are new gun laws really what the people of CA want? (Kennedy: cost of, dangerous)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So you are doubling down on seniors learning martial arts to fend off armed attackers?

Well, apparently unlike you, I actually know martial arts. Watch the videos and learn something.

[neutrino78x]

This 70 year old man is a yellow belt in Krav Maga, the fighting system used by the Israeli military (IDF).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPTEPSz9kZQ

[Teckeeee]

The proposed law makes no sense.

It does make sense to stop people on the Terrorist Watch/Do Not Fly/You have been in mental institution recently list from buying a gun, it's logical, they are unstable threats already why arm a mentally unstable person.

I would give them a chance to have a hearing in court at their $$$ to have the rights restored.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, apparently unlike you, I actually know martial arts. Watch the videos and learn something.

Have you ever meet an average 70 year old?

That could explain your reasoning.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

No one said that. We're talking about that shooting at Sandyhook. I think we can all agree that the son should not have had access to firearms. Yet there he was with his mom who was stockpiling them.



Well, not exactly. Like I said, the law should simply say "no semiautomatic rifles can be sold or transported in the state of California" or something like that. Not a list of cosmetic features.



Nope. I was Navy and I am qualified on weapons more powerful than the one used at Orlando. I also have training in the use of such weapons in close quarters aboard the submarine and other similar scenarios.

So a law would have stopped Lanza from killing children? Someone willing to shoot his own mother and murder children would now chnage his mind and decide not to do such horrible acts because your new law is in place.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So a law would have stopped Lanza from killing children? Someone willing to shoot his own mother and murder children would now chnage his mind and decide not to do such horrible acts because your new law is in place.

Yeah, I think if he didn't live with his mother who had all those firearms, it would have helped, yes. Just throwing some common sense out there.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Have you ever meet an average 70 year old?

That could explain your reasoning.

My dad is over 70. You seem to have ignored where I said I knew a guy in his 80s who still practiced ITF TKD. He could spar with young guys and defeat them, too.

But look man, if you feel like you have something physically or mentally wrong with you to where you can't learn how to fight, then fine get a firearm. I don't need one.

However, neither of us needs a rifle that fires as rapidly as a pistol. Use a semiautomatic pistol if you want a self defense weapon. Use a hunting rifle (a REAL hunting rifle like a Winchester 1894 aka 30/30) if you want to hunt. Leave the semiauto rifles and full auto rifles for the military.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

The sociopath and lunatic is Trump. Clinton was Secretary of State; the only higher ranking official in the US government is the actual President. So she is qualified based on that. She also has a former President as a husband. She was in the US Senate and did more there than Sanders ever did. So I think she is well qualified to be the President.

Oh, where to begin. First of all, "being" Secretary of State doesn't reflect what sort of job she did while in that position. When she wasn't getting people killed, she was breaking laws. So no, that doesn't qualify her by any means. As for having a husband as a President, do you think a surgeon's wife is qualified to perform surgery, because of who she is married to? Were Laura Bush, Pat Nixon, or Jackie Kennedy qualified to be president? Hardly. Her stint as Senator was bought and paid for, and done solely to pave the way for her to run for president. You might want to ask someone that lived in NY what they thought of her. I have, and it's not pretty.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yes. I'm saying that the United States of America is the most free nation in the history of the world, and has never and will never become tyrannical.

But IF they became tyrannical, your phallic toy that you use to compensate for a small male organ would not resist the US military. They would use whatever means necessary to eliminate the threat.

This notion became obsolete decades ago. Unless you want civilians to have access to things like armed drones, hellfire missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.

Because we are armed. Let that sink in for a minute. Because. We. Are. Armed.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

In 2016, the second amendment is about self defense. If you keep talking this nonsense about how you're going to resist an alternate universe version of the US Government, which has become tyrannical, using your peashooter, no one will take that seriously. Because it truly is a peashooter compared to the arsenal that the US Armed Forces has. We can destroy the world three times over. We wouldn't be remotely threatened by some fool with an AR-15. Even if you had a fully automatic rifle, it is still not a challenge. Fly an armed drone overhead, launch a missile, you're gone. Easy.

I don't think an AR-15 is appropriate for civilians to be able to buy, but it's still a peashooter compared to the weaponry aboard a US Navy fast attack submarine or destroyer.

But yeah, the second amendment is saying you have the right to own a weapon for legal purposes. You don't have a right to own a weapon, for example, if you plan to storm Washington, D.C. with it. We call that insurrection. Not a legal use. Legal uses are self defense, hunting, target practice etc.

As far as this other crap, no. The US Government will never become tyrannical, and if it did, the US Armed Forces would laugh at your civilian armament.

Still clueless about the intent of the 2nd Amendment.