Ok, you move to California (why I can't imagine, but let's just say you do). You have one of those 22 LR AR clones with a 20 round magazine you have used on prairie dogs and general fun shooting. Guess what? You and your "assault rifle" are now a threat to the school children in California and are banned (any detachable magazine of more than 10 rounds is illegal in the Peoples Democratic Republic of California) With high capacity magazines you can kill too many kids..... What the ignorant Cal legislators did is try and ban anything that "looked" like what they conceive as an "assault rifle": Pistol Grips....Big Magazines...bad evil stuff.... These guys however, look like grandpa's deer rifle, so they are ok: No detachable magazine, 10 rounds or less. The children are safe. My point, to anyone who knows anything about these guns, is that California banned some weapons that are little threat to anything bigger than a prairie dog, but allows others that are capable of killing people at 2000 yards. The grand pa rifle at the top is an SKS - Soviet designed carbine (late 1940's) in 7.62 X 39 with an internal 10 round mag. Perfectly legal in California. You load it with a metal strip holding 10 shells at a time. Bottom line is you can fire off 10 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, and reload 10 more in about 5 - 8 SECONDS ! The 7.62X 39 shell is a healthy bullet, packing more punch than the shells used by the US military in their REAL assault rifles. They will split a solid concrete block in half. There are millions of these on the used gun market, you can get one for 200 -300 bucks tops. The "old gun" at the bottom is of course an M1 garand of WW2 fame. Works similarly to the SKS, internal magazine holds 8 rounds. Reload with clips of 8 bullets as shown. These are fullsized 30-06 shells the size of my little finger and will absolutely disintegrate a concrete block. Forgive a graphic description but a single shell from this gun, fired into a crowd, would go clean through 2 or 3 people before stopping in the last unfortunate soul to be in the way. Like the SKS, with practice you can re-load in 5 - 8 seconds. Truth is a nutcase with either of these weapons could likely cause more harm than many of the banned weapons - and at least equal to the rest. And they are 1/2 - 1/4 the price. Let's even get more simple. A lunatic in California who wanted to cause death and destruction in a mall would not even need a rifle. A $200 12 ga. pump shotgun, a couple of bandoleers of say 40 rounds of 00 buckshot, and he is good to go. Within the ranges involved in a crowded mall, 12 ga. 00 buck would be devastating. Make no mistake, some gun laws are good and necessary (background checks, concealed carry permits, etc.) But most often these days legislators make gun laws to get votes, not to protect people. Virginia Tech had banned students from concealed carry on campus...so one lunatic roamed at will shooting 49 kids !!! If just 1 student in 1 classroom had a permitted gun, he could have been stopped then and there. Did they actually think that a nut job would obey the gun ban and not bring his gun to campus when he had already decided to mass-murder people???? May they rest in peace, and may it not happen again.
True, California gun laws are a joke and highlight the ignorance of gun banners. They also demonstrate that gun restrictions are not actually about public safety or reducing shootings. But why do you oppose the California gun laws and support other restrictions? Do background checks actually work? No, there is no evidence they prevent crime. Studies of the Brady law and the 1994 Clinton ban show there is no measurable reduction in crime due to background checks. And how many of the sensational mass shooters in the past 10 years passed or would have passed background checks? Almost all. And carry permits are totally worthless in preventing crime, all they serve is as another charge for a criminal after he has done his killing - and whats another year in jail for not having a permit when a criminal is facing life for his other crimes? The honest people will get the permit, the criminals planning a violent crime are not influenced by not having a carry permit. - - - Updated - - - True, California gun laws are a joke and highlight the ignorance of gun banners. They also demonstrate that gun restrictions are not actually about public safety or reducing shootings. But why do you oppose the California gun laws and support other restrictions? Do background checks actually work? No, there is no evidence they prevent crime. Studies of the Brady law and the 1994 Clinton ban show there is no measurable reduction in crime due to background checks. And how many of the sensational mass shooters in the past 10 years passed or would have passed background checks? Almost all. And carry permits are totally worthless in preventing crime, all they serve is as another charge for a criminal after he has done his killing - and whats another year in jail for not having a permit when a criminal is facing life for his other crimes? The honest people will get the permit, the criminals planning a violent crime are not influenced by not having a carry permit.
Studies of the Brady law ..................show there is no measurable reduction in crime due to background checks. I would wonder how such a thing could be "studied". Of course the Brady Law is not perfect, but it does make it unlikely someone with violent criminal records will be able to easily get a gun. I do not think that a felony per se should automatically disqualify someone, but it does. If it was non-violent and some years have passed with no other charges the law should allow it, but I don't think it does. If someone is a violent felon I agree with the law. Carry permits, same deal, far from perfect. In Alabama basically it is just another Brady background check. Making it more restrictive than that I do not support. Some states (like Ca. and New York) make it so restrictive that it amounts to a virtual ban.
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? (*)(*)(*)(*) your pants in self-defense, and if he persists - hand over any property you have on you. At least, that's what the Australian police expect you to do. Don't go down this road, CA, just don't.
most politicians' favorite position is sucking butt and Californication is a good place for them to gather
The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength. Of course, what can one expect when one issue voters care about one thing only - their 'rights' - and not the rights of others? Hysterical gun owners seem to be universally paranoid, and the fear they will lose their guns keeps them hyper vigilant. Any effort to protect innocent lives is considered an effort to take away their toy, and like any two-year old they have a temper tantrum.
it is too late, my friend............what the government takes away, it never gives back - - - Updated - - - no, we just don't consider YOUR solution at all. It has too many underlying motives...too many restrictions, plus it is illegal to create a national data base on gun owners....what about that don't you get?
I think what gun owners are saying is that the anti-gun have tried plenty of solutions and they haven't made any significant headway, yet they continue with the worthless laws. What you call strength is actually pandering to those with a lick of common sense. One only has to look at states where the loosening of those restrictions hasn't led to the blood running in the streets as predicted to see the truth in this belief. Quite contrary to your suggestion, there are no real one issue voters and no one candidate will please everyone. Finally there are laws already in place that punish those who take their rights over the line and interfere with the rights of others....sadly because of the unpredictability of man....you cannot legislate away evil intentions The hysteria and universal paranoia is truly the vice of the anti-gun. They seem to believe they can legislate away the actions of inanimate objects with the passage of ill informed laws, affecting the rights of millions of law abiding citizens without ever giving any consideration to the actual cause. You cannot protect innocent lives with the crap they are trying to dish out. Like most anti-gunners though you answer with emotion and attempts to insult without providing any real solutions.
The hysteria and universal paranoia is truly the vice of the anti-gun. They seem to believe they can legislate away the actions of inanimate objects with the passage of ill informed laws, affecting the rights of millions of law abiding citizens without ever giving any consideration to the actual cause. You cannot protect innocent lives with the crap they are trying to dish out. Like most anti-gunners though you answer with emotion and attempts to insult without providing any real solutions. Well put. I am waiting for the usual reply now....."well if it saves 1 life it is worth it.".......
