speech and communication.

And as far as that air rifle is concerned, if it's so goddamn deadly why are we even in this thread? You have no need for M-16s, you have this air rifle, which you are obviously saying is plenty dangerous. So STFU

It's more dangerous than a modern semiautomatic handgun, and was available in 1789. So why can't I have a semiautomatic handgun?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

It's more dangerous than a modern semiautomatic handgun, and was available in 1789. So why can't I have a semiautomatic handgun?

Sadly enough, most of the people against guns only feel that way because they're good little lapdogs and that's what our Dear Leader and his modern progressive movement told them to think about it.

 

[BUnit1701]

So shooting bullets is equivalent to communicating? I'm not so sure the people on the receiving end of those bullets, were they still alive to talk about it, would agree. They're not the same thing. The 1st amendment is talking about an inherent quality (speech/communication) vs items/property(arms/guns).


And as far as that air rifle is concerned, if it's so goddamn deadly why are we even in this thread? You have no need for M-16s, you have this air rifle, which you are obviously saying is plenty dangerous. So STFU

And this shows your failure to understand why we have a second amendment. The 2nd isn't there to give us a right to own guns, it is there to protect our inherent individual right to self defense, which our founders understood to be best protected with military arms in the hands of the general population.

 

[BoberFett]

So shooting bullets is equivalent to communicating? I'm not so sure the people on the receiving end of those bullets, were they still alive to talk about it, would agree. They're not the same thing. The 1st amendment is talking about an inherent quality (speech/communication) vs items/property(arms/guns).

Words are far more dangerous than guns.

How many people did Hitler personally kill? I mean actually pull the trigger and fire a bullet into another person?

How many people died as a result of his words?

 

[Fern]

And this was passed by the dems in your state, how exactly?

North Carolina has had Democrats in control of the legislature for approx 100 yrs until the Repubs got control in 2010.

Fern