are new gun laws really what the people of CA want? (live in, versus)

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Ted Kennedys car killed more people than any of my guns.

You seem to have gotten tripped up on your Demarcate-phobia, again.
Was it his car or his drunk driving that killed? If you believe his car killed then you must believe guns kill. LOL

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

There is an expressed right to travel. The means by which you choose to travel may be regulated. For example if you choose to travel at 100 miles per hour in an area where the speed limit is 60, the government may wish to talk with you, despite your 1st Amendment right "peaceably to assemble".

This is the most paper thin, non-nonsensical, argument for regulation of the 1st (or 2nd) amendment I've ever read. Is anyone else reading this and laughing? There is no right to drive a car, it is a government regulated privilege and has been for nearly 100 years. The right to "own a car" is not implied by the 1st amendment.

Common sense. I'm just asking for common sense regarding firearms. Perhaps it is too much to ask from a gun nut like yourself.

I don't even own a SINGLE semi-automatic rifle smart guy. But I know the difference between what is defined as a constitutional right, and what is not. The Constitution of the United States explicitly mentions "arms", but it does not mention cars (or horses).

I advocate neither banning ownership of cars nor banning of all firearms. Please refrain from your cookie cutter replies that do not apply to my position on the issue.

No you just advocate the banning of semi-auto rifles, some of the most common firearms in use today.

But let's get back on topic, I love exposing the ideological inconsistencies of people (I find joy in it actually).

You claim to want to ban semi-auto rifles because they are capable of killing "a lot" of people. But according to FBI and CDC data, rifles only accounted for 285 homicides in 2013. Handguns accounted for nearly 6,000 homicides.

Why aren't you advocating for a handgun ban? They kill thousands more than semi-auto rifles. If your stance is based on the premise of preventing homicide, why rifles and not handguns?

[JamesFenway]

They really need to be restrictive in using gun.

[sickofhumidity]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Why aren't you advocating for a handgun ban? They kill thousands more than semi-auto rifles. If your stance is based on the premise of preventing homicide, why rifles and not handguns?

Thank you. I have been reading this whole conversation and just don't understand the perspective of the anti-rifle people at all.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You claim to want to ban semi-auto rifles because they are capable of killing "a lot" of people. But according to FBI and CDC data, rifles only accounted for 285 homicides in 2013.

And unfortunately, plenty more homicides since then.
The AR-15-style rifle: a popular seller tainted by mass murder - LA Times

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

And unfortunately, plenty more homicides since then.
The AR-15-style rifle: a popular seller tainted by mass murder - LA Times

Fists have caused more killings since then, blunt objects, hell pools have killed over ten times as many people as rifles every year.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

This is the most paper thin, non-nonsensical, argument for regulation of the 1st (or 2nd) amendment I've ever read. Is anyone else reading this and laughing? There is no right to drive a car, it is a government regulated privilege and has been for nearly 100 years. The right to "own a car" is not implied by the 1st amendment.

The right to travel freely is implied by the Constitution. See for example:

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens, US Supreme Court

The “right to travel” discussed in our cases embraces at least three different components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.

It was the right to go from one place to another, including the right to cross state borders while en route, that was vindicated in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), which invalidated a state law that impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent.

The second component of the right to travel is, however, expressly protected by the text of the Constitution. The first sentence of Article IV, §2, provides: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Thus, by virtue of a person’s state citizenship, a citizen of one State who travels in other States, intending to return home at the end of his journey, is entitled to enjoy the “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” that he visits.

SAENZ V. ROE, 1999 US Supreme Court Decision.

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:

I don't even own a SINGLE semi-automatic rifle smart guy.

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.

No you just advocate the banning of semi-auto rifles, some of the most common firearms in use today.

I doubt semiauto rifles are very common, given the data you cite below.

You claim to want to ban semi-auto rifles because they are capable of killing "a lot" of people. But according to FBI and CDC data, rifles only accounted for 285 homicides in 2013. Handguns accounted for nearly 6,000 homicides. Why aren't you advocating for a handgun ban?

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.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Fists have caused more killings since then, blunt objects, hell pools have killed over ten times as many people as rifles every year.

Hands, blunt objects and pools are weapons? Do I have to treat a pool like its loaded? Do I have to be careful where I point a pool?

A firearm is a weapon. It is intrinsically dangerous by design. It is intended to destroy targets and cause potentially lethal damage to humans.

When I was in the Navy, and I relieved the topside watch, we didn't say "I have positive control of the harmless tool akin to a screwdriver."

We said "I have positive control of THE WEAPON."

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by sickofhumidity

Thank you. I have been reading this whole conversation and just don't understand the perspective of the anti-rifle people at all.

I'm not against rifles for civilians. I'm against semiauto and full auto rifles for civilians.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

The right to travel freely is implied by the Constitution. See for example:



SAENZ V. ROE, 1999 US Supreme Court Decision.

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.

I don't see anywhere in that summary where "car ownership" is argued as implicit to the 1st amendment. Why do you keep lying?

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.

You claim to have served as a sailor on a submarine. So you got to use a fully automatic rifle in an enclosed sub 1000 ft below the sea?

I doubt semiauto rifles are very common, given the data you cite below.

Wrong again. Can't you find actual facts before you clumsily type on your keyboard the first ignorant thought that floats through your head? There are an estimated 110 million rifles in the United States of which it's estimated by the FBI that 40% of them are of the semi-auto variety. That would mean 50,000,000 semi-auto rifles of various makes and configurations. There are an estimated 5-6 million AR15s in private civilian hands and that number is growing.

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.

Okay so you're only concerned about "mass shootings" but not "homicides", makes zero sense, but I'm sure you will explain yourself.

So you only care about the 50 people who died in a mass shooting by an islamic terrorist but you don't care about the 5700 people who are killed by handguns. Why? Explain why 285 > 5700 in your mind.

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).

I agree with the general argument that it should be harder for psychos to get guns. But disagree with your PRIMARY solution to ban all semi-auto rifles.

The guy at Sandyhook illegally broke into his mother's safe, and stole the firearm. He didn't purchase it, he wasn't given the firearm directly to commit a murder by anyone, he simply stole the gun. There are laws against stealing firearms in all 50 states.