CA is about to become the toughest state on guns (Jackson: live, shop)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by mbell75

They only had muskets back then when that was written, so you think we should just go back to muskets? You must believe the 1st amendment only applies to parchment to right? Since there was no printing press back then...I think states like AZ have it right with regards to their gun laws. Wait, you dont even live in CA. Ok, lets do this. How about you get rid of every gun you own that isnt a handgun or a bolt action rifle and trash any magazines you have that hold more than 10 rounds, handgun included. Sound good?

As I wrote before: you are an amusing zealot. You just demolished your own argument. As the 2nd amendment was written at a time when the only firearms were muskets (and cannon), and the authors had no way of foreseeing the future of firearms development, then the amendment certainly was not written with today's weapons in mind for future protection of rights. But you want to claim that validation?

Huh.

Also as I wrote previously, why don't you leave the campaign for gun rights to people who are logical and erudite on the subject. You are giving gun advocacy a seriously bad image.

(For the record here: I advocate for allowing any citizen [unregistered] ownership of muskets, and unlimited ball and powder!)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by e30is

I won't disagree with you there. There is so much talk and yet not much doing. Something our current administration fails to address.

What a concept it is. But lets just continue the antics for now.

By all means. It's so entertaining knowing that the rabid anti-gunners are convinced, CONVINCED I tell you, that we only own guns so we can go on rampage and kill our fellow man or are quaking at the sure signs that martial law will be imposed any day now replete with soldiers, robo-cops and black helicopters.

Of course, the equally rabid pro-gunners who are survivalist paranoiacs really do believe in the WTSHTF stuff and are equally entertaining but give responsible gun owners a bad rep.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by e30is

There are already existing laws for background checks. They are just not being enforced among many other laws.

I don't see the need for an AK47, but I have shot one before and it was fun. You don't essentially need it but if you want one, a number of states have them available.

You obviously wern't trying to protect your life and property back 1992 when almost half of Koreatown in LA was burnt to the ground because LAPD was overwhelmed running away from the rioters and refused to protect the thousands of law abiding citizens who had to take up arms in defense of their lives and property from the looting hoards.

Have twenty people show up on your door step to do you and your family harm with the police department no where in sight. Guarantee you'll think differently about having one of those "evil black" assault rifles with a 20 or 30 round magazine.

When large scale riots happen law enforcement sets up lines of containment. Everyone inside those lines in on their own for awhile. When your wife and kids are looking at you and you have empty hands what are you going to tell them? It's ok the police will come and help us.

[scorpio516]

Tough law, but still not as hard to own guns as it is in Massachusetts. Get on your game Sacramento! You want to be the toughest state? Reinstate the assault weapon ban, and require licences to buy ANY firearm. This will just put you on pace with New York - but NY is still worse.

Any firearm with a detachable magazine that is not in the grip is an assault weapon, and banned, there. Doesn't have to be a rifle. So an olympic 22LR target pistol is a NY assault weapon...

Yep, cause you can do a lot of assaulting with 5 rounds of 22LR...

Originally Posted by nslander

I'm fairly certain I understand each word, even placing those words in relationship to each other and reading the whole in historical context. Now, put that one sentence together and explain the existence of the prefatory clause. Nevermind: it's there because the Framers feared a standing army, such that participation in a regulated militia was originally conceived as mandatory of all able-bodied white males betwixt 18 and 45: The Militia Act of 1792.

If you want to invoke the the Second Amendment for unqualified access to firearms, you need to join what became the equivalent of a well-regulated militia- the National Guard, or join an effort to disband the armed forces, because that is exactly what necessitated the prefatory clause. Or simply admit the legal fiction of an "unorganized militia" renders the Amendment effectively meaningless.

"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
- Warren Burger, Jan 14,1990


Chief Justice Of The United States ('69 - '86) : Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Ownership Of Any Sort Of Unregulated Weapon - The NewsTalkers

The only people who understand exactly what the 2nd amendment means died about 200 years ago. You get 10 constitution scholars in a room, and you'll probably get at least 3 different interpretations. You get the 9 Chief Justices to talk off the record, you'll probably get 9 different ones.

It's not as cut and dry as some of the other amendments, like the 19th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

No extemporaneous commas. No commas at all lol. No ambiguous words either. And because it's only 83 years old, none of the words used have changed meaning.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

You obviously wern't trying to protect your life and property back 1992 when almost half of Koreatown in LA was burnt to the ground because LAPD was overwhelmed running away from the rioters and refused to protect the thousands of law abiding citizens who had to take up arms in defense of their lives and property from the looting hoards.

Have twenty people show up on your door step to do you and your family harm with the police department no where in sight. Guarantee you'll think differently about having one of those "evil black" assault rifles with a 20 or 30 round magazine.

When large scale riots happen law enforcement sets up lines of containment. Everyone inside those lines in on their own for awhile. When your wife and kids are looking at you and you have empty hands what are you going to tell them? It's ok the police will come and help us.

Dawg, you have just defined yet another reason to live on wheels. Get-along-little-doggies now!

gypsy null

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Dawg, you have just defined yet another reason to live on wheels. Get-along-little-doggies now!

gypsy null

Yes thats one way when the SHTF in urban areas. GTFO of Dodge is my motto. Fortunately myself and family have a place to go if it happens in my area. Most people living in urban areas dont have that luxury.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Yes thats one way when the SHTF in urban areas. GTFO of Dodge is my motto. Fortunately myself and family have a place to go if it happens in my area. Most people living in urban areas dont have that luxury.

Wheels require only roads ... of which there are many. And, as the immortal highnlite used to say: there are even a paved 62 of 'em that go clean out of state. Yee-haw ...

[e30is]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

You obviously wern't trying to protect your life and property back 1992 when almost half of Koreatown in LA was burnt to the ground because LAPD was overwhelmed running away from the rioters and refused to protect the thousands of law abiding citizens who had to take up arms in defense of their lives and property from the looting hoards.

Have twenty people show up on your door step to do you and your family harm with the police department no where in sight. Guarantee you'll think differently about having one of those "evil black" assault rifles with a 20 or 30 round magazine.

When large scale riots happen law enforcement sets up lines of containment. Everyone inside those lines in on their own for awhile. When your wife and kids are looking at you and you have empty hands what are you going to tell them? It's ok the police will come and help us.

I should have specified; I don't have any use for an AK47 but I am against any sort of ban on "assault weapons". If it means anything, I do have plans on buying an AR15 when I have more money in the bank.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

Yep, cause you can do a lot of assaulting with 5 rounds of 22LR...

Yeah, 'cause you'll put your eyed out, Kid!

[e30is]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

By all means. It's so entertaining knowing that the rabid anti-gunners are convinced, CONVINCED I tell you, that we only own guns so we can go on rampage and kill our fellow man or are quaking at the sure signs that martial law will be imposed any day now replete with soldiers, robo-cops and black helicopters.

Of course, the equally rabid pro-gunners who are survivalist paranoiacs really do believe in the WTSHTF stuff and are equally entertaining but give responsible gun owners a bad rep.

That's why Starbucks has chosen not to allow OCers to their stores. I don't blame starbucks entirely for this reason although it is to be noted there are people who practice OC irresponsibly and that can hurt the many responsible and competent gun owners who do not need to make a statement using their piece.