A federal judge has ruled that California's decade-old assault weapons ban is unconstitutional

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
One more thing, aren't you the one that said this? Yup, it was you.



Uh huh.
.

Yea, I recanted the part about insults two posts later when I realized the level of stupid I was dealing with.

Which is probably why you did not link to that thread? Nothing like context to screw up your quotes, eh?


oh, and saying black people are more violent because they are black is racism. It is something only a racist like you would believe. The rest of us understand that republican politician's and the religious right have intentionally created the conditions of systemic racism with the express goal of yielding that result.


But, hey, if you want to pretend your not a racist piece of shit because it makes you feel better, nobody is going to stop you. But make no mistake, your living in a fantasy that is either going to catch up to you, or your kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
99.999% of gun owners have never nor will ever use their guns to hurt another person.

You're mistaking people who are mentally ill who have easy access to guns with gun owners. That's your bad.

You really believe that only people in the US with guns should be the military run by Commander-in-Chief Josh Hawley and the Minneapolis Police Department ?

What is YOUR plan to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns? Spell it out here. You have all the time in the world to explain how it happens and why it wouldn't cause a civil war between individuals and the Federal Government, and between States and the Federal Government.

If your argument is that fuck it, let's just get the civil war over with already, then say so, it's 100% legitimate. Just spell it out, otherwise it's word salad to say you want to "ban" guns, or confiscate guns, etc. Because I'm just saying what is 100% obvious: ITS. NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

Harping on about banning guns is a waste of time and yes, COSTS VOTES. No one is a Republican voter or non-voter who hears "we're going to confiscate everyone's guns" and runs out to vote Democrat.

There is too much stupid going on with this post and I'm not wasting time reading it
Do you not know what "represented" means?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Yea, I recanted the part about insults two posts later when I realized the level of stupid I was dealing with.

Which is probably why you did not link to that thread? Nothing like context to screw up your quotes, eh?


oh, and saying black people are more violent because they are black is racism. It is something only a racist like you would believe. The rest of us understand that republican politician's and the religious right have intentionally created the conditions of systemic racism with the express goal of yielding that result.


But, hey, if you want to pretend your not a racist piece of shit because it makes you feel better, nobody is going to stop you. But make no mistake, your living in a fantasy that is either going to catch up to you, or your kids.

Can't dispute my links and their content, pull the "sooooooooooooooo rrrraaaacccciiiissstttt" card, eh?

My links were from the TV news stations (one mid size and one large city). The data and statements I posted were from THEM, are you going to call them racists too?


oh, and saying black people are more violent because they are black....
^^^^^^^^^^^ YOU said it. Own it. Don't try to spin it cupcake. :D

Funny how you REMOVED the important parts of my post and have the NERVE to demand full context...LOL. Another perfect example of do what you say and not as you do.


Keep yelling "shitholes" "moron". You do what you do best.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,562
136
Liar liar pants on fire.


Turns out once you index it per capita, the republican shitholes have much higher murder rates.


CA is 29 out of 50, and has a murder rate 1/3rd that of republican shitholes like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alaska.


Since s0me0nesmind1 is clearly a drooling moron who has never had an original thought I will point out the obvious.
If you only have a 10 people living in a republican shithole, and 1 is murdered, your murder rate per capita is much higher
then a well governed democratic area that has 100 people living in it, and has 2 murders.
He said crime, not murder. I don't see how crime in California can even be measured, as several things have been decriminalized.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
What is YOUR plan to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns? Spell it out here.

I do not know if you have noticed, but when the police show up at a domestic violence call, they always confiscate all the guns. Been doing it for decades. They do not wait for a guilty conviction, they just do it.

It really is as simple as that. Ban them and wait for the the felons to run into someone who enforces the law.


You see, the police did not set out to confiscate all those guns. They just do it as part of their job, every day, in America. And nobody says anything at all about it.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
He said crime, not murder. I don't see how crime in California can even be measured, as several things have been decriminalized.

Are you seriously arguing marijuana should be re-criminalized?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Are you seriously arguing marijuana should be re-criminalized?

How do you continue to strawman to this magnitude? I didn't know it was possible - you should see about record-keeping. Maybe there is some kind of organization for morons that can't debate that keeps records of that kind of thing?
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
How do you continue to strawman to this magnitude? I didn't know it was possible - you should see about record-keeping. Maybe there is some kind of organization for morons that can't debate that keeps records of that kind of thing?

Your the moron claiming CA crime rate cannot be compared to "insert republican shithole here" because CA does not consider things republicans consider to be crimes to be criminal.

My point is if the republicans have passed stupid laws that making harmless things criminal, why should we give them a break for stupidity? Prohibition failed back in the last century for the same reason. People ignore stupid laws.

You republicans just keep trying reimplement prohibition over and over, because your just to dumb to learn. It drives your crime rates and violence through the roof. How is CA to blame for your incompetence?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Don't worry, guys. I'm sure the wave of Constitutional carry laws in Republican land will help them control gun violence in their Democrat run cities. You betcha.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
There is too much stupid going on with this post and I'm not wasting time reading it
Do you not know what "represented" means?
Did I use words to explain how you saying that any gun owner is "represented" by gun nutters doesn't make sense?

That's OK, waste your own time responding to it without responding to it.

Brilliant move.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Your the moron claiming CA crime rate cannot be compared to "insert republican shithole here" because CA does not consider things republicans consider to be crimes to be criminal.

My point is if the republicans have passed stupid laws that making harmless things criminal, why should we give them a break for stupidity? Prohibition failed back in the last century for the same reason. People ignore stupid laws.

You republicans just keep trying reimplement prohibition over and over, because your just to dumb to learn. It drives your crime rates and violence through the roof. How is CA to blame for your incompetence?

You're*
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
I think the only way to institute a legal license to own an assault rifle is that all applicants should participate in a Running-Man like contest, where only 1 of 20 participants survives, and is awarded the license.
 

yottabit

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2008
1,491
522
146
what about a BIG tax on guns & ammo? use the proceeds to fund mental health programs, funds for victims of gun violence, etc. this is one thing I've never really seen proposed. in the usa it seems we have the best luck doing everything economically in our "free" market

with a large tax all of a sudden it may not be profitable for many manufacturers and they'll have to make tough decisions about which product lines to support. "assault" rifles and other high cap could be taxed higher than any other category (similar to the 'gas guzzler' tax). lowest capacity firearms taxed the least (bolt action rifle, hunting shotgun, revolver/single stack handguns)

continuing with the gas guzzler theme, there could be a "cash for clunkers" style optional buyback program for high capacity. anything to start bringing down the total number of guns, at least under 1 per capita seems like a good target lol

Mental health programs and background check process is obviously crucial and perhaps the more important issue. But I think with SUCH an abundance of supply, it will be far too easy for the people who have mental health crises to access a high capacity firearm. everybody knows somebody that has an AR or a Glock

I don't understand how people try to (with a straight face) act like a tricked out AR is not more deadly (and crucially, confidence inspiring for someone who is actually considering doing something very stupid) than if they only had access to say bolt action hunting rifle or a revolver.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,119
10,945
136
what about a BIG tax on guns & ammo? use the proceeds to fund mental health programs, funds for victims of gun violence, etc. this is one thing I've never really seen proposed. in the usa it seems we have the best luck doing everything economically in our "free" market

with a large tax all of a sudden it may not be profitable for many manufacturers and they'll have to make tough decisions about which product lines to support. "assault" rifles and other high cap could be taxed higher than any other category (similar to the 'gas guzzler' tax). lowest capacity firearms taxed the least (bolt action rifle, hunting shotgun, revolver/single stack handguns)

continuing with the gas guzzler theme, there could be a "cash for clunkers" style optional buyback program for high capacity. anything to start bringing down the total number of guns, at least under 1 per capita seems like a good target lol

Mental health programs and background check process is obviously crucial and perhaps the more important issue. But I think with SUCH an abundance of supply, it will be far too easy for the people who have mental health crises to access a high capacity firearm. everybody knows somebody that has an AR or a Glock

I don't understand how people try to (with a straight face) act like a tricked out AR is not more deadly (and crucially, confidence inspiring for someone who is actually considering doing something very stupid) than if they only had access to say bolt action hunting rifle or a revolver.

The defense isn't whether a semi-auto is more deadly than a revolver or bolt action (i think everyone would agree to that).

It has to do with which models are or are not banned. If I recall correctly, CA banned many firearms by name, which meant you might not be able to own a Colt AR-15, but you could own a Bob's Rifle Inc. 5.56mm (which would be entirely equivalent for all intents an purposes).

The other thing is that hunting rifles typically have a wood stock, so many people view anything with a wood stock as a "hunting rifle" while something that's anodized black is an "assault weapon". Many manufacturers will make the same firearm in both styles - so the wood stock AR-15 appears less deadly than an all-black AR-15, despite both being functionally identical.
So the gun crowd then says "you're scared of one of these things but not the other despite the fact that they're equally exactly the same". I've made such arguments here in the past (or debated the merits of what constitutes varying degrees of deadliness among firearms...not a good look in hindsight).
.
Howver, one is absolutely more intimidating than the other given one style's profilic use in military and law enforcement. I imagine that's why bayonets are banned. It's the terror aspect as opposed to the idea that someone would actually bother to stab a person with a bayonet when they could simply shoot them.

Personally, my take is to ban all semi-auto firearms, period (ignoring the option of scrapping the 2A altogether, that is). It will never happen of course. Or I wouldn't expect it in my lifetime at least.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
The defense isn't whether a semi-auto is more deadly than a revolver or bolt action (i think everyone would agree to that).

It has to do with which models are or are not banned. If I recall correctly, CA banned many firearms by name, which meant you might not be able to own a Colt AR-15, but you could own a Bob's Rifle Inc. 5.56mm (which would be entirely equivalent for all intents an purposes).

The other thing is that hunting rifles typically have a wood stock, so many people view anything with a wood stock as a "hunting rifle" while something that's anodized black is an "assault weapon". Many manufacturers will make the same firearm in both styles - so the wood stock AR-15 appears less deadly than an all-black AR-15, despite both being functionally identical.
So the gun crowd then says "you're scared of one of these things but not the other despite the fact that they're equally exactly the same". I've made such arguments here in the past (or debated the merits of what constitutes varying degrees of deadliness among firearms...not a good look in hindsight).
.
Howver, one is absolutely more intimidating than the other given one style's profilic use in military and law enforcement. I imagine that's why bayonets are banned. It's the terror aspect as opposed to the idea that someone would actually bother to stab a person with a bayonet when they could simply shoot them.

Personally, my take is to ban all semi-auto firearms, period (ignoring the option of scrapping the 2A altogether, that is). It will never happen of course. Or I wouldn't expect it in my lifetime at least.
Sort of like racism to judge a gun's deadliness by appearances. California and their damn gun Nazis imposing their inability to see reality on me. Gun discrimination is fine by them. In the name of their certainty about what what is scary, they act like the bigots they are, absolutely sure they know what is right. What is really frightening is those horrifying crossbows or catapults that can take your head off with a pumpkin traveling a thousand miles per hour.