Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And of course if you can assemble in protest, a right stated in the 1st amendment, that implies that you can travel to the place where others are assembling in protest.
A car is one means of traveling. Cars are also dangerous, so we regulate them and require a license to operate them on public roads. You have the freedom of movement, but if your means of movement endangers others or potentially endangers them, there has to be regulation.
You have the freedom of speech, but if your speech endangers others, it will be regulated. For example you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or release classified information.
You have the freedom to defend yourself, but if the means you use to defend yourself is excessively dangerous it can and should be regulated.
Generally speaking, the more dangerous something is, the more regulated it is. The government has a valid interest in protecting public safety.
CaliRestoration continues:
That's ironic, you're sitting there telling me I know nothing about firearms, whereas I am trained in the use of fully automatic rifles and you aren't even familiar with operating the type of rifles you're defending. Not that one needs to be an expert in firearms to talk about our 2nd amendment rights.
I doubt semiauto rifles are very common, given the data you cite below.
This is another tired cookie cutter response to a position I do not hold. I'm not against all guns for civilian use, I don't want guns confiscated. We're talking about mass shootings, not homicides in general.
Mass shootings are not performed with fists or swords or knives or pencils.
The most important thing is to improve control of who has access to firearms in general. Psychos like the guy in Orlando and the guy at Sandyhook should never have had access to ANY firearm. I would hope you agree with that, CaliRestoration. Yet the guy at Sandyhook was allowed to live with his mother, who was stockpiling firearms (and was probably also a psycho).
This whole thing about banning X or Y type of weapon because it is too dangerous for civilians IS important, but not as important as controlling who can have a firearm in the first place. We need to get a lot better at that.
But mass killings. Take a peek at Australia after their gun grab. Mass shootings went down, but killings by beatings, knives and fire skyrocketed. The number of people killed in mass killings remained virtually the same. It didn't change the number of lives lost, just the means in which EVIL people choose to kill.
Oh for pete's sake, California has a list of 3000+ people who they know have guns but shouldn't, and they can't even make it down the list. Enforce the current laws first, before you pass new ones. Otherwise, they are just pointless feel good measure - a staple of CA politics
Oh for pete's sake, California has a list of 3000+ people who they know have guns but shouldn't, and they can't even make it down the list. Enforce the current laws first, before you pass new ones. Otherwise, they are just pointless feel good measure - a staple of CA politics
The funny part is besides California, and maybe 2-3 other states, every state in the Union is granting more gun rights to law abiding citizens instead of punishing them.
I was in Arizona 2 months ago, and I could literally conceal carry my gun without a permit. Texas now has constitutional open carry. Does Texas seem like a hell pit of gun crime? I don't think it does. What about Vermont? Last time I checked Vermont had much less gun crime than California but much less gun regulation as well.
California is so backwards and socialist on almost every level when it comes to gun laws.
Specifically a semiautomatic rifle or fully automatic rifle -- as opposed to a lever action or bolt action hunting rifle -- has no real civilian purpose. It is not a hunting weapon (at least not for real men), it is not a self defense weapon.
The right to defend oneself is what is constitutionally protected. Specific weapons are not constitutionally protected.
No it isn't. A swimming pool is designed for recreation. A firearm is designed to cause damage to a target or harm to a person.
A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. NOT A HARMLESS TOOL AKIN TO A SCREWDRIVER.
Really, you shouldn't be handling firearms if you do not think they are weapons. You need to respect them, and handle them carefully, because they are intended to kill. That's the difference between a military or police professional, or hunter, versus a gun nut. The gun nut thinks it is a harmless toy and people should let him have fun with his toy. A Sony Playstation is a harmless toy.
A firearm is a weapon.
Have a problem with women defending themselves? From this post, I'd have to say yes.
So you're ok with something that is designed purely for recreation, but kills people, being legal. But a firearm, that is designed to DEFEND, being illegal.
And before you chime in with "I only want semi-automatic weapons banned" - the fact that most weapons are semi-automatic means you are for a ban.
The guns are not intended to kill. The evil terrorist pulling the trigger intended to kill.
I just want to say I love Cali and I love living in SD. It's my wife's home state I think of it as my home state. But what in the world is going on with the gun stuff?
I just want some honest insight on this because I find it to be quite upsetting. I'm a active duty service member fighting for freedom and civil liberties and it feels like the state is always trying to take away.
These state members are supposed to be representatives of the PEOPLE, and I have not met people that want these strict gun laws. Why are we going to punish law abiding citizens?
The people who want to do bad things don't follow laws when it comes to acquiring weapons to cause harm. The gangs with guns don't go to the gun store to buy one. The attacks in France are an example of how restrictive gun laws mean nothing to bad people.
I'm not trying to chastise anyone, I just want to honestly know if people are really for this?
ITguy85
I've lived in California all my life...and you would be surprised to learn that there are many who are in favor of gun rights in California. What if the terrorists decide to start coming at us in our neighborhoods? You want to be armed...and for the life of me I cannot understand why others do not see this. Law abiding citizens are not the people you need to fear who own guns....it's the CRIMINALS that people need to fear along with terrorists. California already has the strictest gun laws/background checks. Californians are armed - they just do not talk about it or share. We have some serious wacky politicians in our state that is for sure. When and if we have a real bad earthquake and are without food and water...you better make darn sure you are armed. THe thieves will be out in force and stealing what they can from people who DO have stock piles of food/water. You always have to be ahead of the criminals in their thinking.
I laugh at the celebs who say NO GUNS...yet they have the best security who do carry guns. Many celebs also carry guns and should just quit dictating that the ordinary citizens of California should not own guns. Who in their right mind is going to listen to a celebrity anyway? I hope many will not and pay attention to common sense. Times are a changing...the world is a dangerous place anymore. If only a couple of people had guns on them during the San Bernardino shootings - I do believe there would not have been any casualties - same for Orlando. Law Enforcement can't always be there so arming ourselves is the best way. Go to a gun range and learn to shoot. Join a NRA Club/Chapter in your community. Become familiar with a firearm.
With the passing of Prop 47 - AB 109 it's only going to get worse in California. Google these topics.. ...Educate yourselves. We are already seeing an increase in crime in many of our cities. I use to belong to the Social Media App "Nextdoor" and every time I opened it up - someone had been burglarized in my community or the surrounding communities. Eric Garcetti the Mayor of Los Angeles stated we need to have compassion for the felons getting out of prison blah blah blah.. Really? I know all too well about felons/criminals and what they are capable of. When you have been victimized - you usually change your stance on guns. About YOU owning one - the law abiding citizen. Sorry about this being long...:-)
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
So, you don't care about saving lives? Isn't that your end game or is it fear of a piece of metal.
The end game is to address the issue of mass shootings. I am trained on the military version of the AR-15 platform so fear of guns is not an issue. Read my previous posts.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Have a problem with women defending themselves? From this post, I'd have to say yes.
So your claim is that all woman require semiautoatic or fully automatic rifles to defend themselves? I have known many women who could defeat the average male by fighting him without weapons.
In any case, a semiautomatic or fully automatic rifle does nothing for civilian self defense that could not be done with a semiautomatic pistol.
On the other hand, if you want to perform a mass shooting, a semiautomatic rifle is a great choice, considering that its purpose is to kill multiple people in a short period of time! Since a civilian would not need to kill multiple people in a short period of time, the civilian public does not need access to such a weapon.
Quote:
So you're ok with something that is designed purely for recreation, but kills people, being legal. But a firearm, that is designed to DEFEND, being illegal.
I agree with the moral judgement regarding what good guys (like myself when I was in the Navy) do with firearms. However, your statement that a firearm "is designed to defend" is not correct. Shields are designed to defend. Bullet resistant vests are designed to defend.
A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. It is designed to kill. It is not a toy. It is not a harmless tool analogous to a screwdriver. It is a weapon. It is designed to kill.
I support civilians having the right to kill other civilians in self defense with firearms. But that is what the firearm is designed to do. Kill a person. In many cases in the real world, we must kill one person to save another or to save multiple other people. But that doesn't change the fact that the firearm is designed to kill, and you killed that person. They are dead.
It is a weapon. Designed to kill.
Quote:
And before you chime in with "I only want semi-automatic weapons banned"
I clearly said "semiautomatic RIFLES and fully automatic rifles".
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaGal
I've lived in California all my life...and you would be surprised to learn that there are many who are in favor of gun rights in California.
As am I. However, I do not support civilian access to certain categories of firearms: semiautomatic rifles and fully automatic rifles.
Quote:
What if the terrorists decide to start coming at us in our neighborhoods? You want to be armed
No, I want the police to be armed with fully automatic rifles, and terrorists don't have remotely enough people to do what you suggest here.
Quote:
Law abiding citizens are not the people you need to fear who own guns
I agree. But no civilian needs a semiautomatic or fully automatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles should at very least be treated like fully automatic rifles are under the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. If we can ban fully automatic rifles manufactured after 1986, we can ban semiautomatic rifles manufactured after 2017.
Quote:
If only a couple of people had guns on them during the San Bernardino shootings - I do believe there would not have been any casualties - same for Orlando.
The club in Orlando had an ARMED off duty police officer being paid to be a security guard. He was a good guy with a gun present on scene. He wasn't able to stop the bad guy.
I clearly said "semiautomatic RIFLES and fully automatic rifles".
Okay, so why not handguns? They kill thousands more people than rifles (automatic or semi-automatic).
I don't understand your logic because according to you (in your words):
Quote:
A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. It is designed to kill. It is not a toy. It is not a harmless tool analogous to a screwdriver. It is a weapon. It is designed to kill.
I support civilians having the right to kill other civilians in self defense with firearms. But that is what the firearm is designed to do. Kill a person. In many cases in the real world, we must kill one person to save another or to save multiple other people. But that doesn't change the fact that the firearm is designed to kill, and you killed that person. They are dead.
It is a weapon. Designed to kill.
So handguns are not designed to kill? Only semi-auto rifles?
Oh wait, you seem to keep harping on about mass shootings.
So Elliot Rodgers, and Seung Hui Cho (who committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States, behind the Pulse shooting) who both utilized handguns in their crimes, how do they fit into your logic?
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Okay, so why not handguns? They kill thousands more people than rifles (automatic or semi-automatic).
Semiautomatic rifle is the most common weapon for mass shootings. A rifle imparts more kinetic energy to the projectile than a pistol and a semiauto rifle can fire as quickly as a pistol. Civilians don't need a semiautomatic rifle for self defense or hunting.
Quote:
So handguns are not designed to kill? Only semi-auto rifles?
All firearms are designed to kill. A pistol has a valid self defense application for civilians.
Despite your stupid misreading of my argument, here it is for 20th time: I support civilians being able to kill in self-defense.
Being a military veteran with training in firearms, I know that a firearm is designed to do exactly that: kill someone. It is not a harmless tool. It is not a toy. It is a weapon. It is designed to kill.
Yes you have the right to self defense. That right is limited by the right others have to not be killed by you through negligence or intent, and the government's responsibility to protect public safety.
Quote:
So Elliot Rodgers, and Seung Hui Cho (who committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States, behind the Pulse shooting) who both utilized handguns in their crimes, how do they fit into your logic?
This is where YOUR reading of my statements is very, very stupid. You are concentrating on what I consider to be a less important issue instead of reading my posts and realizing that we agree on what I consider to be more important: controlling who has access to ANY firearm. Well, that and the fact that you think anyone who is familiar with firearms MUST be a gun nut or otherwise they are not familiar with firearms. That's pretty stupid on your part too.
Banning semiautomatic rifles, assuming it is an effective ban, would make mass shootings less deadly, especially in the long term as they slowly disappear from the streets.
But we still have to make sure that people who should not have access to ANY firearm do not in fact get access to a firearm. Both are important but the access issue is more important.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
