84 replies to this topic

[Chris]

Folks, remember that the San Berdo shooters got their guns illegally (straw purchase) and that the perps modified them illegally per CA law (took off the bullet buttons), Columbine shooters got their guns illegally (straw purchase), and in Sandy Hook, the perps mother failed to secure (lock up) her weapons. The only recent one I can think of is the one up in Roseburg Oregon where gun laws may have not been broken....?   I could go on and on where gun laws were broken but the criminals don't care....!  More gun laws will do nothing but prevent law abiding citizens like me, Joe, and ghost from protecting ourselves and our families.  We have way too many gun laws right now that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to figure it all out and to comply with them.   Just think for a second, what do most, if not all of these mass shootings have in common....?   They are gun free zones. Schools, government, or municipal places where guns are not allowed by law.  A janitor, a teacher, a clerk, a secretary, a ware houseman, a cook, a delivery driver, an accountant, a manager, anybody who has taken a concealed carry course and passed the proficiency test should be allowed to keep and carry a gun at their work place. This is the only new gun law we need, making "gun free" zones "gun maybe" zones.  These mass shooters are inherent cowards and seek out places of no resistance, an easy kill zone.  If the "soft" target is now maybe a "possibly hard" target they might think twice.  I think those of you on the left/progressive side of this argument must ask yourself if you need to take some responsibility for allowing these mass shootings to occur.   With your unrealistic gun laws you have created "kill zones" by creating gun free zones.  You are all very quick to blame the NRA at every instance for these mass shootings but maybe you should take a long look in the mirror and rethink your "gun free zones".  Chris

[The Average Joe]

Cars and guns are apples and oranges. About the only thing they have in common is that their danger comes from the operator.

80% of white gun deaths are suicides. Not so for cars.  I can see a car coming at me and respond. I cannot see the gun the thug is hiding in his waistband. The risk from dying is not the same depending on what segment of the population you are a member of (income, location, the people you associate with). With autos, it is a completely different set of variables (how much you drive, how good your driving skills are, maintenance of your car, areas you drive, time you drive, etc)

I've had flat tires, battery failure, starter failure, generator failure, fuel pump failure, blown head gasket, bad u joints, broken suspension, leaks, squeeks and other failures with various cars. NONE of those failures has endangered me. They have been an inconvenience at most.

Now if I had a round fail to chamber, or if I had to spend the time to clear a stovepipe, that could be deadly. Guess I shoulda stuck with revolvers...

 

I don't fear guns or automobiles. I fear idiots operating them.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris,  I'll challenge your comment regarding gun-free zones a little bit.  The mass shooting in Colo Springs in late November was not in a gun free zone.  There were two armed guards posted at the facility.  There was also an armed police officer at the Columbine shooting many years ago.  So the idea that mass shooters always pick gun free zones is a little bit of a stretch.  Here's the basic problem with gun-free zones - most mass shootings occur on private property, many at a workplace.  Since the Bill of Rights does not extend onto private property, you would have to get owners of all this private property to change their policies to allow guns.  The vast majority of companies prohibit firearms in the workplace for any number of reasons.  Getting them to rescind those policies is probably not possible.  Not sure how to resolve this. 

[Chris]

Chris,  I'll challenge your comment regarding gun-free zones a little bit.  The mass shooting in Colo Springs in late November was not in a gun free zone.  There were two armed guards posted at the facility.  There was also an armed police officer at the Columbine shooting many years ago.  So the idea that mass shooters always pick gun free zones is a little bit of a stretch.  Here's the basic problem with gun-free zones - most mass shootings occur on private property, many at a workplace.  Since the Bill of Rights does not extend onto private property, you would have to get owners of all this private property to change their policies to allow guns.  The vast majority of companies prohibit firearms in the workplace for any number of reasons.  Getting them to rescind those policies is probably not possible.  Not sure how to resolve this. 

Yep,  valid points.  Not sure either.   Chris

[Chris]

Anybody see this one yet...?   Total ban on semi auto's.....   Like take my many thousands of dollars in rifles, perhaps tens of thousands, I have collected in these past 30+ years of collecting WW1, WW2 guns, Korean War, Vietnam, and modern stuff....   All of the WW2 semi autos I have collected at great expense and research, gone, taken by government, outlawed by idiots who know nothing, never been to the range, never shot a gun, never been shot at in anger, but have an armed protection unit assigned to them.  And they keep making more "kill zones" by calling them "gun free zones" by law...?   I wish for so many things, Unicorns to be real, Mermaids, Star Wars being real (at least princess Leah and Chewbacca), that Bon Scott did not die, that Henry Fonda was still making movies, that Jimmy Hendrix was still alive, that Ronald Reagan was still riding his horse somewhere in the Santa Barbara Mountains, that I had a 68 bone stock Charger out in my garage with a 426 Hemi and Super Bee badging,  or a 70 Mach 1 Mustang with the 428CJ engine sitting there ready to be taken out and run up the hill to Camino, that I had Custers sword from the Battle of Little Bighorn in my closet, that I had Admiral Yamamoto's Katana in my closet, and that bad people would respect the "gun free zone" signs.....  None of these will happen or are real.  Never will be....   We can dream but it is not gonna happen.  I am done, I will not comply with any more gun legislation, Federal or California.  I will follow the Constitution and the Constitution alone. That's it, not sorry at all.  And there are millions like me out there.   So there...!    And remember, if you gut the second the first is soon to come.   WATCH OUT....!   As Kesey so well said.   Chris

 

https://www.congress...house-bill/4269

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris,  think about what you're saying.  Part of the definition that most gun owners use to describe themselves is a "law abiding citizen".  If you're serious about what you say, then you are no longer a "law abiding citizen".   Dangerous ground.  Hopefully, you won't find other rules of our society to be negotiable. 

[The Average Joe]

What is so disturbing is that the FACTS are irrelevant to these people. The last "assault weapon" ban had near zero effect on crime rates and statistics.  Most crime is committed with handguns (easier to conceal). Less than 3% of murders are committed with rifles of any type. But hey, they sure look scary.  Did you catch the new law in CA that your guns can be confiscated without warning OR charge if someone notifies police they think you are a hazard. While well intentioned, this new law makes a mockery of DUE PROCESS. You know, that pesky thing mentioned in the Constitution. Hypothetical. Let's say your neighbor and you have had a falling out. He fears guns, and the people who own them, and he decides he doesn't like living next door to someone with guns. He can petition the police and state that you are unreasonable and he is fearful of injury because you hate his barking dog.  Without charge, or any action on your part, a judge can provide police with a search warrant to confiscate your guns. AB1014

 

I am law abiding. Funny hing though, the government can make me a criminal through no criminal act of my own.  I will not comply with a gun forfeiture law

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Interesting ambivalence -->  "I am law abiding"  Followed by,  "I will not comply with a (fill in the blank) law".  The dangerous part --> First step into anarchy? 

 

As for "...government can make me a criminal through no criminal act of my own",  laws requiring citizens to take deliberate actions to avoid prosecution have been around for a long time.  Seatbelt law is one example.

 

Regarding AB1014, three things:

1)  Order is issued by a judge, which is "due process".

2)  Order is temporary (21 days).

3)  It's a misdemeanor to use the law to harass.

 

Look, you can own as many firearms as you want, I don't care.  But purposeful disregard for laws is problematic.  There are several ways to change laws you find disagreeable.  IMO, people should utilize tools already available to "petition the government for redress of grievances".

 

Finally, if your toga is in a knot over this stuff, just take a look at Gavin Newsome's proposed initiative (collecting signatures now).  You'll find it extremely disagreeable.   

[Chris]

Chris,  think about what you're saying.  Part of the definition that most gun owners use to describe themselves is a "law abiding citizen".  If you're serious about what you say, then you are no longer a "law abiding citizen".   Dangerous ground.  Hopefully, you won't find other rules of our society to be negotiable. 

 That is the intent of the gun grabbers, make the law confusing, complex, bewildering, hard to figure out, keep them guessing, eventually make all gun owners break the law somehow and that's when they can arrest you and take your Constitutional right to bear arms away.  Well I still am a law abiding gun owner anyway...   But if they outlaw the possession of semi auto rifles me and about 30 million other citizens will become not so law abiding instantly.   The slippery slope of making something retroactively illegal puts many a citizen in legal jeopardy.  And confiscation of property....   All 5th ammendment stuff, ex post facto law...?  Not sure of all this legal stuff but I bet a lot of lawyers will be fighting it out....   Chris

[Chris]

Finally, if your toga is in a knot over this stuff, just take a look at Gavin Newsome's proposed initiative (collecting signatures now).  You'll find it extremely disagreeable.   

Hey GoG, I think Joe's New Year resolution was to stop wearing toga's while at the keyboard, mowing his lawn, starting the barbeque, and while jogging.....   And Gavin Newsome is probably one of the bigger idiots we have in California government right now.  His proposed law would effectively ban ammo for law abiding California citizens....   And you have to agree that he is an idiot.   Anybody who would break his marriage vows by cheating on Kimberly Guilfoyle is not thinking straight, not at all.   Chris

[ghost35me]

For those who value freedom and independence, a law which infringes upon rights should not be obeyed, especially if those laws are made by the unlawful:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ntum_ad_populum

 

http://gatesofvienna...-null-and-void/

Interesting ambivalence -->  "I am law abiding"  Followed by,  "I will not comply with a (fill in the blank) law".  The dangerous part --> First step into anarchy? 

 

As for "...government can make me a criminal through no criminal act of my own",  laws requiring citizens to take deliberate actions to avoid prosecution have been around for a long time.  Seatbelt law is one example.

 

Regarding AB1014, three things:

1)  Order is issued by a judge, which is "due process".

2)  Order is temporary (21 days).

3)  It's a misdemeanor to use the law to harass.

 

Look, you can own as many firearms as you want, I don't care.  But purposeful disregard for laws is problematic.  There are several ways to change laws you find disagreeable.  IMO, people should utilize tools already available to "petition the government for redress of grievances".

 

Finally, if your toga is in a knot over this stuff, just take a look at Gavin Newsome's proposed initiative (collecting signatures now).  You'll find it extremely disagreeable.   

 

There is an assumption that the laws are: 1) lawful; 2) made according to law. No, that is not the case here. The laws are based on the emotional, illogical and unreasonable perceptions of those would would either seek to control and/or believe that compromising a little bit of freedom will result in a little bit of safety. Those people deserve neither.

[The Average Joe]

If they made a law requiring you to house soldiers in your home would you obey it? How about if they made a law that you could no longer read the Bible out loud. Or that you could no longer peacably assemble?  How about if they decided the courts were getting too backed up and decided to pass a law that threw out a jury of your peers?  The Constitution is the final word of law. I am not obligated to follow laws that attempt to counteract the rights of "We the people" protected by the Bill of Rights. Which only exists to limit the power of government, BTW. When the government attempts to exceed those limitations, it is doing so in an unlawful manner.

As for your example of seatbelt law.  That doesn't apply to retroactive use, nor is it the same as depriving one of property without charge. I also disagree with it and helmet laws, although I use both. I feel you should be free to take risks AS LONG AS you take responsibility for the  consequences.

What if the government decided no one needed more than 200 horsepower for their vehicle, and if your neighbor thought you might drive recklessly with you overpowered car, he could call it in and a judge could deprive you of your property...without you having committed a crime, and without charging you for a crime. Taking punitive action against someone for something they MIGHT do is far more problematic than civil disobedience to unlawful decrees.

 

Remember, the penalty for falsifying a report is only a misdemeanor. And a judge can extend that 21 days into a yearly extension.  You get ONE appeal per period. I can't see a judge taking the risk of allowing a "suspect" person to have their guns back. Too much potential political liability.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Ghost - a comment back to you  -  You are not the one who gets to decide which laws are "lawful" and are "made according to law".  We have a judicial system specifically designed for that purpose.  Courts, judges, and juries are tasked with making those decisions.  It's in the Constitution.

 

To others who participate in this thread, a couple comments:

 

-  When people begin to decided, on their own, which laws they will obey and which they won't, the whole thing quickly slides into anarchy.  For examples of anarchy in today's world, think Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen.  Are you ready to have the USA operate like those places?

 

- Regarding Gavin Newsome's extra-marital adventures, remember that most males have their brain embedded in the end of their penis, so dalliances of this type should be no surprise.  They seem to happen a lot.

 

-  Adding to Chris' thought...ever wonder if the whole debate is quietly being promoted by lawyers?  No doubt there will be lawsuits flying about this until the end of time.  We should rename it - the Legal Profession Full Employment Act of 2016.  (A silly idea, but stranger things have happened)

[The Average Joe]

The problem is that they have made so many laws that no one can be in complete compliance. Then you get hit with variable enforcement and that's how respect for the law falls apart. Heck, look at the lack of respect for the law our leaders have. Ignoring illegal immigration, providing sanctuary cities, allowing legalized marijuana, etc, etc. The government is no longer answerable to we the people. From the non-firable state worker milking the system, to IRS, DoJ, ATF and EPA commissioner malfeasance. Heck, even the POTUS ignores laws that don't fit his worldview. There is no consequence to these civil "servants" for ANY wrongdoing or ignoring of law.

[ghost35me]

When the system is corrupt, then the system is not relevant. I will not acknowledge that which is illegal and unjust. I'm a law abiding citizen who treasures the freedoms affirmed by the Bill of Rights. Think what you want, the system is biased against it. The past 8 years is more than ample evidence.

 

When the government stops acting petty and actually behaves in a manner consistent with the best interests of the country and its citizens, then perhaps you may have a relevant point.

 

Your examples made me chuckle. Democrats today already decide which laws they will and won't obey. Plenty of examples from the past 8 years. People who defend the Bill of Rights aren't trying to be unlawful. Although you don't see it, it's in order to keep law and order and a peaceful society.

 

I'll tell you what -- Let's talk about this when we actually have: 1) no crime, 2) no drugs, 3) no illegal immigration, 4) no terrorism, 5) integrity in an efficient government that actually works for the people, not for itself.