Another gun thread

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Kerowacked said:
And an age restriction, like 65
Click to expand...
you seem to be implying that i'm being unreasonable...how so? be specific
what single thing did i say that is unreasonable?
that people register their weapons? if they aren't criminals, how can they object to a method of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?
who needs ammo for guns they don't own? why should anyone object to a licensed dealer assisting with private sales to keep the records current?
seems like the only people with anything to bitch about are criminals and crazy fuckers...and fuck both of them, they've had it way too good for way too long
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
mooray said:
Some states have assault rifle definitions, so there hasn't been a universal definition for decades.
Click to expand...
Can you link one? California has done us a dirty with the redundant term “assault weapon”. What you do with a weapon, any weapon, is assault. Even defensive sword work is counterassault.

So to generate a category called “assault weapon” is pure negative branding. A legislative overreach, but it does seem to be popular.

What seriously slows my gun-rights roll is the observation of how tightly the display of guns these past two years has correlated with white racists. I will surrender my firearms (actually, sell them off while I can) rather than support racists.

My one ask/hope is that it becomes codified that police (other than FBI) are civilians, and nowhere exempt from civilian law. California again: police are allowed to own “assault weapons” denied other civilians. End this corrupt exemption. Please.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
I don't get it either. These gun threads always devolve into minutia regarding hardware.

Hundreds killed in Las Vegas and the thread went to talking about bump stocks. Shit like that.

Boys and their toys.
Click to expand...
The minutiae matter. This is about law more than guns. In law, the devil is in the details.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Can you link one? California has done us a dirty with the redundant term “assault weapon”. What you do with a weapon, any weapon, is assault. Even defensive sword work is counterassault.

So to generate a category called “assault weapon” is pure negative branding. A legislative overreach, but it does seem to be popular.

What seriously slows my gun-rights roll is the observation of how tightly the display of guns these past two years has correlated with white racists. I will surrender my firearms (actually, sell them off while I can) rather than support racists.

My one ask/hope is that it becomes codified that police (other than FBI) are civilians, and nowhere exempt from civilian law. California again: police are allowed to own “assault weapons” denied other civilians. End this corrupt exemption. Please.
Click to expand...
I see assault weapons as something that can go auto or fitted with more than a 15 round mag. Sure you can do damage with a handgun and keep throwing in a new mag, but at some point your trigger finger will get tired. Just kidding about the finger.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
I agree on many levels with what you are saying.

With the 2A interpretation the SCOTUS made regarding the right to bear mass murder weapons and casual attitude that so many have toward mass murder, I don't see how regulations can make much difference. I have zero problem with politicians making promises to pass gun regulations if they think it will help them get elected and I don't have a problem with them actually trying to do so. But how much can they do, really?

This isn't going to end. We will have another mass murder, and another mass school shooting before the end of this month. 15,000 more dead/tens of thousands more injured by the end of the year and the beat goes on. I don't think it will change until a super majority of gun owners and the gun industry take ownership of this problem as theirs to solve. That is why I see this verdict where an insurance company must pay up as a hopeful sign. Make them pay, however you can. Might help. That money is going to be used by the anti gun lobby, so there is a benefit right there, right now.
Click to expand...
As long as there are gun rights/privileges, stuff like this will happen. The obverse of this one coin is police doing bad things on and off duty. I’m good with rigid gun control so long as the police are given no out. Hold them to the standards to which we are held.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
printer said:
I see assault weapons as something that can go auto or fitted with more than a 15 round mag. Sure you can do damage with a handgun and keep throwing in a new mag, but at some point your trigger finger will get tired. Just kidding about the finger.
Click to expand...
In Ca a 10-round mag is max unless you’re a cop. I’m ok with that. Life member Varmint Hunters’ Society here, but I’ve never gone on a hunt and probably never will. If I did, I’d select a bolt gun, probably single-shot.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
As long as there are gun rights/privileges, stuff like this will happen. The obverse of this one coin is police doing bad things on and off duty. I’m good with rigid gun control so long as the police are given no out. Hold them to the standards to which we are held.
Click to expand...
I'm not for rigid gun control. I'm for gun owners taking responsibility for gun safety and reducing harm. Half of all gun owners don't even store their guns in a safe manner. I'd like to see a more bottoms-up way of solving this. Regulations will only work when most people are willing to follow them. Even very rational laws, such as people who are convicted of domestic abuse are denied the right to own a gun. That isn't even being enforced, much less followed. So, I don't understand the casual attitude so many people have toward gun safety.

In any case, I'm still happy to see the case settled in a way that sends a message to the gun industry that their messaging and marketing has been reckless. Also a message was sent to the insurance industry that they aren't charging enough.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Can you link one? California has done us a dirty with the redundant term “assault weapon”. What you do with a weapon, any weapon, is assault. Even defensive sword work is counterassault.

So to generate a category called “assault weapon” is pure negative branding. A legislative overreach, but it does seem to be popular.

What seriously slows my gun-rights roll is the observation of how tightly the display of guns these past two years has correlated with white racists. I will surrender my firearms (actually, sell them off while I can) rather than support racists.

My one ask/hope is that it becomes codified that police (other than FBI) are civilians, and nowhere exempt from civilian law. California again: police are allowed to own “assault weapons” denied other civilians. End this corrupt exemption. Please.
Click to expand...
I'm in CA too, so it's the most familiar to me...

Bill Text - SB-880 Firearms: assault weapons.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
Click to expand...
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm not for rigid gun control. I'm for gun owners taking responsibility for gun safety and reducing harm. Half of all gun owners don't even store their guns in a safe manner. I'd like to see a more bottoms-up way of solving this. Regulations will only work when most people are willing to follow them. Even very rational laws, such as people who are convicted of domestic abuse are denied the right to own a gun. That isn't even being enforced, much less followed. So, I don't understand the casual attitude so many people have toward gun safety.

In any case, I'm still happy to see the case settled in a way that sends a message to the gun industry that their messaging and marketing has been reckless. Also a message was sent to the insurance industry that they aren't charging enough.
Click to expand...
people won't even use fucking turn signals in their vehicles...they're within a fingers length of their hands, they cost nothing extra to use, common sense tells you that it has to be safer if everyone knows your intention to turn....but it's just too much fucking work....and you expect people to act responsibly with firearms?.......
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
I'm not for rigid gun control. I'm for gun owners taking responsibility for gun safety and reducing harm. Half of all gun owners don't even store their guns in a safe manner. I'd like to see a more bottoms-up way of solving this. Regulations will only work when most people are willing to follow them. Even very rational laws, such as people who are convicted of domestic abuse are denied the right to own a gun. That isn't even being enforced, much less followed. So, I don't understand the casual attitude so many people have toward gun safety.

In any case, I'm still happy to see the case settled in a way that sends a message to the gun industry that their messaging and marketing has been reckless. Also a message was sent to the insurance industry that they aren't charging enough.
Click to expand...
In that vein, I assume and execute the responsibility to keep my guns and associated hardware safe.

At the same time I am alarmed by recent law in San José.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html
It looks to me like unconstitutional taxation. I doubt police departments are subject to this new statute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top