San Bernardino shooting

[RamFan503]

Shouldn't we have the right to pipe bombs? Its an arm, isn't it?

And do you really think a majority of the population doesn't want gun control?

The vast majority of the population doesn't even know how to define gun control and that is exactly how the gun control groups want it.

 

[Mike]

I have the California codes up on my computer. I'm trying to find anything that says that the bullet button or similar feature waives the "Generic Characteristics" section of the code. I have never actually operated a gun with a bullet button. Even the name makes it seem completely ridiculous though. Because you can operate the mag release with a recessed button it is ok? You gotta admit - that's pretty moronic. And once you release the mag and insert a 30 round clip, that gun is illegal so....

Apparently, the rifle my dad was forced to give up was a pre-ban AR that they made people register in order to keep and then decided to change that law as well. So even though the rifle really is no different in capabilities than those not on the list, it is considered illegal and must be forfeited. Cuzzzzzzz that makes sense.


From my understanding, they are not approving any new handguns that are capable of accepting hi-cap mags. I'm only going by what I have read. The new testing requirements are pretty vague.


Don't get what you mean here.


Generic Characteristics Defining Assault Weapons:
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following: Rifles (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip. (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Note: Bayonets and bayonet lugs are not assault weapon characteristics under California law.

That is California's definition of an assault rifle. Defined to fit the law in Ca. The true definition is what I explained earlier.

 

[PA Ram]

No. And neither would the NRA or any other pro 2nd Amendment group. Inconvenienced for a while? How long? What is considered inconvenience and by whom? Someone is going to tell me that I can't own an AR to defend my home because it looks meaner than a Mini14 but a shotgun is just great because I can rack some shells off my balcony? Yeah. I'm not good with that kind of common sense trying to take away my rights.

My merely possessing a type of gun will not affect you. The ridiculous question of do you allow nuclear weapons and all that isn't just going to extremes to prove a point. It is lame as merely possessing those materials can cause harm to others and in no way can you protect yourself through their use.

I find it equally ridiculous to assume that some simple restrictions and regulation is just a few steps shy of the government coming for your guns. So yeah--as silly as the nuclear argument sounds to you--the government banging on your door to take away your guns(as long as you remain a law-abiding citizen)is just as ridiculous to me. As for assault style weapons or high capacity? Honestly, I don't know enough about it to comment. As I said earlier--this is not the issue I make number one out of my political interests. I'm much more interested in the genesis of terrorists than the tools they are using, believe it or not--and what would be effective to stop the problem there.

But for the record, if the "no-fly" zone is flawed you have to look at fixing it. It was created by a Republican president. I have no problem with getting it right. but I would be against taking any chances for now. The names put on there are put on because the government believes them to be some sort of risk. I'd prefer they did not have weapons.

 

[RamFan503]

That is California's definition of an assault rifle. Defined to fit the law in Ca. The true definition is what I explained earlier.

My point is that it really depends on who is defining it and for what purpose. I agree with what you are saying. The people trying to write laws have a whole other set of defining qualities - many of them appearance based. A Mini 14 does pretty much everything an AR does yet the last I checked, it is not on any list. Silly isn't it?

 

[Mike]

My point is that it really depends on who is defining it and for what purpose. I agree with what you are saying. The people trying to write laws have a whole other set of defining qualities - many of them appearance based. A Mini 14 does pretty much everything an AR does yet the last I checked, it is not on any list. Silly isn't it?

Ca has many silly laws...

 

[RamFan503]

I find it equally ridiculous to assume that some simple restrictions and regulation is just a few steps shy of the government coming for your guns. So yeah--as silly as the nuclear argument sounds to you--the government banging on your door to take away your guns(as long as you remain a law-abiding citizen)is just as ridiculous to me. As for assault style weapons or high capacity? Honestly, I don't know enough about it to comment. As I said earlier--this is not the issue I make number one out of my political interests. I'm much more interested in the genesis of terrorists than the tools they are using, believe it or not--and what would be effective to stop the problem there.

But for the record, if the "no-fly" zone is flawed you have to look at fixing it. It was created by a Republican president. I have no problem with getting it right. but I would be against taking any chances for now. The names put on there are put on because the government believes them to be some sort of risk. I'd prefer they did not have weapons.

But the government is already going further than what you are suggesting and no one is toting around nuclear weapons or asking to redefine arms as specified in The Constitution to include them - so yeah - it is a ridiculous stretch.

You assume I'm a Republican and I'm not. The government assumed I was a risk and I was not. But because somehow the government suspected me of being a risk for unknown reasons - apparently even to them - I am not allowed to own a firearm by your standard? Do you also know that if you fail a background search for any reason, the government will not allow you to know why? I believe that is nationally but I know for a fact that it is the case at least here in Oregon.

I am also most interested in the genesis of terrorism and how to stop them. The 2nd Amendment is a huge issue for me however so I staunchly defend it when the press and politicians constantly call for destroying it or bastardizing it.

 

[RamFan503]

Ca has many silly laws...

Yeah - boy howdy. Is there a government that doesn't? Most liquor stores in Oregon can't sell liquor on Sundays. Until recently, you were not allowed to transport homebrew outside of your house - even to homebrew competitions. We want these people writing laws limiting our Constitutional rights? Yeesh!

 

[PA Ram]

But the government is already going further than what you are suggesting and no one is toting around nuclear weapons or asking to redefine arms as specified in The Constitution to include them - so yeah - it is a ridiculous stretch.

You assume I'm a Republican and I'm not. The government assumed I was a risk and I was not. But because somehow the government suspected me of being a risk for unknown reasons - apparently even to them - I am not allowed to own a firearm by your standard? Do you also know that if you fail a background search for any reason, the government will not allow you to know why? I believe that is nationally but I know for a fact that it is the case at least here in Oregon.

I am also most interested in the genesis of terrorism and how to stop them. The 2nd Amendment is a huge issue for me however so I staunchly defend it when the press and politicians constantly call for destroying it or bastardizing it.

Okay--I wasn't aware the government was going around and removing weapons from law abiding citizens. Or further than that? As far as nukes go--no one was toting around assault weapons when the 2nd amendment was written. They were very different weapons. I apologize for hinting that you may have been a Republican(I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy--JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!).

And I have no problem with getting these lists correct or fixing the flaws. And I did not know that about background checks and I feel they SHOULD have to tell you why.

In any case--I'll leave you the last word if you want it.

I really didn't plan to wade this deep into the whole gun issue, honestly--just wanted to state my opinion.

 

[RamFan503]

Okay--I wasn't aware the government was going around and removing weapons from law abiding citizens. Or further than that? As far as nukes go--no one was toting around assault weapons when the 2nd amendment was written. They were very different weapons. I apologize for hinting that you may have been a Republican(I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy--JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!).

And I have no problem with getting these lists correct or fixing the flaws. And I did not know that about background checks and I feel they SHOULD have to tell you why.

In any case--I'll leave you the last word if you want it.

I really didn't plan to wade this deep into the whole gun issue, honestly--just wanted to state my opinion.

Law abiding citizens are required to turn in formerly "legal" guns. Is that not removing them from them? If they do not, they are no longer law abiding.

And actually, depending on who is defining it, our forefathers were toting around "assault weapons". The most modern of their time.

Part of the problem with saying you are for gun control is that you and most everyone who supports the mantra has no idea what they are. Just like you didn't know about them not telling you why if you fail a background test, people say they want laws and then have a real WTF moment when they find out it affects them after it is too late.

And no problem on the Republican thing. At least you didn't accuse me of being a Democrat. That would have been a low blow.:boxing:

Take care man.

 

[Mackeyser]

No. And neither would the NRA or any other pro 2nd Amendment group

Come on - enough with the nukes and bombs argument. It's purely a red herring argument. And as to the felon, that is an individual committing a crime. He took his own rights away by violating others' rights.

I had to jump in with a few things.

The first one you're gonna hate, but it's just true. The NRA has actively lobbied AGAINST legislation that would have made it harder for those on the FBI Terrorist Watch List, not the No Fly List, to buy weapons or ammo. So, point of fact, the NRA is a trade group for arms manufacturers and they will do just about anything to sell to just about anyone without restriction. The LAST thing they are is a standard bearer for a principled stand on anything. The RIGHT to sell to anyone without restriction is a stated goal of the NRA. And since they have lobbied against several of these bills now where the only people affected would be those vetted and put on the FBI Terrorist Watch List, if sure seems that the NRA does in fact want to sell guns to terrorists.

Secondly, why is it a red herring to question the definition of "arms"? I'm surprised it hasn't happened, yet. As an engineer, I know enough to know that a trained chemist or an engineer with a chemistry background could, if they so desired really cook up some home brew. It's why engineers and chemical engineers, especially, are so valued by terrorists for recruitment. So, who's to say a person from the Militia Movement doesn't go to college and get trained and return to their compound "trained". If he's captured with a "device" of some kind, seems to me that it would be natural for him to assert his right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, ESPECIALLY in light of the escalation of military technological advances. Rather than hinder his/her case, I think it advances it. Well regulated militias in 2015 don't stock muskets. And since the sale of certain military hardware is banned (mines, RPG, SAMs, high explosives, chemical and biological weapons), it would be reasonable for militias to create for themselves what they need as their abilities allow. Not to mention that fissile material occasionally becomes available on the black market.

Now... Would *I* like to see that happen?

HELL NO!!! However, the NRA is only making it easier.

It's not about the guns, it's about gun culture. It's about a culture that doesn't see conflict resolution as a real thing other than with violence.

I don't want the Wild West except with refrigeration and Internet and I've never seen a sane image of utopia with people walking around with AR15s slung.

I hear a lot of talk about what folks don't want to lose. I don't hear much talk of what has already been lost (freedoms, way of life, moral high ground) and what we have to gain and/or regain.

 

[RamFan503]

The first one you're gonna hate, but it's just true. The NRA has actively lobbied AGAINST legislation that would have made it harder for those on the FBI Terrorist Watch List, not the No Fly List, to buy weapons or ammo.

Care to expand on that? I can name all kinds of bills that say they do X (and no one wants to do X )when they also do a crap load of other things that not only had nothing to do with X but were intentionally included because they would never get passed if the bill was about THEM instead of X.

The RIGHT to sell to anyone without restriction is a stated goal of the NRA.

You want to provide that? You are wrong here. I am a life member of the NRA. I'm pretty aware of what they state as their goals.

And since they have lobbied against several of these bills now where the only people affected would be those vetted and put on the FBI Terrorist Watch List, if sure seems that the NRA does in fact want to sell guns to terrorists.

See my first response.

Secondly, why is it a red herring to question the definition of "arms"? I'm surprised it hasn't happened, yet. As an engineer, I know enough to know that a trained chemist or an engineer with a chemistry background could, if they so desired really cook up some home brew. It's why engineers and chemical engineers, especially, are so valued by terrorists for recruitment. So, who's to say a person from the Militia Movement doesn't go to college and get trained and return to their compound "trained". If he's captured with a "device" of some kind, seems to me that it would be natural for him to assert his right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, ESPECIALLY in light of the escalation of military technological advances. Rather than hinder his/her case, I think it advances it. Well regulated militias in 2015 don't stock muskets. And since the sale of certain military hardware is banned (mines, RPG, SAMs, high explosives, chemical and biological weapons), it would be reasonable for militias to create for themselves what they need as their abilities allow. Not to mention that fissile material occasionally becomes available on the black market.

Any precedent to what you are asserting here? And the definition has been tested many many times by the SC. That question has been asked and answered. So to assert that it should be in the argument is moot.

I don't want the Wild West except with refrigeration and Internet and I've never seen a sane image of utopia with people walking around with AR15s slung.

Obviously you are not in my utopia. Go shoot an AR and tell me you don't suffer from permagrin afterward. Seriously though, I don't think I've ever seen a court or jails in anyone's image of utopia. Am I wrong?

I hear a lot of talk about what folks don't want to lose. I don't hear much talk of what has already been lost (freedoms, way of life, moral high ground) and what we have to gain and/or regain.

Not sure why. I have.

 

[RamFan503]

I just want to add one other thing. The US still offers far more freedoms than most any other country and that includes a higher level of firearms freedoms. Yet despite all the rhetoric, it does not somehow have a corner on the market in these types of incidents. In fact, several European nations have higher rates and that is even considering they don't count attacks like what happened in Paris in their crime stats for gun related attacks.

In an article in Politifact (which most on the right consider left leaning), that looked at Obama's claim that attacks like the one in SB (it was actually after the Charleston attack) don't happen in other developed countries, they not only found the claim to be false but also made this comment near the end of the article:

Elsass warned PolitiFact of a few caveats about the data. While they believe their database "to be among the most exhaustive compilations available," Elsass noted that it may not include every instance of mass shootings. It also doesn’t include every example of mass killings -- just those committed by firearms, even though mass stabbings are not uncommon in such places as China. Finally, their database doesn’t include acts generally considered to be terrorism, such as the attack in Paris on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

So while some want to institute stronger gun control laws in the US, how has that really helped these other countries deal with the issue?

We need to find a solution to this problem. No doubt. But we also must tread very carefully when we are demanding US citizens give up their rights - especially for a fatally flawed premise. It probably is the only one we know hasn't worked and won't work. We need to concentrate on those that have had success and those we have not tried as of yet. Rather than maintaining this PC mindset, we are going to have to be willing to call a duck a duck while maintaining personal liberty and freedoms. It is certainly not going to be easy by any stretch.

 

[Mackeyser]

I've fired an AR15. It was ok.

I'll have to look up the bill I'm recalling.

 

[fearsomefour]

Yeah - boy howdy. Is there a government that doesn't? Most liquor stores in Oregon can't sell liquor on Sundays. Until recently, you were not allowed to transport homebrew outside of your house - even to homebrew competitions. We want these people writing laws limiting our Constitutional rights? Yeesh!

But SLO recently disallowed styrofoam in the city and also "offensive odors"....so, theres that. Glad to see local governments are as focused on the big issues as the big boys in Sac and DC.

 

[fearsomefour]

I just want to add one other thing. The US still offers far more freedoms than most any other country and that includes a higher level of firearms freedoms. Yet despite all the rhetoric, it does not somehow have a corner on the market in these types of incidents. In fact, several European nations have higher rates and that is even considering they don't count attacks like what happened in Paris in their crime stats for gun related attacks.

In an article in Politifact (which most on the right consider left leaning), that looked at Obama's claim that attacks like the one in SB (it was actually after the Charleston attack) don't happen in other developed countries, they not only found the claim to be false but also made this comment near the end of the article:


So while some want to institute stronger gun control laws in the US, how has that really helped these other countries deal with the issue?

We need to find a solution to this problem. No doubt. But we also must tread very carefully when we are demanding US citizens give up their rights - especially for a fatally flawed premise. It probably is the only one we know hasn't worked and won't work. We need to concentrate on those that have had success and those we have not tried as of yet. Rather than maintaining this PC mindset, we are going to have to be willing to call a duck a duck while maintaining personal liberty and freedoms. It is certainly not going to be easy by any stretch.

The most offensive thing to many people is honesty. Being honest doesn't mean we have to agree. But the effort to limit people ability or desire (through shaming ect) to speak freely is in full force. There was a recent study that something like 55% or something of millennials think there should be limits put on offense speech. Of course, there is no way to really define offensive speech (other than someone trying to insight murder ect).

 

[RamFan503]

The most offensive thing to many people is honesty. Being honest doesn't mean we have to agree. But the effort to limit people ability or desire (through shaming ect) to speak freely is in full force. There was a recent study that something like 55% or something of millennials think there should be limits put on offense speech. Of course, there is no way to really define offensive speech (other than someone trying to insight murder ect).

Right. It always gets me when someone brings up the 1st Amendment to get someone to remove a Christmas symbol from their desk or a cross off of a hill because they think the Constitution gives them that right. Come on people. It is freedom OF religion not FROM religion. It was put in to prevent the creation of a government dictated religion. Then those same people want to come to the rescue of a religion as if merely discussing it is off limits. Yeesh!

 

[RamFan503]

I'm probably crossing some lines here so I'll try to be careful. It's a tough issue and one that may be more appropriately addressed on something besides a football forum.

 

[fearsomefour]

Right. It always gets me when someone brings up the 1st Amendment to get someone to remove a Christmas symbol from their desk or a cross off of a hill because they think the Constitution gives them that right. Come on people. It is freedom OF religion not FROM religion. It was put in to prevent the creation of a government dictated religion. Then those same people want to come to the rescue of a religion as if merely discussing it is off limits. Yeesh!

Yeah, like the idiotic students protesting and shouting down anyone who tried to express any other opinion. It makes me want to tear my own skin off.

 

[fearsomefour]

I'm probably crossing some lines here so I'll try to be careful. It's a tough issue and one that may be more appropriately addressed on something besides a football forum.

Naw.....you mixed religion and politics, you're fine.
Online forum, local watering hole, Thanksgiving table....all good places to do this.

 

[RamFan503]

Naw.....you mixed religion and politics, you're fine.
Online forum, local watering hole, Thanksgiving table....all good places to do this.

As long as it stays civil, we should be ok..... maybe.

As a rule we don't allow political or religious threads. Where the line gets fuzzy to me is at what point the thread is about that and when it merely contains the two. I tend to start thinking about locking the thread when it threatens to become emotional.