Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (compare, votes, Senate, gun owners)

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by user_id

It doesn't maintain anything, the masses vastly outnumber the ruling class....the masses don't need guns to veto the ruling class....they need unity and guns don't provide that.

So far guns have just been a good tool to get working-class Americans to support policies that enrich the elite (political or otherwise). Not that I mind.....

User you are back!! Good to hear from you...

I agree with the part about being used as a tool. to manipulate votes... (I know from first hand experience... When I was younger I let single issues such as gun control affect my voting....) Though I am a strong gun advocate, I do not vote on that issue alone anymore now that I grew up...

Veto: Yes unity is needed first and foremost! This angers me deeply that they have divided the people on hot button issues like guns, gays, god... Not good for us as a society or as a nation..

What about when negotiation fails? Then what...
----------------
IMO all this Hyperbole can boil down to what was the intent of the Second Amendment? I personally feel the relevance of it is just as important today as it was back when it was drafted..

No superpower (Yes the ones with nuclear bombs and fighter jets) has ever won a war against an armed/unified/determined population.!!!!... We could not win Korea, we could not win Vietnam. Russia tried to win in Afganastan for decades they could not, we tried and could not....Israel with all its power, can not put down the will of the Palestinians... On and on and on throughout history.....

A armed population can not be oppressed against their will.. The founders knew this! The Swiss know this, so to the Finns... America knows this now and hence the reason we use techniques other than force to control other nations AND US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To remain Free we must remain Armed and Unified and Determined as citizens....

Heed ole Ben Franklin's words folks....!

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

The stink of fear is heavy in this thread with those that would seek to control, limit and remove the natural rights of others.

The "stink of fear"? You really believe that?

Nobody's trying to remove your natural rights. You already have your guns. No one will be able--or want to--remove guns from current gun owners; it will never happen. Proposed legislation is just that: proposed.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

The "stink of fear"? You really believe that?

Nobody's trying to remove your natural rights. You already have your guns. No one will be able--or want to--remove guns from current gun owners; it will never happen. Proposed legislation is just that: proposed.

I could carry concealed before "proposed" legislation that has ensured I cannot.

I could unloaded open carry a firearm to my truck safe before "proposed" legislation made me a criminal for doing it.

All law, no matter how bs, start as proposals. I'm more concerned they will push many of those proposals through and it becomes law while being sorted out in the courts and removed.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Funny you make your opinions known-they get countered and you refuse to acknowledge them. That sounds pretty typical of many antis I've discussed this with. They say something -they are countered or asked to back up their position and they just refuse to answer. I guess it's because they have no rational answer. They just like to call people names.
On another forum I was asking another anti gun person who kept making blanket statements about how bad guns were about the few times last month where intruders broke into their home and the woman shot them. In one case the intruder was chasing her kids trying to get to them. I asked her if a few armed intruders break into her home while her husband was gone what she would do to protect herself and her children. Since she didn't believe in guns did she think she could hide? Run away? Talk them into leaving? She had absolutely no response to this question.

Instead she started another thread bashing gun owners and provided a link to backup her post. I followed the link and actually read it. It turned out it wasn't what she said at all which made her look like a fool. C'mon-if you provide a link to back your comment up, at least read what the source says to make sure you know what you are talking about. Instead she just makes random posts about how bad guns are.

More than one person here addressed your comment and you just chose to ignore them rather than defend your point of view. I guess we are all stupid as you say compared to you.

As far as you saying the moderator will do something to you because of what you said, that is just plain silly. It makes you look like you are a hurt victim and that you can't make a statement because you will be punished for it. I haven't seen anything in this thread to come close to involving a moderator getting involved.

Nope, what I don't do is repeat the same things over and over. I've given my reasons for saying what I say already. I refuse to go on for 7 paragraphs. There are others who are more than happy to fill that role.

As for "hurt victim". Nah, that was completely not the reason I said that. You should know who you're talking to a little better before you speculate why they may have said certain things.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Stick to this thread. And because someone is for gun control, it does not mean they're anti-gun. Watch your labels.



Didn't see that poster call anyone a name.

Thank you. I am not anti gun. Reasonable firearms aren't an issue. Crazy people can't slaughter many at once with them and they are very likely not to bother if they can't pop out rounds quickly.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Control is used to assuage fear. The stink of fear is heavy in this thread with those that would seek to control, limit and remove the natural rights of others.

Course correction: here is a list of all the current State Senate and Assembly bills for 2013 related to this thread.

California 2013-2014 | Firearms Policy Coalition

Interesting. Most of these seem to be opposed by democrats. We know the GOP minority will oppose them. Perhaps it's not as dire as you think?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

The "stink of fear"? You really believe that?

Nobody's trying to remove your natural rights. You already have your guns. No one will be able--or want to--remove guns from current gun owners; it will never happen. Proposed legislation is just that: proposed.

Yeah, the fear is displayed by people like him. I don't know why they think someone is going to come and take what they already have. The only way that could ever happen is if those guns were used in some crime. Bulldog strikes me as a law abiding person so he need not worry.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Thank you. I am not anti gun. Reasonable firearms aren't an issue. Crazy people can't slaughter many at once with them and they are very likely not to bother if they can't pop out rounds quickly.

You know, i had a feeling you were quite uninformed. Now I am sure of it.
What in the world is a reasonable firearm?
LOL, almost all modern guns are semi-automatic firing...
The firing action is the same on this crazy looking 'unreasonable' firearm :

and this 'reasonable' 'innocent' looking handgun :


THus, they fire at the same 'crazy' rate... Also, handgun calibers are often higher and thus their rounds do far more lethal damage.... More people died falling out of bed than by those menacing scary rifles last year.
More people died in chicago than afghanistan since the start of the war by 'handguns'...

Are people really that uninformed and ignorant still on how guns actually work? And gun statistics?

OMGAHHHH .. It's 'bigger' so it must be DANGEROUS ...
It's easier to wrestle a rifle out of someone's hand than it is a handgun and it takes less than a second to reload w/ basic practice.

The most dangerous thing I find in this world is ignorance and there seems to be a lot of it to go round'.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Stick to this thread. And because someone is for gun control, it does not mean they're anti-gun. Watch your labels.



Didn't see that poster call anyone a name.

Because you probably didn't read the whole thread. Post 49 the poster calls people retards for their beliefs. She then says what I posted and another person posted was stupid.

In my opinion if they are for controlling guns by taking away certain guns that are already legally owned by hundreds of thousands of people then they are anti gun. Taking away certain guns is the beginning of taking them all away.

As far as sticking to the thread I and the other poster countered what they said with what I believe to be to be a good arguement. Instead of of countering back they ignored the point and said what we posted was stupid. How is that not staying on topic when all we did was respond to their statement?

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by yeahthatguy

You know, i had a feeling you were quite uninformed. Now I am sure of it.
What in the world is a reasonable firearm?
LOL, almost all modern guns are semi-automatic firing...
The firing action is the same on this crazy looking 'unreasonable' firearm :

and this 'reasonable' 'innocent' looking handgun :


THus, they fire at the same 'crazy' rate... Also, handgun calibers are often higher and thus their rounds do far more lethal damage.... More people died falling out of bed than by those menacing scary rifles last year.
More people died in chicago than afghanistan since the start of the war by 'handguns'...

Are people really that uninformed and ignorant still on how guns actually work? And gun statistics?

OMGAHHHH .. It's 'bigger' so it must be DANGEROUS ...
It's easier to wrestle a rifle out of someone's hand than it is a handgun and it takes less than a second to reload w/ basic practice.

The most dangerous thing I find in this world is ignorance and there seems to be a lot of it to go round'.

Thank you for posting this. If someone is against guns and has full knowledge of what they are talking about then fine, let's talk.

But when they don't have the correct info and start spouting off statements that aren't true based on misconceptions, then that isn't right. All they are doing is spreading misinformation.

You can have a 30 round mag in a little handgun and take out 30 people just as well as a "scary black rifle" holding 30 rounds. But it is easier to promote fear by only taking select bits of info and waving them around.