California ignoring the 2nd Amendment yet again

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Srsly, dat gubbernment be taking your god-given rights away, Schneiderguy. Time for you to put your guns to use and fight the power. Take your well regulated militia buddies and reclaim 'Merica. That's what you have the guns for in the first place, right? To ensure your freedoms? Time to put up or shut up.

Makes me wonder. How far would a government have to go in this day and age to have the people of a 1st world country rebel?
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,550
940
126
While I'm not sure what this legislation is supposed to accomplish I have a hard time caring that I will no longer be able to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun around.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Makes me wonder. How far would a government have to go in this day and age to have the people of a 1st world country rebel?

The government would own any insurrection almost instantly. The unbalance in force and training would overwhelm any superior number by white trash in fly over states.

A militia to fight back is a dream that died along with the musket.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
HAY. I wonder what would have happened if someone had been carrying a loaded gun in the theater in Aurora on that night. You know, maybe the massacre would have instead been limited to say...injuries only. Or less deaths. Oh, wait. I'm using logic, and proposing ideas. Whoops, I'll stop that now.

Only effect would have been if such a person was within 20-30 ft of the shooter. Otherwise it would have been additional bullets being sprayed around by the shooter responding to gunfire, rather than just targeting the shots.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Totally fine with this. I see no need for anyone to be openly carrying a firearm in a public place. If you want to hunt, fine. If you want to have a gun in your house to protect your family, fine. But let's stop pretending that we're stopping violent crime by letting people carry loaded weapons in public.

The less guns there are on the streets and the more difficult it is to obtain one the better.

There are countless thousands of Americans like myself that have had to defend ourselves in public with our firearm. You don't read about us in the news because in most circumstances (as in my case) simply reaching for or displaying your weapon is enough to prevent yourself from being a victim. * And yes, I would have shot him.

Tell you what... You can take away my right to own and carry when you give up one of your cherished rights.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
The government would own any insurrection almost instantly. The unbalance in force and training would overwhelm any superior number by white trash in fly over states.

A militia to fight back is a dream that died along with the musket.

See Iraq...Now do you see where you are wrong?
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
You're right, let's argue more about vagina rights and how Romney can't remember when he met his wife. Those are much more relevant than lawmakers creating laws that blatantly ignore the Constitution.

I see, so protecting gun rights, which affects a minority of the US population, to laws affecting women, who represent a majority of the US population, are more important? Not too mention of that percentage who own guns how many want to carry them in public?

Right.

Regardless, the Supreme Court already has given numerous rulings on these types of laws, so you can go to bed tonight (with a pistol under your pillow I assume) knowing it will get overturned.

But go ahead, engage in hyperbole and false outrage over an anachronistic poorly worded constitutional right which has zero effect in a modern civilized society.

Cheers.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,458
6,689
126
California city dwellers are a lot like the folk in England, they don't have gun psychosis religion. In most areas where folk are well off, nobody owns or thinks about guns any more than they do bows and arrows or flint and steel or raccoon hats. I am not a normal Californian, mind you. I like want or practice all of the above but I'm a hoarder and like to collect things and I like acquiring survival skills. You never know when the Republicans will finally destroy the nation.

But anyway, without a gun psychosis, and the altered reality fear and fantasy that a gun is any day now going to save you and your bacon, people don't exercise and stimulate their 'fear of gun loss' neurons that gun psychotic has formed by the billions.

So, when gun rights are restricted, normal folk in the state don't give a shit because they don't own them, don't want to, and never even think about the issue. It, therefore, does not exist. Either the world will devolve to the place where everybody is going to have to kill many many times a day to survive, or evolve to a point where personal safety from the violence of others will become a non issue.

But what really terrifies a psycho, gun psychos included, is the idea that the person standing next to him is not similarly mentally diseased. He only feels save when he thinks he has herd immunity, everybody around him also carries a gun, so when the terrorist breaks into the room, his head will instantly explode in lead.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
This is silly...vastly different societies in vastly differing states. False equivalence.

But you knew that already.

Tell you what... see Syria or any other "Arab Spring" nation and ask yourself the same thing.

Vastly different societies, true. I agree there, but the motivations become the same. That's ok though, you can go back to your false sense of utopia that you live in where the unexpected never happens.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally Posted by WackyDan View Post
See Iraq...Now do you see where you are wrong?
This is silly...vastly different societies in vastly differing states. False equivalence.

But you knew that already.

I disagree.

The factors that make fighting an insurgency difficult exist here as well. We wouldn't be wearing uniforms, we have access to arms, access to explosives and bomb making capability, access to even more technology etc. Pretty much all the tactics employed in those places would be employed here: sniper fire, hit and run type raids, ambushes, disruption to supply depots and lines etc.

One significant difference I do see, and it's in the insurgents favor, is the likelihood of many in our military having a serious reluctance to fight and kill fellow Americans. I think this could vary significantly based upon the perception of the insurgents (are they defending the Constitution or trying to overturn democracy for communism etc.). In fact, I could see portions of the military helping the insurgents, whether clandestine or outright, if the circumstances were right.

Fern