Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kalifornia gets worse, even more idiotic gun laws

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Firestorm, that's the same thing as the internet privacy laws, or any invasion of privacy laws for that matter. Those in favor argue "Well, if you have nothing to hide, than why do you care if we invade your privacy or not?"
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
      Firestorm, that's the same thing as the internet privacy laws, or any invasion of privacy laws for that matter. Those in favor argue "Well, if you have nothing to hide, than why do you care if we invade your privacy or not?"
      Policing a medium of communication is not the same as policing the sale of deadly weapons or ammunition for them.

      Comment


      • #18
        Really? Wanna bet? I'll bet than a madman with the right technical tools and skills can cause more physical damage and harm to the United States citizenry than any madman with an M-16 and a 30 round mag.

        One person shuts down or hacks the JFK control power, if even for less than a minute and one plane crashes, that's 300+ dead. One person reroutes or hacks Amtrak or the NYC subway so two trains are headed towards each other on the same track. Dozens if not hundreds dead in one horrible instant. The possibilities are myriad and near endless
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #19
          I see a lot of sneering here against people who don't like guns, as if that's some kind of character flaw. That's unfortunate. Although not as unfortunate as seeing so many "love guns" with such an unhealthy obedience that they want all restrictions on gun ownership removed, to satisfy their stillborn belief that the 2nd Amendment is required to prevent tyranny in America.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
            I see a lot of sneering here against people who don't like guns, as if that's some kind of character flaw. That's unfortunate.
            I'm not sure who you're referring to but I was not talking about people who "don't like" guns. I was talking about people that sneer at the 2nd Amendment and would repeal it in seconds if they could and then immediately commence universal confiscation.

            Not quite the same thing as disliking firearms.

            Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
            Although not as unfortunate as seeing so many "love guns" with such an unhealthy obedience that they want all restrictions on gun ownership removed, to satisfy their stillborn belief that the 2nd Amendment is required to prevent tyranny in America.
            I have never advocated any current restrictions on gun ownership be removed.

            Neither am I under any delusions that 2nd Amendment is going to protect citizens if the government decides to wake up one day and go whole-hog tyranny.
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
              I see a lot of sneering here against people who don't like guns, as if that's some kind of character flaw. That's unfortunate. Although not as unfortunate as seeing so many "love guns" with such an unhealthy obedience that they want all restrictions on gun ownership removed, to satisfy their stillborn belief that the 2nd Amendment is required to prevent tyranny in America.
              Your tone is distorted, your understanding of where we stand even more so. Compared to others here, I (a gun lover) have actually advocated some additional regulations on top of what we have. Even I find this latest intrusion appalling.

              The ammo prices were coming down, now they would be shooting up again
              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                Why should you dread it if you do not have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order against you? :whome:

                I only pay 10 bucks for a background check fee for a gun. A 50 dollar ammo fee is lunacy. On the level as "in California if you DON'T own a gun you get taxed 1000 dollars a year." Secondly, If I move to California a lot of my current guns would have to be given away or sold because they are "illegal" there. None of my guns have a mental illness, a criminal record or a restraining order against them, or used in anything even remotely resembling a crime, but they scare the hell out of California lawmakers.
                Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  I'm not sure who you're referring to but I was not talking about people who "don't like" guns. I was talking about people that sneer at the 2nd Amendment and would repeal it in seconds if they could and then immediately commence universal confiscation.

                  Not quite the same thing as disliking firearms.
                  Wasn't referring to you actually, just generally, and in life. I'm certainly not in favor of universal confiscation either. I support the 2nd amendment, and treasure the Constitution as the most sacred document in American history, but do draw lines between what bullet firing weapons can be allowed for civilians, and do draw a massive distinction between muskets and multi-round, deep magazine modern assault weapons. I favor some incremental increased restrictions, and don't like the NRA much.

                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                  Neither am I under any delusions that 2nd Amendment is going to protect citizens if the government decides to wake up one day and go whole-hog tyranny.
                  I agree.

                  On a similar point, as a former Libertarian I saw plenty of Libertarian party members convinced that people like them, with their guns, were the only thing standing between tyranny and freedom in America. To think that there's really a danger of the United States turning into some totalitarian, 1984 dystopian nightmare, and that Americans must all be armed to prevent this is totally misguided, foolish, dangerous and an affront to American democracy which requires the use of courts, parties, elections etc to invoke change. To walk around town with that mindset is a bit scary in my opinion.
                  Last edited by Goatboy; 04 Jun 13,, 06:48.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    3,2,1 ... The First only guarantees your freedom of speech if you shout in public or write with a pen.TV,Radio or the internet did not existed,so the freedom of speech does not apply.Nobody back then could have predicted the internet.

                    Yep,I knew somebody would have used this argument and I had to be the first :D
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      of course if the Confederates had them as well, it would been a losing proposition for the Union. breechloading rifles heavily favors the defense, and things were already bad enough for the attackers as it was.
                      Would you not agree that the North was in MUCH better shape to industrially tool up for these modern weapons in quantity?

                      The South was chronically short on native (Southern) arms, and those they produced tended to not have the quality and durability of their Northern counterparts. Most Confederate small arms were imported from England, pre-existed prior to the war's start, or were battlefield captures.

                      I think the North could have out-produced the South in repeating arms 10:1, and the war would have ended before the South could respond with any quantity.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        chogy,

                        Would you not agree that the North was in MUCH better shape to industrially tool up for these modern weapons in quantity?
                        yeah, if we're talking about the union adopting these weapons in 1863. prior to that, logistics would indeed be a major concern. afterwards, for the breechloaders to shine, you'd need to have union generals whom could fight on the tactical defensive while launching an offensive campaign. this type of fighting took a while to engrain...even 50 years later, by WWI, the generals hadn't gotten this down. :)

                        we also have a real life historical analogue, the austro-prussian war of 1866. the prussians were on the offense and were armed with an early breechloader, the dreyse "needle" gun, while the austrians were armed with muzzleloaders (the Lorenz rifle, which was also used in the Civil War and considered slightly more outdated than the Springfield/Enfield).

                        while the prussians ended up inflicting considerably more losses on the austrians, it was by no means absolutely lopsided. plus, the prussians largely had professional/well-drilled troops, while the austrians relied on conscription.

                        ----

                        in any case, if breechloaders were prevalent 10 years prior, or even worse, if the civil war started 10 or even 5 years later....it would be worse for the union. the southern railnet and to a lesser extent, industry, was due to undergo a massive expansion in the 1860-1870 timframe if the civil war hadn't interrupted it. that logistics improvement + breechloaders would have made the civil war bloodier by a order of magnitude.
                        Last edited by astralis; 04 Jun 13,, 17:53.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state, under a bill passed by the Senate. The state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns.

                          Ammo shops would check the name on buyers' driver's licenses against a state list of qualified purchasers.
                          Aside from the $50 fee for the background check (does anyone know whether this would be a one-time fee, annual, lifetime or for some predetermined period of time?), what is wrong with the measures passed?

                          People have to pay a lot more, and go through far more invasive background checks and biometric registration, during the process of obtaining residency or citizenship in the US, and to paraphrase the NRA, 'immigrants don't kill people, murderers kill people'.
                          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Immigrants don't have to be in USA. US citizens (most of them) do.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                              Wasn't referring to you actually, just generally, and in life. I'm certainly not in favor of universal confiscation either. I support the 2nd amendment, and treasure the Constitution as the most sacred document in American history, but do draw lines between what bullet firing weapons can be allowed for civilians, and do draw a massive distinction between muskets and multi-round, deep magazine modern assault weapons. I favor some incremental increased restrictions, and don't like the NRA much.
                              Define "assault weapon."
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                                Aside from the $50 fee for the background check (does anyone know whether this would be a one-time fee, annual, lifetime or for some predetermined period of time?), what is wrong with the measures passed?
                                We have to pay money to exercise our constitutional right?

                                What's next? Poll tax? Which I am in favor of. Literacy test upon voting? I'm also in favor of. Photo ID and fingerprinting at the poll? I am in favor of as well.

                                Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                                People have to pay a lot more, and go through far more invasive background checks and biometric registration, during the process of obtaining residency or citizenship in the US, and to paraphrase the NRA, 'immigrants don't kill people, murderers kill people'.
                                Where in the constitution does it say it's a right to become a naturalized US citizen?
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X