The Terrorist Attack in Florida Will Insure that all the Gun Control Measures Currently Pending Will Pass (San Jose: credit, stores)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Ask the victims in Orlando how safe an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is, buddy.

You're asking the wrong questions. Why aren't you asking questions about the individual and his motives like a logical person would instead of blaming an inanimate object.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by SQL

That wasn't Yermum's point at all though. You somehow came to the conclusion that Yermum said that most gun owner's are a part of NRA, and NRA is a cult, therefore most gun owner's a part of the cult.

Look back at Yermum's original response to you. S/he never said that most gun owners were a part of the NRA. S/he just said that the NRA is a cult. You're the one that jumped to the conclusion that Yermum said that most gun owners are part of the NRA cult.

It's called critical thinking, and that totally went over your head. This is where the term "gun nut" originates from; people who are so obsessed with the idea of gun ownership that they can't think reasonably about any alternative proposition regarding gun ownership. You people need to learn how to critically think and actually accept that your premise and conclusion may be illogical. If you can't even get this minor exercise in logic right, how am I supposed to trust your judgment/reasoning with an actual gun in hand?

Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you'll probably come back and try to argue with me about some other tangent that is completely unrelated. Fortunately for you, I don't plan on returning to this silly thread.

The funny thing is that you should probably improve your own critical thinking skills, and realize that the word "cult" was misused, and learn the actual historical definition of the word "cult".

Like I said, there is a "cult" at fault in Orlando, but it's not the NRA.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by AFP

Who cares, they can find a different hobby.

I care, n opt because of what they are but because confiscation constitutes a government "taking." Once started, where will it stop if it stops at all?

That so many are willing to play fast-and-loose with the constitution, including the president and the Congress, is the real problem in this country right now, not guns and not lone wolf, radical Islamists.

[asiandudeyo]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Calif. Democrats would give anything to confiscate all guns right now and they can't so they do the next best thing. Make it so difficult and expensive to own a gun that all but the most dedicated shooting sports enthusiast will just give up on it.
Those of us who have a substantial investment in guns its a frightening time. There going to go all out to take your investment from you.
The power of the press is eminence. The LA Times hates guns as do all Democrats and the Times is going to go all out to get your guns.
They went all out for gay marriage, article after article daily after Prop. 8 passed.
The shooter was a Islamic radical, they will go after legal law abiding gun owners, not them.

What?
I think what most Democrats want is to make it hard to get own guns. Meaning that the background check will be done rigorously.
People who love guns and law abiding citizens SHOULD NOT be worried because they will still have their guns and buy guns. But the process will take longer.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by asiandudeyo

What?
I think what most Democrats want is to make it hard to get own guns. Meaning that the background check will be done rigorously.
People who love guns and law abiding citizens SHOULD NOT be worried because they will still have their guns and buy guns. But the process will take longer.

That may be true but that's not what democrat politicians are actually doing.

Democrat politicians want to ban all semi-auto guns (one governor signature away), and have made the purchasing of new model handguns impossible because of the California "safe roster".

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

JFK also believed in the importance of an armed citizenry.

I agree with him; I think it is important for people to be able to defend themselves. Where you and I disagree is that I do not think a semiautomatic rifle is needed for self defense, hunting, or any other civilian purpose.

If you think you're going to have "an armed citizenry" in order to prevent government tyranny...that's a joke in 2016. Unless you're suggesting that civilians should have tactical nuclear weapons, for example.

The reason most people support the 2nd Amendment is SELF DEFENSE...not defense against government tyranny.

btw the militia would be under the command of the President of the United States. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

Originally Posted by the Founding Fathers

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

So if you think you're in the Militia, CaliRestoration, if that's how you see yourself, guess what, my friend, your Commander in Chief is Barack Obama. You are subject to his orders.

The militia is not to resist the government, but to protect it:

Originally Posted by John Jay, Federalist Paper Number 4

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.
[...]
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?

If you read the federalist papers, they say that the idea is that if you have a militia, you don't need a standing army, because the President could could order the militia to be activated if we were invaded.

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper Number 25

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice.

Of course, ultimately, We the People realized that a standing military is much more useful than a militia, so we don't have a militia anymore, just the US Armed Forces (technically the National Guard is an organized militia, but they are also known as The US Army Reserve).

You can get the text of the federalist papers here.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You're viewpoints are much further left than JFK, so I find it funny you would try and equate yourself with his viewpoints.

My viewpoints aren't very far to the left of JFK at all. You'd be hard-pressed to find something where I disagree with him strongly.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Democrat politicians want to ban all semi-auto guns (one governor signature away), and have made the purchasing of new model handguns impossible because of the California "safe roster".

Citation needed.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Like I said, there is a "cult" at fault in Orlando, but it's not the NRA.

Eh, I question that. I think that guy in Orlando was basically just a psycho. I doubt if he was in contact with anyone from Al Qaeda or ISIS.

But I agree with you that Al Qaeda and ISIS are the enemy and they are evil.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I agree with him; I think it is important for people to be able to defend themselves. Where you and I disagree is that I do not think a semiautomatic rifle is needed for self defense, hunting, or any other civilian purpose.

If you think you're going to have "an armed citizenry" in order to prevent government tyranny...that's a joke in 2016. Unless you're suggesting that civilians should have tactical nuclear weapons, for example.

That point rings hollow considering the might of U.S armed forced and their success in nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.

You don't need "tac nuclear weapons" to resist a large government body, you just need enough "pin pricks" to make it tiresome enough that they will stop. Have you not read a history book recently?

If you read the federalist papers, they say that the idea is that if you have a militia, you don't need a standing army, because the President could could order the militia to be activated if we were invaded.

Uh no. That's not what the Federalist papers concluded about the militia. How can you read something and be so wrong?

What Madison actually concluded is that the existence of a national army (which was a big debate at the time but was sorely needed because of the threat of the Barbary States) would not threaten national liberty even if the executive branch went tyrannical because of the SIZE of the militia (which is "the people") would be overwhelming to any standing national army. Again, the threat of an armed populace is what Madison believes would prevent the national army from turning on its own people (and he is right). But if you disarm the people, then you remove that counter-balance.

Seriously, you really need to not just read something, but actually research the background and circumstances behind why something was written in the first place, context is important.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Citation needed.

Gun control: California Senate passes sweeping new restrictions on firearms owners - San Jose Mercury News

All the bills discussed passed through the assembly and senate last month on partisan lines.