To those who said they weren't coming after our guns....

[Wild Cobra]

And if they do take your guns, the rest of us should be upset because.......
Because they will come after something you like next.


“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to
speak up.” --Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

[Blake]

Because they will come after something you like next.

A slippery slippery slippery slope!

Name one thing I like that they will come after next.

[Wild Cobra]

A slippery slippery slippery slope!

Name one thing I like that they will come after next.
I don't know what you like. Still, there is no reason to come after people's guns.

Something interesting that looks like it applies to you:

Although Niemöller and other Germans actively preached and campaigned against Nazism in the
1930s, millions of others did nothing or actively supported Hitler Obama (liberals/progressives etc.) as he consolidated his power
and spread oppression and murder authoritarianism across Europe the USA. Niemöller’s stirring quote was a statement
aimed at all Germans for allowing such things to happen. His eloquent words soon became
synonymous with the struggles of individual and national consciences everywhere, as the world
came to recognize the enormous horrors of the Holocaust and the other atrocities of WWII.
History has this funny way or repeating itself.

[mavs>spurs]

boutons when i find you i'm going to beat your ass and stomp you out

[TSA]

And if they do take your guns, the rest of us should be upset because.......if you can't see why there is no point of you even being in this discussion.

[TSA]

Gonna be a lot of law abiding felons in CA. Could get interesting.

[Blake]

Still, there is no reason to come after people's guns.

Any type of guns?


Something interesting that looks like it applies to you:

History has this funny way or repeating itself.

You repeatedly suck, wild godwin.

[Blake]

if you can't see why there is no point of you even being in this discussion.

No I still don't see why citizens like you should be allowed to have excessive weaponry.

If you can give good reasons why you having these types of guns benefits society, I'll write a letter to a congressman on your behalf.

so far, all I see from you is crying that they are taking away your toys.

[Wild Cobra]

Any type of guns?

No reason to take what is already legal.

[TSA]

No I still don't see why citizens like you should be allowed to have excessive weaponry.

If you can give good reasons why you having these types of guns benefits society, I'll write a letter to a congressman on your behalf.

so far, all I see from you is crying that they are taking away your toys.Did you even watch the video? I posted cliff notes if you didn't. They aren't going after just AR15's. My handguns and shotguns that I legally own now would make me a felon. Fuck, just the amount of ammunition I have on hand would make me a felon. I'll address your questions further, I'm going out for the night, don't want you to think I took my ball and ran home. Have fun with the Friday night Internets Blake.

[Blake]

No reason to take what is already legal.

smh

[Blake]

Did you even watch the video? I posted cliff notes if you didn't. They aren't going after just AR15's. My handguns and shotguns that I legally own now would make me a felon. Fuck, just the amount of ammunition I have on hand would make me a felon. I'll address your questions further, I'm going out for the night, don't want you to think I took my ball and ran home. Have fun with the Friday night Internets Blake.

but they aren't taking away all types of handguns, are they.

you're taking your concealed, right? Someone like you carrying makes me feel safe enough to get out myself. Especially if you've had a few to drink first.

[ElNono]

I know you know CA has a super majority, so I don't see how you think it's just all talk now. If this does go through they've effectively disarmed the entire state and made anyone who keeps their guns a felon. Shits about to hit the fan. Can't believe you all keep saying its just talk.

Still don't see anywhere in what you posted that they're confiscating any guns... in other words, no, they're not coming for your guns... yawn...

[ElNono]

Gonna be a lot of law abiding felons in CA. Could get interesting.

You can't be 'law abiding' if you're breaking the law... that's when you become a felon...

So there's either going to be a lot of 'law abiding' citizens or a lot of felons.

I suspect there's going to be a lot of lawsuits before then...

[ElNono]

It's not that complicated... the SCOTUS already ruled that any guns commonly used for self-defense cannot be banned... any mechanism or lock that's an impediment to self-defense cannot be mandated...

That doesn't mean there's no regulation possible, and that such regulation wouldn't be legal. Claiming your rocket launcher is for self-defense in the middle of Los Angeles is probably not going to fly.

[spursncowboys]

so 'they' are not coming for your guns...

Let me know when they get them, and we'll resume this conversation... until then, it's all :blah

You are confusing 'taking' with 'coming'

[Wild Cobra]

Still don't see anywhere in what you posted that they're confiscating any guns... in other words, no, they're not coming for your guns... yawn...
If that law passes, and registered owners of affected guns don't turn them over, do you think they will not be hit with a felony charge?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, this thread was specifically about confiscation.

Still nothing on that front.

[ElNono]

You are confusing 'taking' with 'coming'

I fail to see what's the concern if they're not taking them. The alternative is 'they're coming after our guns and leaving them with us'. I don't think that's what the OP's whining is about.


If that law passes, and registered owners of affected guns don't turn them over, do you think they will not be hit with a felony charge?

turn what over? I've yet to see any confiscation taking place. Even in NY, who actually *passed* a tight gun control law.

[Wild Cobra]

A question for both Blake and ElNono.

If the law passes that makes it a felony to posses a 10 round magazine, and a law abiding citizens turns them all in that he knows he has, then... what if... What if it is discovered that he missed one. He is now a felon. What if someone else discovered it? What if for some reason, he had a search warrant issued for his premises, and that was all they found?

[Wild Cobra]

turn what over? I've yet to see any confiscation taking place. Even in NY, who actually *passed* a tight gun control law.

100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.

[ElNono]

A question for both Blake and ElNono.

If the law passes that makes it a felony to posses a 10 round magazine, and a law abiding citizens turns them all in that he knows he has, then... what if... What if it is discovered that he missed one. He is now a felon. What if someone else discovered it? What if for some reason, he had a search warrant issued for his premises, and that was all they found?

He'll have a right to a trial where he'll be able to explain his position. The fact that he turned in all of his other magazines probably will work in his favor.

Due process isn't outlawed for the most part.

[ElNono]

100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.

A magazine is a gun?

smh

[Wild Cobra]

He'll have a right to a trial where he'll be able to explain his position. The fact that he turned in all of his other magazines probably will work in his favor.

Due process isn't outlawed for the most part.
My god, you are an authoritarian apologist.

[ElNono]

My god, you are an authoritarian apologist.

why?

EDIT: actually, never mind. You're too dumb to make a cogent point.

[Wild Cobra]

why?

EDIT: actually, never mind. You're too dumb to make a cogent point.
You also don't recognize your own authoritarian nature.

[Blake]

What if it is discovered that he missed one. He is now a felon. What if someone else discovered it? What if for some reason, he had a search warrant issued for his premises, and that was all they found?

smh.

I used to enjoy explaining how stupid your posts are. For some reason, the joy is gone.

[ElNono]

Nothing says authoritarian like having a right to trial and due process... :lmao

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111107003558/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif

[ElNono]

You also don't recognize your own authoritarian nature.

Why are you making this about me? I simply explained how our legal system works.

If you actually been paying attention, I don't particularly agree with any form of gun control.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing says authoritarian like having a right to trial and due process... :lmao

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111107003558/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif
But how long will he be in jail, charged with a felony before that happens?

[ElNono]

But how long will he be in jail, charged with a felony before that happens?

How long counselor? I mean the whole thing is made up, might aswell make up some more stuff up.

[ChumpDumper]

But how long will he be in jail, charged with a felony before that happens?Bail will probably be pretty reasonable. I'd give it a few hours tops if you call Betty Blackwell.

[Wild Cobra]

My God people.

This type of idiotic laws shouldn't be happening to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

My God people.

This type of idiotic laws shouldn't be happening to begin with.Quit hijacking the thread.

[ChumpDumper]

I am currently applying for the job of magazine auditor for the New World Order.

[Wild Cobra]

I am currently applying for the job of magazine auditor for the New World Order.
I would be surprised if that was true.

[ChumpDumper]

I would be surprised if that was true.As would I.

[spursncowboys]

I fail to see what's the concern if they're not taking them. The alternative is 'they're coming after our guns and leaving them with us'. I don't think that's what the OP's whining is about.



turn what over? I've yet to see any confiscation taking place. Even in NY, who actually *passed* a tight gun control law.
They are trying to. They haven't been successful. You seem to think that it isn't an issue until they are actually at the door with their freshly printed new law. By that point, it's too late.

[Wild Cobra]

They are trying to. They haven't been successful. You seem to think that it isn't an issue until they are actually at the door with their freshly printed new law. By that point, it's too late.
Ditto.

[Blake]

But how long will he be in jail, charged with a felony before that happens?

meh.....what the hell....

So the law abiding citizen A turns in all the ammo he/she has, thinking they got it all.

Where exactly did citizen B find the hidden ammo? Who is this person in relation to citizen A that they would go to the cops first and rat out citizen A?

[ChumpDumper]

They are trying to. They haven't been successful. You seem to think that it isn't an issue until they are actually at the door with their freshly printed new law. By that point, it's too late.It might be an issue if any such law ever had a chance at being voted into law.

Hasn't happened yet, as TSA has helpfully demonstrated throughout this thread.

[ElNono]

They are trying to. They haven't been successful. You seem to think that it isn't an issue until they are actually at the door with their freshly printed new law. By that point, it's too late.

So this is about taking guns away... why do you think 'they' haven't been successful? And what makes you think 'they' will be successful this time around?

This really isn't an issue until the SCOTUS reverses their own 5 year old ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. I've yet to hear a plausible scenario where they'll do such thing.

The rest is a lot of noise, bitching, whining and little substance.

[Wild Cobra]

Finally...

The text of the legislation.

link: S. 150; To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s150is/pdf/BILLS-113s150is.pdf)

[Wild Cobra]

For those interested, the accompanying House Bill is # 437.

Sponsor:

Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4]


Cosponsors:

Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Miller, George [CA-11] - 1/29/2013
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-14] - 1/29/2013
Rep Swalwell, Eric [CA-15] - 1/29/2013
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-18] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-19] - 1/29/2013
Rep Huffman, Jared [CA-2] - 1/29/2013
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-27] - 2/5/2013
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-28] - 1/29/2013
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-30] - 1/29/2013
Rep Takano, Mark [CA-41] - 1/29/2013
Rep Hahn, Janice [CA-44] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lowenthal, Alan S. [CA-47] - 1/29/2013
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 1/29/2013
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 2/5/2013
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4] - 1/29/2013
Rep Esty, Elizabeth H. [CT-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Carney, John C., Jr. [DE] - 1/29/2013
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-21] - 1/29/2013
Rep Frankel, Lois [FL-22] - 1/29/2013
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-2] - 1/29/2013
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Kennedy, Joseph P. III [MA-4] - 1/29/2013
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-5] - 2/5/2013
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 1/29/2013
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-13] - 1/29/2013
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 1/29/2013
Rep Holt, Rush [NJ-12] - 1/29/2013
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-8] - 1/29/2013
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-10] - 1/29/2013
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-12] - 1/29/2013
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-15] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-17] - 1/29/2013
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-25] - 1/29/2013
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-26] - 2/5/2013
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Meng, Grace [NY-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 2/5/2013
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cartwright, Matt [PA-17] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/29/2013
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/29/2013
Rep Pocan, Mark [WI-2] - 2/5/2013

All democrats....

[spursncowboys]

So this is about taking guns away... why do you think 'they' haven't been successful? And what makes you think 'they' will be successful this time around?

This really isn't an issue until the SCOTUS reverses their own 5 year old ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. I've yet to hear a plausible scenario where they'll do such thing.

The rest is a lot of noise, bitching, whining and little substance.

What else have you said that about and became true?
Obamacare...I didn't know anyone who ever thought they would make it a crime to not have healthcare.

I wonder if Americans ever thought Sixteenth Amendment would have ever actually happen. I am truly concerned when they just try it.

[spursncowboys]

A man in NY who goes online to sell his AR 15 mags. He takes his magazines to the place he scheduled with the buyer. On the way there, he was stopped by the police. Police arrest him because his magazine is made after 1994. He's charged with a felony for each magazine. Three felonies.

Merica

[ChumpDumper]

Are you drunk or was that copy and paste job?

[spursncowboys]

Are you drunk or was that copy and paste job?
Why can't it be both?

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't it be both?Also an acceptable answer. The rant just made even less sense than usual.

[spursncowboys]

Also an acceptable answer. The rant just made even less sense than usual.
:lol ok. I'm jacked up on coffee

[ElNono]

What else have you said that about and became true?

Repeal of Roe vs Wade is certainly one.


Obamacare...I didn't know anyone who ever thought they would make it a crime to not have healthcare.

The individual mandate was a novel approach with little jurisprudence. Could've gone either way.

Challenges to restrictive gun laws under the 2nd amendment, not so much.

Still waiting for what's the rationale under which the SCOTUS will overturn their own 5 year old ruling...

[TSA]

No I still don't see why citizens like you should be allowed to have excessive weaponry.

If you can give good reasons why you having these types of guns benefits society, I'll write a letter to a congressman on your behalf.

so far, all I see from you is crying that they are taking away your toys.What is excessive weaponry in your opinion? The don't necessarily benefit society, but they do benefit me. What harm do MY guns do to society?

[TSA]

but they aren't taking away all types of handguns, are they.

you're taking your concealed, right? Someone like you carrying makes me feel safe enough to get out myself. Especially if you've had a few to drink first.You can admit to not watching the video and not knowing what the fuck you are even arguing now. Find me a handgun where the magazine is fixed and needs a tool to remove it, I've never seen one. Find me a six round magazine for a Sig 229. We already have more restrictions here in CA then 90% of other states, and I have obeyed the restrictions. Now they want to restrict even further, and make what I own now legally a felony? This is happening just like I predicted. They'll just keep chipping away at the 2nd until we are legally reduced to single shot flintlock pistol.

And where do you get that I'm talking concealed carry? I don't carry concealed so you can sleep soundly.

[TSA]

It might be an issue if any such law ever had a chance at being voted into law.

Hasn't happened yet, as TSA has helpfully demonstrated throughout this thread.You realize this is going to be proposed in California where the Dems have a super majority right?

[Blake]

What is excessive weaponry in your opinion? The don't necessarily benefit society, but they do benefit me. What harm do MY guns do to society?

I don't really have an opinion where the cut off might be.

but if you think someone is about to take away your dangerous toys because they're dangerous, it might behoove you to explain why they benefit you.

[Blake]

This is happening just like I predicted. They'll just keep chipping away at the 2nd until we are legally reduced to single shot flintlock pistol.

well, you've already said common sense outweighs the actual words of the 2nd, so....


And where do you get that I'm talking concealed carry? I don't carry concealed so you can sleep soundly.

It was just a hunch based on your rants. I'll feel less safe in public knowing one less person is carrying.

[ChumpDumper]

You realize this is going to be proposed in California where the Dems have a super majority right?You mean the one with no confiscation?

[TSA]

No I still don't see why citizens like you should be allowed to have excessive weaponry.

I don't really have an opinion where the cut off might be.
So you can't even define it, yet think I shouldn't be allowed to have what you can't define. Ok.







but if you think someone is about to take away your dangerous toys because they're dangerous, it might behoove you to explain why they benefit you.I enjoy shooting the hell out of them, and if need be will use them for protection. You still haven't answered what harm my guns do to society. I've answered plenty of questions, your turn.

[TSA]

You mean the one with no confiscation?
Your little semantics act is tiring. When a law could be put in place in CA that would make me a felon on multiple counts, unless I turned over all my firearms, magazines, and ammo, that is "coming for my guns".

[TSA]

Honest question Blake, why do you fear guns?

[ChumpDumper]

Your little semantics act is tiring. When a law could be put in place in CA that would make me a felon on multiple counts, unless I turned over all my firearms, magazines, and ammo, that is "coming for my guns".Where in the legislation did it say you had to turn them over?

[TSA]

Where in the legislation did it say you had to turn them over?the part that says possession is a felony.

[ChumpDumper]

the part that says possession is a felony.So you're saying it's not there.

Fair enough.

[TSA]

So you're saying it's not there.

Fair enough.

Sure you can keep them, you're now a felon if they find them. It's a way to force people to give them up.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure you can keep them, you're now a felon if they find them. It's a way to force people to give them up.So which of your guns would be illegal and why?

List each one separately if you can.

[Blake]

So you can't even define it, yet think I shouldn't be allowed to have what you can't define. Ok.

I haven't said that you can't have any guns at all. But since you aren't adding to society by having them, I've been asking you why you believe you should be allowed to keep the ones you're afraid ”they” will take away.

first you said founding fathers, but then threw that in the trash when you claimed common sense>2nd amendment.

I think that is all you've provided so far in your argument for keeping.


I enjoy shooting the hell out of them, and if need be will use them for protection. You still haven't answered what harm my guns do to society. I've answered plenty of questions, your turn.

because guns don't kill people, people kill people? Is that what you're getting at?

Common sense says there needs to be a cut off as to what weapons should be manufactured and sold to the public.

Sorry, but :cry they're my toys :cry isn't a good argument.

[Blake]

Honest question Blake, why do you fear guns?

I don't fear guns in the right hands.

Terrible question.

[TSA]

So which of your guns would be illegal and why?

List each one separately if you can.

I'm not going to list them all separately, but all my handguns would be illegal because of detachable magazines, same with my AR's, which also have bullet buttons, which are would be illegal. My shotguns would be illegal as well due to the changing definition of revolving cylinder.

[TSA]

I haven't said that you can't have any guns at all. But since you aren't adding to society by having them, I've been asking you why you believe you should be allowed to keep the ones you're afraid ”they” will take away.It effects every single gun I own. It's not the fear of them being taken away it's the fear of being charged as a felon.


first you said founding fathers, but then threw that in the trash when you claimed common sense>2nd amendment.This is such a weak argument, I don't believe the founding fathers were talking about us owning weapons of war, so you can give up on the "why can't I own a nuke" tactic. Fucking weak.


because guns don't kill people, people kill people? Is that what you're getting at?What crime have I committed?


Common sense says there needs to be a cut off as to what weapons should be manufactured and sold to the public.common sense says criminals don't give a fuck about that.


Sorry, but :cry they're my toys :cry isn't a good argument.They are my property.

[TSA]

I don't fear guns in the right hands.

Terrible question.What in your definition, are the right hands?

[ElNono]

Wasn't bullet buttons a design change to explicitly go around Cali's "detachable magazine" ban?

[TSA]

Wasn't bullet buttons a design change to explicitly go around Cali's "detachable magazine" ban?It made the detachable magazine fixed, and legal because a tool was needed to detach the magazine.

[TSA]

Blake, do you think these proposed regulations will make California's streets safer? Do you think it will reduce gun crime?

[ElNono]

It made the detachable magazine fixed, and legal because a tool was needed to detach the magazine.

But this was in direct reaction from manufacturers to the Cali "detachable magazine" ban, correct?

[ElNono]

I have a feeling some of these proposed legislation will go the way of Proposition H in San Fran... we'll see.

I also didn't know AR and AK rifles are already banned in Cali. The technicality is the non-update of the "Kasler list".

Curious... why are you still in Cali TSA? It looks like you like to collect more than just the off-the-shelf toys.

[TSA]

But this was in direct reaction from manufacturers to the Cali "detachable magazine" ban, correct?
Correct. They were a bunch of other modifications made to work around other bans as well. The bans themselves were quite ridiculous as they mostly involved cosmetic features. Like a forward grip or flash suppressor on my rifle makes it more dangerous.

[ElNono]

Correct. They were a bunch of other modifications made to work around other bans as well. The bans themselves were quite ridiculous as they mostly involved cosmetic features. Like a forward grip or flash suppressor on my rifle makes it more dangerous.

thanks

[TSA]

I have a feeling some of these proposed legislation will go the way of Proposition H in San Fran... we'll see.

I also didn't know AR and AK rifles are already banned in Cali. The technicality is the non-update of the "Kasler list".

Curious... why are you still in Cali TSA? It looks like you like to collect more than just the off-the-shelf toys.I thought the Kasler list was basically closed to adding more to it once AB-2728 was passed.

I'm still here because of my job and the house I bought 3 years ago (finally seeing some market improvement), but I have been considering a move out of state for the last 6 months or so. The gun laws and the shit way this state is run are driving me nuts.

[TSA]

The legislature will never be satisfied here. The gun community here in CA has compromised enough with all the current restrictions, and now they want to add more. It's like a pissing contest between CA and NY on who can pass the toughest gun restrictions. I have to commend Mark LaRue of LaRue Tactical. As the owner and builder of some of the finest AR's on the market, he recently released a statement saying he is stopping selling and servicing all law enforcement agencies that are in these so called "ban" states. If the civilians can't have them, neither can LEO's. My hat is off to him for taking a stand, even if it hurts his bottom line. I'd like to see more firearm manufacturers and ammo producers do the same. Hit these states where it hurts.

[ElNono]

I thought the Kasler list was basically closed to adding more to it once AB-2728 was passed.

Yeah, you're right. I missed that. Then again, the bunch on the list are still banned to this day.


I'm still here because of my job and the house I bought 3 years ago (finally seeing some market improvement), but I have been considering a move out of state for the last 6 months or so. The gun laws and the shit way this state is run are driving me nuts.

I think both Heller and McDonald (especially McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago)) are fairly recent, and that's why some of the tight regulation are still there, but are being actively challenged.

But yeah, if you like special kind of toys, you're probably better off somewhere else.

[TSA]

Yeah, you're right. I missed that. Then again, the bunch on the list are still banned to this day.And it's not just assault weapons, we have strict regulations on handguns as well. I tried to purchase a certain model Sig Sauer, but could not because it had not been drop tested in CA. I was however able to purchase the exact same model with a different finish on it. Makes no fucking sense.




I think both Heller and McDonald (especially McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago)) are fairly recent, and that's why some of the tight regulation are still there, but are being actively challenged.

But yeah, if you like special kind of toys, you're probably better off somewhere else.Indeed.

[ChumpDumper]

Honestly, I have only looked at the bullet button bill, but that has nothing about confiscation in its current form. Could you direct me to the one that does?

[TSA]

OPjkLTtJ8qE

Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
Possession of more than 500 rounds of ammo a felony.
6 round magazine limit
ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
Bullet Buttons will become illegal -- All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance
Basically they have just proposed to make all semi-automatic weapons, as well as most shotguns, illegal.




Not a bill yet but here is what is being proposed in CA.

[TSA]

And leave behind your I don't see anything about confiscation shtick. They're basically forcing the sale of said firearms, unless you want to keep and hope you're not caught. So now these weapons, if kept, would be pointless in the home for self defense. If you were justified in using a firearm in self defense and it happened to fall under the banned list you'd be fucked.

[Th'Pusher]

And leave behind your I don't see anything about confiscation shtick. They're basically forcing the sale of said firearms, unless you want to keep and hope you're not caught. So now these weapons, if kept, would be pointless in the home for self defense. If you were justified in using a firearm in self defense and it happened to fall under the banned list you'd be fucked.

remember in the OP when they were 'talking about gun confiscation" in the Feinstein bill? Just stop shitting your pants every time any gun control advocate opens his or her mouth pussy.

[ChumpDumper]

And leave behind your I don't see anything about confiscation shtick. They're basically forcing the sale of said firearms, unless you want to keep and hope you're not caught. So now these weapons, if kept, would be pointless in the home for self defense. If you were justified in using a firearm in self defense and it happened to fall under the banned list you'd be fucked.OK, so far in this video there is absolutely no mention of confiscation or outlawing of existing, now-legal guns. The most I can see is your having to replace magazines for your guns which you will be able to keep.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, zero talk of confiscation outside of getting guns from the known felons and crazies. Did you even watch the video you posted?

[TSA]

remember in the OP when they were 'talking about gun confiscation" in the Feinstein bill? Just stop shitting your pants every time any gun control advocate opens his or her mouth pussy.
This directly affects me as I live in California you stupid fuck. This isn't some bill that won't make it through congress. This will pass, I don't see how it can't.

[TSA]

OK, so far in this video there is absolutely no mention of confiscation or outlawing of existing, now-legal guns. The most I can see is your having to replace magazines for your guns which you will be able to keep.

My AR's would be illegal, they don't make any with permanently fixed magazines. They also don't make 6 round magazines for my handguns either.

[TSA]

Yeah, zero talk of confiscation outside of getting guns from the known felons and crazies. Did you even watch the video you posted?
When did I ever bring up confiscation and this proposal? For fucks sake.

[ChumpDumper]

My AR's would be illegal, they don't make any with permanently fixed magazines.
SEC. 2. Section 30680 is added to the
Penal Code , to read:
30680. Notwithstanding the meaning of "assault weapon" under
Section 30515, as amended by the act that added this section, Section
30610 shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a
person who initially possessed the assault weapon prior to July 1,
2014, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) During the person's possession, the person was eligible to
register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon on January
1, 2014.
(c) During the person's possession, the person was otherwise in
compliance with the then-applicable version of former Chapter 2.3
(commencing with Section 12275) of Title 2 of Part 4 or this chapter,
as the case may be. Let me know if you can't decipher the legalese.
They also don't make 6 round magazines for my handguns either.That's OK, because 6 isn't the limit.

[ChumpDumper]

lol ar15.com forum

[ElNono]

Just for reference, the *only* proposed law that didn't include 'grandfathered' language (that is, language that lets gun owners keep their current guns legally) was that Proposition H in San Francisco, which was ruled unconstitutional both in the first trial and on appeals by the California Supreme Court.

[ChumpDumper]

Someone at the forum TSA lifted that shitful post from actually, you know, read the proposed legislation like I started doing.
I could not find any info or bills about the OP's cliff notes in regard to
"Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony."
Could not find anything on this topic.
"Possession of more than 500 rounds of ammo a felony."
Only thing I found was talking about having to get background check in order to buy ammunition.
"6 round magazine limit"
Could find nothing on that
"Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal"
What I got from the bill is banning of rifled bored shotguns that have a revolving cylinder IE the Judge
"Bullet Buttons will become illegal All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess"
True but there is a registration period of already bulleted button weapons.http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1437618_New_California_proposals_on_gun_restrictio ns_to_be_worse_than_New_York__CA_senate_video_.htm l&page=8#i38428022

Do your homework next time.

[TSA]

Someone at the forum TSA lifted that shitful post from actually, you know, read the proposed legislation like I started doing.http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1437618_New_California_proposals_on_gun_restrictio ns_to_be_worse_than_New_York__CA_senate_video_.htm l&page=8#i38428022

Do your homework next time.thanks for the info, good to know. Looks like i can put the tinfoil away for a while. That forum moves way to fast for me to keep up.

[Th'Pusher]

This directly affects me as I live in California you stupid fuck. This isn't some bill that won't make it through congress. This will pass, I don't see how it can't.
The steam from the unnecessary grunt is piping out of your pants with with each stride as you walk.

[Blake]

What in your definition, are the right hands?

Cops for starters.

Hunters.

Bloods, Crips. Etc.

[Blake]

Blake, do you think these proposed regulations will make California's streets safer? Do you think it will reduce gun crime?

I think stricter gun regulations help to reduce gun deaths in the long run.

Is there a cut off for you, or should law abiding citizens be able to purchase any type of military style gun that a manufacturer has the ability to make?

[Winehole23]

thanks for the info, good to know. Looks like i can put the tinfoil away for a while. That forum moves way to fast for me to keep up.troof. please catch up.

[TSA]

Cops for starters.

:lmao how'd that work out a few days ago for the two women delivering newspapers.



"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

This is not meant to be an indictment of the police. In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound or totally miss their target.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."

[TSA]

I think stricter gun regulations help to reduce gun deaths in the long run.

Is there a cut off for you, or should law abiding citizens be able to purchase any type of military style gun that a manufacturer has the ability to make?
But who follows the regulations, law abiding citizens or criminals?

Law abiding citizens pretty much do have he ability to purchase any military style a manufacturer makes, they just have to pay the government a tax stamp. How many crimes do you hear about where a legally owned sub machine gun was used? How about crimes with legally owned automatic weapons?

And why are you so caught up on "military style"?
You tell me the difference between this mini 14 and this ar15.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-M4-Carbine-AR15-Bravo-Company-s/141.htm

[Blake]

Do you have a cut off? yes or no would be great.

And if so, what is your cut off and why.

[TSA]

Do you have a cut off? yes or no would be great.

And if so, what is your cut off and why.
I am fine with what is allowed now. (Not in CA obviously)

Your turn, why are guns in the hands of cops the right hands? A lot of dead innocent people think otherwise. Why is the AR15 more dangerous than the Mini14?

[Blake]

I am fine with what is allowed now. (Not in CA obviously)

why not allow for even looser restrictions?

Make the streets even safer!


Your turn, why are guns in the hands of cops the right hands? A lot of dead innocent people think otherwise. Why is the AR15 more dangerous than the Mini14?

Because cops are paid to protect and serve and are trained in such methods, to include the use of guns. A lot of live people are grateful for that.

Your loaded questions suck, tbh. Why should either AR15s or mini 14s be allowed for public purchase?

Because they're fun?

[TSA]

why not allow for even looser restrictions?

Make the streets even safer!You asked, I answered. No need to discuss further if you're going to ask retarded questions.




Because cops are paid to protect and serve and are trained in such methods, to include the use of guns. A lot of live people are grateful for that.And if the stats I pulled are true, it seems that civilians kill twice as many criminals a year as cops, while killing many less innocent lives as well. Those cops that shot up those two Asian women delivering newspapers, they were well trained, no? And no, sorry, cops are not paid to protect you.


Your loaded questions suck, tbh. Why should either AR15s or mini 14s be allowed for public purchase?

Because they're fun?If you can't figure out a use for a rifle beyond "they're fun" then that is on you. I'm not wasting any time explaining that one to you.

[Blake]

You asked, I answered. No need to discuss further if you're going to ask retarded questions.

Thanks for answering where your cut off is but I'm not sure why you don't want to answer why you chose that for a cut off.

I guess you have nothing more than ”I like to play with them” so no worries.....i won't ask why any more.


And if the stats I pulled are true, it seems that civilians kill twice as many criminals a year as cops, while killing many less innocent lives as well. Those cops that shot up those two Asian women delivering newspapers, they were well trained, no? And no, sorry, cops are not paid to protect you.

Nobody is saying cops are anywhere near perfect.

and I don't know what you think cops are paid to do, but you are extremely fucking stupid and most likely jaded if you think cops aren't paid to protect.


if you can't figure out a use for a rifle beyond "they're fun" then that is on you. I'm not wasting any time explaining that one to you.

Your time is obviously better served telling me that you can't tell me.

That's telling me.

Nothing but a huge lol from me if they ever take your guns......which they still haven't.

[TSA]

and I don't know what you think cops are paid to do, but you are extremely fucking stupid and most likely jaded if you think cops aren't paid to protect.I guess SCOTUS is extremely fucking stupid too, fucking idiot.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.




Your time is obviously better served telling me that you can't tell me.

That's telling me.You asked a stupid fucking question......"what else are guns good for other than fun", it deserves no response.

[Blake]

You have reading comp and analytical thinking problems. Probably why your threads suck.

I didn't say they have the federally mandated obligation to protect. I said they get paid to protect....at least where I'm at they get paid to protect.

The SAPD mission statement doesn't have it, but the SA Park Police statement does:


“We are an organization of dedicated Law Enforcement professionals, united in our commitment of service to our community and Pledged to the protection of our citizens, visitors and natural resources........

http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParkPolice/MissionStatement.aspx

your city's PD mission statement has it too!



The mission of the Sacramento Police Department is to work in
partnership with the Community to protect life and property, solve
neighborhood problems, and enhance the quality of life in our City.

http://www.sacpd.org/chiefscorner/mission/index.aspx

[Blake]

You asked a stupid fucking question......"what else are guns good for other than fun", it deserves no response.

If you can't give a good reason why you need the excessive auto or semi auto other than "I like them", then you deserve to lose your guns.

[TSA]

:lol I hope you enjoy relying on their protection. I'll stick to protecting myself. They're doing a great job of preventing murders, robberies, assaults and home invasions. Exactly how are they protecting you when they show up to the scene 30 minutes after a crime has happened?

[TSA]

If you can't give a good reason why you need the excessive auto or semi auto other than "I like them", then you deserve to lose your guns.
You admitted to not even being able to define excessive so how am I to respond?

[Blake]

You admitted to not even being able to define excessive so how am I to respond?

The legislators that are jerking your tears are the ones defining it according to your op, dumb ass.

You say they are wrong but can't give a good reason other than some mumbling about founding fathers and that you like your guns.

It's a shame they aren't really going to confiscate them. I would have loved to see what you would have done.

[TSA]

:lol I hope you enjoy relying on their protection. I'll stick to protecting myself. They're doing a great job of preventing murders, robberies, assaults and home invasions. Exactly how are they protecting you when they show up to the scene 30 minutes after a crime has happened?

[TSA]

The legislators that are jerking your tears are the ones defining it according to your op, dumb ass.I've asked for your definition of excessive multiple times, why do you refuse to answer?


You say they are wrong but can't give a good reason other than some mumbling about founding fathers and that you like your guns.You and I both know this is bullshit. This entire thread explains my logical reasons. It's pretty simple dipshit; protection, hunting, fun.


It's a shame they aren't really going to confiscate them. I would have loved to see what you would have done.And the board would have loved to have seen what you would have done if you weren't such a cuck, cuck.

[Blake]

I've asked for your definition of excessive multiple times, why do you refuse to answer?

:cry I'm busy doing stuff in real life :cry

if the legislators determine a weapon to be excessive, I don't know enough about them to disagree.

You've been given ample opportunity to prove them wrong. I don't think you can.


You and I both know this is bullshit. This entire thread explains my logical reasons. It's pretty simple dipshit; protection, hunting, fun.

You and I both know you needing a semi automatic gun for protection is bull shit.

Sorry, but hunting and having fun the way you want are not necessities or rights.


And the board would have loved to have seen what you would have done if you weren't such a cuck, cuck.

I got a divorce and moved on. What would you have done, tough guy?

[spursncowboys]

:cry I'm busy doing stuff in real life :cry


:rolleyes

[TSA]

if the legislators determine a weapon to be excessive, I don't know enough about them to disagree.this is why our country is fucked. The blind leading the blind. I'm done discussing an issue you just admitted to knowing nothing about.

[Blake]

this is why our country is fucked. The blind leading the blind. I'm done discussing an issue you just admitted to knowing nothing about.

:lol if minis get outlawed, there is no reason to think this country is further fucked.

I could see how prohibiting it might save a few lives. Can't see how allowing it does.

the only one I see getting fucked here is the owner of such a gun. And you've given no reason for the blind to give a fuck.

[Thanos]

So have they come for your guns yet? After eight years and no gun seizures are you officially a paranoid extremist?