Senator Leland Yee trying to ban more CA guns

[Deleted member 4644]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/577593_.html


SB249 -- bans all AR15s in CA

This is a bill trying to fix something that isn't really a problem.

 

[Lithium381]

never waste a tragedy is the politicians mantra right? it will get lots of support on the tail of the deaths in CO

 

[schneiderguy]

The worst thing about this bill is that it doesn't even give the owner compensation for seized rifles. You surrender them to the gubberment or you go to jail.

 

[Jaskalas]

The worst thing about this bill is that it doesn't even give the owner compensation for seized rifles. You surrender them to the gubberment or you go to jail.

Americans enjoy marching towards the North Korean style police state.

 

[Subyman]

Americans enjoy marching towards the North Korean style police state.

A little dramatic, yeah? I guess we will sprint right past the rest of the western world and end up right at where NK is? Most countries do not allow civilians to own these types of weapons. I'm not for this bill, but comments like these are over the top.

 

[schneiderguy]

A little dramatic, yeah? I guess we will sprint right past the rest of the western world and end up right at where NK is? Most countries do not allow civilians to own these types of weapons. I'm not for this bill, but comments like these are over the top.

Most countries also do not let their citizens have the freedom of speech that we do. Let's just repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments so we can be just like them :thumbsup:

Also, to clarify the OP - AR15s with detachable magazines in a traditional configuration (with pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider) are already illegal in CA. What people have done is make a "bullet button" device which renders the magazine non-detachable under CA law. The way the law is written, only rifles with both a detachable magazine AND the "evil features" like a pistol grip are illegal, so rifles with evil features and a "bullet button" magazine lock are legal. This bill is trying to ban the neutered bullet buttoned rifles.

It will still allow for rifles in the opposite configuration ("featureless" with detachable magazines), like the rifle below:

Note the lack of collapsible stock, pistol grip, and flash hider. The magazine can be dropped like normal in this configuration. If you swapped the stock on this rifle to one that is adjustable to fit different sized shooters it would become an "assault weapon" and get you sent to jail on felony weapons charges. Just shows how ridiculous this law is.

 

[Jaskalas]

A little dramatic, yeah? I guess we will sprint right past the rest of the western world and end up right at where NK is? Most countries do not allow civilians to own these types of weapons. I'm not for this bill, but comments like these are over the top.

I find it more factual than dramatic. I did we say are marching there. Step by step. The destination obviously not fully realized.

You limit your view to a single issue, broaden it to include Patriot Acts, warrantless surveillance, lethal SWAT break ins to the wrong address, lynch mobs for self defense, sexual abuse for the audacity to travel, pay to play, war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror. All wars on the American people to bend them over.

Look at our prison population, and tell me you're still proud. We're not far removed from base animals driven by our fears and acting accordingly to size / control / harm those around us.

If our power makes us great, our use of it makes us monsters.

 

[OCGuy]

This will never happen. These debates kick up after any shooting, and promptly disappear after a week. Thankfully we have a quick news cycle.

 

[Lithium381]

we're the greatest nation on earth because we did something different than everyone else: we gave citizens RIGHTS and LIMITED the government. Now alls i hear is "oh well country XX is doing it so we should too!"

 

[a777pilot]

If these idiots want to see what happens if they institute general gun control and keep normal citizens from owning private guns, just look south. Hey, mexico, how's that gun control working for ya?

What? Only 50,000 dead in the drug wars. Great!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Best thing is to hammer at the sponsors financial base and flood them all with calls. Want to see a politician back down? Threaten his war chest.

 

[Rainsford]

If these idiots want to see what happens if they institute general gun control and keep normal citizens from owning private guns, just look south. Hey, mexico, how's that gun control working for ya?

What? Only 50,000 dead in the drug wars. Great!

A more peaceful country without widespread gun ownership could easily make the same argument AGAINST gun ownership using the US as an example. We have a ridiculous amount of gun (and other) violence in this country despite being ridiculously pro-gun ownership. Taking away guns might not work, but making sure everyone can buy assault rifles doesn't appear to be working all that well either.

 

[Rainsford]

never waste a tragedy is the politicians mantra right? it will get lots of support on the tail of the deaths in CO

I don't mean to point out the obvious, but using cases like this to talk about gun control is hardly unfairly exploiting the situation. Whatever you think about gun rights in general, a crazy person shooting up a movie theater with multiple weapons he was easily and legally about to obtain is certainly a good example of the problems with extremely permissive gun ownership rights.

Now that's not the same as saying cases like this prove we shouldn't have the right to own guns, but it should certainly be part of the debate.

 

[Rainsford]

we're the greatest nation on earth because we did something different than everyone else: we gave citizens RIGHTS and LIMITED the government. Now alls i hear is "oh well country XX is doing it so we should too!"

I can be proud to be an American without having to pretend we were the first or the only nation to have rights for our citizens or limit the government or that there is nothing we could possibly learn from any other country on Earth.

 

[a777pilot]

A more peaceful country without widespread gun ownership could easily make the same argument AGAINST gun ownership using the US as an example. We have a ridiculous amount of gun (and other) violence in this country despite being ridiculously pro-gun ownership. Taking away guns might not work, but making sure everyone can buy assault rifles doesn't appear to be working all that well either.

So you do not believe in the Second Amendment.

What about the First Amendment? Do you believe in that one?

Besides that, no one needs government approval or permission to protect them self or their family.

 

[a777pilot]

I can be proud to be an American without having to pretend we were the first or the only nation to have rights for our citizens or limit the government or that there is nothing we could possibly learn from any other country on Earth.

Name a free and democratic Republic in 1787.

 

[rayfieldclement]

I hope we don't follow Europe into gun control.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is idiotic hysteria and pandering.

The Batman shooter carefully planned his attack over several months. Since he had decided to murder a theater full of people he wouldn't have been stopped by not being able to legally buy an assault rifle.

I doubt he'd have been stopped if he had no access to guns at all -- he'd probably have used gas, explosives, or fire accelerants instead. This was a Ph.D student not a crackhead gang-banger.

You can even argue that if the theater had not banned patrons carrying guns, one of the victims might have fired back.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is idiotic hysteria and pandering.

The Batman shooter carefully planned his attack over several months. Since he had decided to murder a theater full of people he wouldn't have been stopped by not being able to legally buy an assault rifle.

I doubt he'd have been stopped if he had no access to guns at all -- he'd probably have used gas, explosives, or fire accelerants instead. This was a Ph.D student not a crackhead gang-banger.

You can even argue that if the theater had not banned patrons carrying guns, one of the victims might have fired back.

Indeed. This is not the example an intelligent person would want to cite. The apartment boobytraps certainly didn't require an AR- 15. Off the top of my head I can think of several ways to inflict more destruction (which I won't mention) with little trouble. I would think at least some of them occurred to him.

 

[a777pilot]

The "9/11" murders had no guns.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't mean to point out the obvious, but using cases like this to talk about gun control is hardly unfairly exploiting the situation. Whatever you think about gun rights in general, a crazy person shooting up a movie theater with multiple weapons he was easily and legally about to obtain is certainly a good example of the problems with extremely permissive gun ownership rights.

Now that's not the same as saying cases like this prove we shouldn't have the right to own guns, but it should certainly be part of the debate.

The issue really isn't the gun though. If he would have went in there with 4 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelli_M4 each with a 2 round extender tube on it and firing #00 buckshot I am quite sure the bodycount would be significantly higher. Throw in a few handguns for when he fires all 28 shotgun shells and the entire situation doesn't really change.

The fact is this guy was fucking crazy and hell bent on killing people. That wouldn't have changed, nor would the situation ended "better", had he not been able to buy an evil black rifle. Hell, if he was firing slugs from the shotgun you are almost guaranteed 1 dead for every hit.

Instead of having a talk about guns we need to be having a talk about batshit fucking crazy people and how to identify them before they do batshit fucking crazy stuff.

 

[Rainsford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainsford View Post
A more peaceful country without widespread gun ownership could easily make the same argument AGAINST gun ownership using the US as an example. We have a ridiculous amount of gun (and other) violence in this country despite being ridiculously pro-gun ownership. Taking away guns might not work, but making sure everyone can buy assault rifles doesn't appear to be working all that well either.

So you do not believe in the Second Amendment.

What about the First Amendment? Do you believe in that one?

Besides that, no one needs government approval or permission to protect them self or their family.

What I believe in is rationally looking at the ENTIRE situation and figuring out what position makes sthe most ense. So yes, I believe in the constitution, and the bill of rights (yes, even the second amendment) because I think that as a whole the benefits outweigh any issues that might come up.

But let me tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe that yelling "Second Amendment" is a magical incantation that removes the need to objectively look at reality. I don't believe that considering being able to defend yourself and your family means we don't need to consider what ELSE people might be doing with their incredibly easy to obtain weapons. We have an absolutely ridiculous level of violence in this country, gun related and otherwise, and we JUST saw someone murder several people in a movie theater with a bunch of totally legal weapons doing exactly what they were designed to do. If we're going to talk about gun ownership, it's silly to refuse to talk about any negative aspect of it.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The "9/11" murders had no guns.

Agreed....nether did the Oklahoma bombing, Eco-terrorist Uni-Bomber bombings, 1996 Oylmpic park bombing and subsequent abortion clinics/gay bar bombings (committed by the same perpetrator).

In other words a madman with an intent to generate a high death toll will attempt to find a method and means to accomplish their murderous tasks out of sheer determination and lunatic style meticulous planning. Pretending that banning all guns or enforcing draconian gun laws and/or self-defense laws will somehow protect us from these types of people is well beyond reason and logic.

 

[schneiderguy]

This will never happen. These debates kick up after any shooting, and promptly disappear after a week. Thankfully we have a quick news cycle.

The bill was proposed 2-3 months ago.

 

[Rainsford]

The issue really isn't the gun though. If he would have went in there with 4 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelli_M4 each with a 2 round extender tube on it and firing #00 buckshot I am quite sure the bodycount would be significantly higher. Throw in a few handguns for when he fires all 28 shotgun shells and the entire situation doesn't really change.

The fact is this guy was fucking crazy and hell bent on killing people. That wouldn't have changed, nor would the situation ended "better", had he not been able to buy an evil black rifle. Hell, if he was firing slugs from the shotgun you are almost guaranteed 1 dead for every hit.

I generally agree. Banning specific guns doesn't really do much and is mainly about going after unpopular targets. About the only type of ban that might help is banning ALL weapons with certain characteristics (those designed to kill large numbers of people, for example). I'm not sure how much that would actually help in reality though.

Instead of having a talk about guns we need to be having a talk about batshit fucking crazy people and how to identify them before they do batshit fucking crazy stuff.

I also agree with that, but I think it's kind of stupid to ignore guns as a factor. Guns are specifically designed, at great expense, to dramatically increase the ability of the user to kill people. That's pretty much their entire purpose.

Yes, identifying crazy people would be great. But trying to make sure people who think they're the Joker don't end up with massive amounts of firepower doesn't sound like too bad an idea either. I'm not sure how we can do that, but I think it's worth some thought...