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.
Let me get this straight…. Emboldened criminals that are not held responsible for their crimes involving firearms AND a defunded/demoralized police force is going to lower the violent crime rates in California? Honestly, that is beyond a dumb ideal.
More gun laws in a State that already has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws isn’t the answer, but their politicians know this and it’s only another Feel Good law that doesn’t work.
But that’s a California problem and it’s up the Californians to fix it. I remember reading stories of Californians running to gun shops in LA during the 1992 riots wanting to buy guns immediately to protect themselves, but due to the laws that they supported and voted for, they had to wait 7-10 days before being able to take home that firearm…. AND they were beeching about that since it was an “emergency,” that those laws weren’t meant for “them.”
I guess in an emergency, you can always buy an axe from Home Depot or a Samurai/Viking sword, a spear or a bow and arrows!! I think as a citizen of the United States, I’d prefer a .45/9mm semi-auto pistol and a .223/5.56mm semi-auto rifle during a period of massive civil unrest.
Yup unless states set up borders. state laws will have limited impact on the stuff they are trying to regulate. This isn't rocket science and is why many people call for federal legislation.
Again I'm not debating the merits of any legislation just pointing out why the whole idea of 'state' legislation having significant impact is impaired by the inability to ontrol borders...and not advocating for that either.
Yup unless states set up borders. state laws will have limited impact on the stuff they are trying to regulate. This isn't rocket science and is why many people call for federal legislation.
Again I'm not debating the merits of any legislation just pointing out why the whole idea of 'state' legislation having significant impact is impaired by the inability to ontrol borders...and not advocating for that either.
Yup unless states set up borders. state laws will have limited impact on the stuff they are trying to regulate. This isn't rocket science and is why many people call for federal legislation.
Again I'm not debating the merits of any legislation just pointing out why the whole idea of 'state' legislation having significant impact is impaired by the inability to ontrol borders...and not advocating for that either.
So it's not being able to control the borders that is the issue....hmmm. So, criminals only ignore state laws, but won't at the federal level ?
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.
