CA is about to become the toughest state on guns (for sale, phones)

[threepounduniverse]

Originally Posted by nslander

Well said. But then again, I recently had a "discussion" at my front door with a religious zealot who clearly had no capacity, much less interest, in a good faith exchange of ideas. I was compelled to invite him to leave.

OTOH, these threads are great precisely because no one knows when an essential nugget of truth/insight may appear seemingly out of nowhere... when the thread itself brought it forth. Far be it from me to judge whether or not this thread has produced that or not, but I've learned a few things so far from writing and reading on this thread- provocative and thought-provoking kinda go hand-in-hand on CD sometimes. For the most part, threads like these tend to have an element of the predictable tedium that brings to mind your front door zealot... and since theres no 'block' filter in real life, I'd do the same- boot to tukus... but he and you are not voluntarily on a public forum as fellow members. And since it's your front porch and his unwelcome evangelizing zealotry, I'd agree- game over and good riddance.

[threepounduniverse]

Originally Posted by SeaBright

I always love reading your responses and your answers are hard to refute but I disagree about a continued discussion over something so fruitless when the topic of lobbying having too much control is never even brought up.

And gun control barely matters. More or less crime rates will stay relatively the same. That comes down to a much different set of factors.

Freakonomics for sure.


Ron Paul was great but hardly electable.

I agree- any discussion about this subject has got to include the issue of citizens allowing lobbying to have too much control over such a vital issue as who gets to interpret, legislate, adjudicate and enforce ANY Constitutional Amendment, not just the Second... whether gun control per se matters is a separate issue.

Whether or not either side of that discussion/head-butting contest is correct in asserting that crime rates will stay essentially the same doesn't matter- red herrings because using them as a way to advance either sides' goals misses the point of what is *really* at stake when we talk about 'gun control'... and it's not whether or not guns are useful in lowering crime rates- such an argument points to the presence or lack of a practical benefit of gun ownership but fails to address whether or not gun ownership is an inviolable Constitutional right... whatever limits or freedoms are applied either by states or by Washington/SCOTUS to same stems from that trunk or ends with that stump.

The entire state vs. Feds square-dance around Marijuana revolves around a different issue but on the same dance floor... who gets to make the decision about what rights citizens should have or not have? How does that affect those of us who do not use or want to use Marijuana? How important is that issue to voters? Apparently in places like CO, the entire state is now in direct defiance of federal law. Would CA be in violation of federal law if it banned guns altogether? An entire class of guns? What if CA began a gun owner registry, DMV-style? Would that registry be available to other states? The Feds? People in the Marijuana legalization debate do however resemble folks in the gun debate by dragging the benefits/downsides of Marijuana the drug into whether or not to legalize Marijuana use as if those factors alone actually determined the legal outcome.

Again, exactly to your point about guns ownership's minor at best effect on crime rates vs. other factors that do have major effects on crime rates... but if gun ownership has little effect on crime rates in statistical terms, should that fact help determine gun owners' rights in a given state? I would humbly posit 'No.'.

Statistical factors that more directly affect crime rates are far more stubbornly complex than any single factor, whether it fires a projectile or not... Freakonomics and its sequel are great reads and point to new paradigms for analyzing to reach truths rather than ideological goals... I hope that Steve Levitt's lectures from the Becker Center at TUOC go online at some point!

[mrazyattic]

Originally Posted by Ghostly1

It would be interesting to see how many people still have receipts or other proofs of purchase for 20 and 30 round magazines dating back 13 or more years ago. I have them for all guns purchased but certainly not for extra magazines.

There is no way to prove otherwise. Another useless law.

[mrazyattic]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

You do not have to prove you owned them prior to 2000, the police have to prove you purchased them illegally.

My fellow cal gunner

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Charles R Higgins

Whether or not either side of that discussion/head-butting contest is correct in asserting that crime rates will stay essentially the same doesn't matter- red herrings because using them as a way to advance either sides' goals misses the point of what is *really* at stake when we talk about 'gun control'... and it's not whether or not guns are useful in lowering crime rates....

...then what IS at stake, in your opinion?

[threepounduniverse]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

...then what IS at stake, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by CA4Now

...then what IS at stake, in your opinion?

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between motives and arguments... at stake is the interpretation of the Second Amendment and every other Right and Amendment in the Constitution... by interpretation, I mean both expressly enumerated and implied rights. 'Gun control' is either a stalking horse or a canary in a coal mine depending upon which side of the gun control debate you happen to be.

The way of life argument, the practical protection/deterrent argument, crime rate argument, the citizens' rights argument... on the other side, the danger to ourselves and others argument, the access to guns by madmen and criminals argument, it's all a bunch of hot air if that's all the 2nd Amendment rights folks and the Brady Bunch folks have as ammo (sic)... when the inevitable cases which challenge gun control laws and the cases which stand to reinforce gun control laws get argued in front of Judges, the results will depend upon, shall we say, other pillars of rhetoric.

I'd like to see these CA gun laws taken each on their merits or lack thereof, much the way Jerry parsed them although I disagree with several of those which he signed as well. The precedent that many on both sides want to have go their way is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and how that interpretation applies now, in CA for example. I'm much more interested in who's going to take test cases up through the State Courts and to the SCOTUS and which referendums get traction at the grassroots level and far less interested in the tediously predictable lobbyist-penned promises some bought and paid for nitwit tries to sell the voters of CA.

It would be unprecedented (pun intended) to have most voters actually get out and vote out those elected officials who've proven useless in solving all kinds of issue in CA, not just pitting groups against one another. And we, the electorate, have let this happen. Challenging what are poorly written and/or implemented laws and ordinances (no shortage of *those* in Sacramento) and moving them up the judicial ladder when necessary is every gun owner's responsibility and every gun control advocate's right and responsibility to refute or protect... CA voters need to be apply Darwin's Law both to the political careers of CA politicians AND to the laws of CA, new and old, which are dumb, contradictory, outdated, unconstitutional, etc. by voting, legal challenge and referendums.

I am no Constitutional Scholar... that said, I personally believe that the Second Amendment, while applying some Kentucky Windage (pun intended) for the 200+ year age of the Constitution does indeed protect a citizen's right to keep and bear arms *by extension* as armories back in the day were less secure and took longer to access than firearms in a citizens' homes. It would be impossible to imagine the American Militias of the Revolutionary War mustered expressly from the grounds of barracks and armories... if a 'Castle Doctrine' had existed back then it would have made all British soldiers extremely nervous...

The idea that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is the product of 'wishful thinking' or creative interpretation does little to take into account how much society and technology have changed since the writing of the Constitution... and how much prescience the Founding Fathers displayed by taking that into account when they wrote it. And while it's probably a mistake to assume that interpreting an antique document necessitates reinventing it, it's also a mistake to assume that the FF would approve of the doctrine of Original Intent as applied by Scalia like spackle to Constitutional Amendments like good old #2.

All that said, I've been around guns my entire life and have seen what 32 years of 'traditional' gun control has done for this country so far... not much. In the 1970s I worked as an agent for three different Bail Bondsmen in 3 states, Texas, NY State and Illinois. my job *required* guns, and I'm glad I was trained and ready to use them responsibly at the time... but the factors that have made this country so vulnerable to criminals and madmen and made them powerful are in many ways worse than they were back then... and gun laws were far less strict back then. And I guess that puts me in with SeaBright, who perceptively points to the many factors other than gun ownership and gun laws that DO have significant effects on crime rates... I'd venture to guess that goes both ways, pro and anti-gun.

CA, like the rest of the country has got to grow up and get beyond these simple arguments. The problems and issues are complex and sophisticated... they demand that we citizens handle them as far beyond the reach of political hacks and lobbyists as we can. Good luck to all of us- we'll need it.

[SeaBright]

Originally Posted by Charles R Higgins

I agree- any discussion about this subject has got to include the issue of citizens allowing lobbying to have too much control over such a vital issue as who gets to interpret, legislate, adjudicate and enforce ANY Constitutional Amendment, not just the Second... whether gun control per se matters is a separate issue.

Whether or not either side of that discussion/head-butting contest is correct in asserting that crime rates will stay essentially the same doesn't matter- red herrings because using them as a way to advance either sides' goals misses the point of what is *really* at stake when we talk about 'gun control'... and it's not whether or not guns are useful in lowering crime rates- such an argument points to the presence or lack of a practical benefit of gun ownership but fails to address whether or not gun ownership is an inviolable Constitutional right... whatever limits or freedoms are applied either by states or by Washington/SCOTUS to same stems from that trunk or ends with that stump.

The entire state vs. Feds square-dance around Marijuana revolves around a different issue but on the same dance floor... who gets to make the decision about what rights citizens should have or not have? How does that affect those of us who do not use or want to use Marijuana? How important is that issue to voters? Apparently in places like CO, the entire state is now in direct defiance of federal law. Would CA be in violation of federal law if it banned guns altogether? An entire class of guns? What if CA began a gun owner registry, DMV-style? Would that registry be available to other states? The Feds? People in the Marijuana legalization debate do however resemble folks in the gun debate by dragging the benefits/downsides of Marijuana the drug into whether or not to legalize Marijuana use as if those factors alone actually determined the legal outcome.

Again, exactly to your point about guns ownership's minor at best effect on crime rates vs. other factors that do have major effects on crime rates... but if gun ownership has little effect on crime rates in statistical terms, should that fact help determine gun owners' rights in a given state? I would humbly posit 'No.'.

Statistical factors that more directly affect crime rates are far more stubbornly complex than any single factor, whether it fires a projectile or not... Freakonomics and its sequel are great reads and point to new paradigms for analyzing to reach truths rather than ideological goals... I hope that Steve Levitt's lectures from the Becker Center at TUOC go online at some point!

Ahhhhh one of the first "real" non-fiction books I read by myself. Elementary school Abortion. Crime. Cause/effect. That book opened the eyes of small class of American students maybe a bit too early .

I do miss the political arguments all throughout schooling. Ideas and Ideologies, valid counters, devil's advocate to get to the bottom of things. From k-12 only though. After that people are more than likely unwilling to change their minds no matter what the reasoning. Receiving reality checks and giving others epiphanies. Watching the Jewish, Arab, etc, asian, white, whatever kids talk openly about the conflicts of the world, but after knowing each other for their whole lives there was no alternative but to see these things as petty. Because we'ere all in this together. Modern Deism.

I hate growing up. People become more and more disgusting. Leaving that northeastern highschool was the worst reality check of all.



For the record. My whole class was alighted to the real problem in politics as 15 year olds from good teachers. We were given pax america to read as the first assignment to our foreign policy class (a school favorite). It's no wonder to me that the powers that lie are so keen on corralling the rest of the silent majority into big herds of republican this and democrat liberal that when the presidents all are given campaign money by the exact same ..."interests groups" or more specifically big business lobbies and others whose goals are neither representative or beneficial to America, and the world as a whole...

Our country is a proper plutocracy. Literally, and pejoratively.

[SeaBright]

Originally Posted by Charles R Higgins

CA, like the rest of the country has got to grow up and get beyond these simple arguments. The problems and issues are complex and sophisticated... they demand that we citizens handle them as far beyond the reach of political hacks and lobbyists as we can. Good luck to all of us- we'll need it.

This...

For the love of god...

Please, go and look up how lobbying and untraceable donations has been allowing covert, small, private groups to "rig" elections and policy making by pigeon holing the silent majority (and controlling them with fear) since the day JFK's brains were blown out.


JFK Secret Societies Speech (full version) - YouTube

It was relative in his time, and even more so now.

Greed is at the root of it.

Stop letting gun laws make you puppets and bought votes.

[Ghostly1]

Adding a little "Tennessee Elevation" to Mr. Higgins''' "Kentucky Windage," other than on social media, the issue of gun ownership lies more in the press than it does in real life. Hardly a day goes by that there isn't some cherry-picked story, replete with outrage, about the death of one or more people due to firearms whether accidental or otherwise. These incidents are nothing new. They've been happening for generations. In a sense, they're little different than death by automobile and very possibly occur less often.

It would be interesting to see a side-by-side listing of non-natural deaths from all causes. Is it possible that those resulting from firearms might actually appear relatively minor in comparison to some others? But of course, that would never do. Why, the NRA on one extreme and Michael Bloomberg on the other might actually fade from memory and become less consequential. And notice that it's rarely the gang-on-gang type shooting that makes the headlines anymore. It's the outliers; the innocent victim that make the press with enough hyperbole to raise the blood pressure and inflame both sides of the argument. One might even accuse the media of overkill (pun intended).

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by mrazyattic

My fellow cal gunner

checkin in