• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senator Leland Yee trying to ban more CA guns

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DucatiMonster696 said:
Agreed....nether did the Oklahoma bombing.

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.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think about gun control laws, your logic is overly simplistic. No approach can completely solve a particular problem, but that doesn't mean we're not better off using that approach anyways. Seat belts, airbags, anti-lock breaks, better vehicle standards, etc, don't totally prevent driving deaths or injuries...but that doesn't mean they don't help.

Would a madman be able to kill a crowd of people at a movie theater without assault weapons or guns in general? Maybe, but the whole point of a gun, and the reason people argue so strongly for widespread gun ownership, is that it's a LOT easier to kill people with a gun than pretty much anything else. Of course that can be used for good, which is the point of pro-gun arguments, but it clearly can help bad guys as well.

I'm not necessarily against gun ownership, I just think it's a more complicated issue than the NRA folks say it is...
 
Rainsford said:
Would a madman be able to kill a crowd of people at a movie theater without assault weapons or guns in general? Maybe,
Click to expand...

There's no "maybe" to it, absolutely yes, and they could probably kill MORE people.

I'm not necessarily against gun ownership, I just think it's a more complicated issue than the NRA folks say it is...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not complicated at all. It is a right, just like free speech, and more than that defending yourself is an absolute right.
 
schneiderguy said:
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:

featureless.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

Can we please stop comparing the right to free speech with a well regulated militia?

There is no relationship or equivalency there whatsoever.

Now if you want to explore how the 2nd and 10th amendment cause Republicans to twist themselves into legal knots (see hr822) that would make more sense under the light of gun control and state rights.
 
Rainsford said:
Whatever you think about gun control laws, your logic is overly simplistic. No approach can completely solve a particular problem, but that doesn't mean we're not better off using that approach anyways. Seat belts, airbags, anti-lock breaks, better vehicle standards, etc, don't totally prevent driving deaths or injuries...but that doesn't mean they don't help.
Click to expand...

And none of those items interfere with the ownership or use of a car. None of those items are applicable to the level and nature of firearm bans or restrictions that are based on ignorant and kneejerk reactions, i.e. "OMG It looks like a Hollywood themed "ASSAULT RIFLE", quick ban it!!!" approach used by politicians. Furthermore your example of using cars in your analogy just highlights that despite safety options enforced by government it is indeed better to provide driver education in understanding the dangerous of the road and DUI driving so as to have a greater impact on vehicle related deaths.


Would a madman be able to kill a crowd of people at a movie theater without assault weapons or guns in general? Maybe, but the whole point of a gun, and the reason people argue so strongly for widespread gun ownership, is that it's a LOT easier to kill people with a gun than pretty much anything else. Of course that can be used for good, which is the point of pro-gun arguments, but it clearly can help bad guys as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'm not buying this statement at all. Outside of the tragic events such as what occurred in Colorado the levels of gun violence and violence as a whole in the US has steadily declined despite the liberalization of gun laws and the increase issuing of CCW licenses as matter of fact.

Further more attempting to assert that we could prevent all cases of mass violence committed by determined and criminally insane individuals by restricting our rights is completely misguided and flawed thinking.

The issues of violence and violent individuals who seek to cause a mass number of deaths itself will not be resolved by removing and/or restricting gun rights for the vast majority of people in society. This approach would not keep us any safer then proposing that we install cameras and police officers on all streets corners in society in order to prevent instances of serial murder committed by a serial murderers.
 
Last edited:
MooseNSquirrel said:
Pure conjecture.
Click to expand...

Um, no, it's not "conjecture" one could absolutely hurt and kill more people in a crowded theater without a firearm of any type.

The 2nd amendment is pretty open to interpretation. It just so happens that the SCOTUS has interpreted it a certain way.
Click to expand...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ...I don't know, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of "open to interpretation" going on there, seems pretty clear to me.
 
xj0hnx said:
Um, no, it's not "conjecture" one could absolutely hurt and kill more people in a crowded theater without a firearm of any type.



"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ...I don't know, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of "open to interpretation" going on there, seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

Just for reference, I am pro gun.

But the way it reads to me is we only need guns in armories and only for the local militia and only if somebody invades us.

Am very grateful the supreme court lets me keep my own guns cuz they could just as easily have looked at it the other way.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said, I am not for the bill. However, I dislike quips that are exaggerated without any further discussion. Your follow up post much better explains your stance.
 
> But the way it reads to me is we only need guns in armories and only for the local militia and only if somebody invades us.

To me "keep and bear arms" doesn't imply having them locked up away from the citizen militia, but this might be a debate for another thread.
 
shortylickens said:
Just for reference, I am pro gun.

But the way it reads to me is we only need guns in armories and only for the local militia and only if somebody invades us.

Am very grateful the supreme court lets me keep my own guns cuz they could just as easily have looked at it the other way.
Click to expand...

How is locking them in an armory "keeping and bearing"?
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
And none of those items interfere with the ownership or use of a car. None of those items are applicable to the level and nature of firearm bans or restrictions that are based on ignorant and kneejerk reactions, i.e. "OMG It looks like a Hollywood themed "ASSAULT RIFLE", quick ban it!!!" approach used by politicians. Furthermore your example of using cars in your analogy just highlights that despite safety options enforced by government it is indeed better to provide driver education in understanding the dangerous of the road and DUI driving so as to have a greater impact on vehicle related deaths.
Click to expand...
You use the word "better" as if we're somehow required to pick only one approach to solving every problem. Driver education is good, enforcing responsible driving is good. That doesn't mean seatbelts aren't also a good idea.

Sorry but I'm not buying this statement at all. Outside of the tragic events such as what occurred in Colorado the levels of gun violence and violence as a whole in the US has steadily declined despite the liberalization of gun laws and the increase issuing of CCW licenses as matter of fact.

Further more attempting to assert that we could prevent all cases of mass violence committed by determined and criminally insane individuals by restricting our rights is completely misguided and flawed thinking.

The issues of violence and violent individuals who seek to cause a mass number of deaths itself will not be resolved by removing and/or restricting gun rights for the vast majority of people in society. This approach would not keep us any safer then proposing that we install cameras and police officers on all streets corners in society in order to prevent instances of serial murder committed by a serial murderers.
Click to expand...

Reread my post. I'm not suggesting we can "prevent all cases of mass violence", or totally resolve the issue of gun violence in our society with gun control laws. Hell, I'm pretty much on the fence about those laws in general, since even though I believe they can have some positive effect, they can also make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

My point is that I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the gun crowd refuses point blank (no pun intended) to even discuss the idea that their relentless push to make sure everyone in America has absolutely no barriers to buying any type of gun has also made it easier for criminals to get guns and do bad things with them. Sure, criminals could make their own weapons in their backyard gun shop...but it's a lot easier when you can run down to the local Bass Pro Shop and get all the things necessary to shoot your way through a movie theater.

Gun debates in this country should certainly include the need for people to be able to legally defend themselves, a right I think is sadly lacking in much of the civilized world. But the debates should also include the issue that easy access to guns means easy access to guns for EVERYONE, and maybe we should try to address that problem.
 
xj0hnx said:
...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ...I don't know, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of "open to interpretation" going on there, seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems like the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment requires pretty completely ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of it.
 
Rainsford said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems like the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment requires pretty completely ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems like the modern liberal interpretation of the 2nd requires pretty much completely ignoring the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" part of it.
 
xj0hnx said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems like the modern liberal interpretation of the 2nd requires pretty much completely ignoring the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" part of it.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate, you could interpret that as "the people" not "each individual person." Kind of like "the people of this country have a right to create taxes on themselves" but you can't go tax your neighbor. It's the collective that has the right, in this case enacted through well-ordered militias, not necessarily every citizen period.
 
berzerker60 said:
Playing devil's advocate, you could interpret that as "the people" not "each individual person." Kind of like "the people of this country have a right to create taxes on themselves" but you can't go tax your neighbor. It's the collective that has the right, in this case enacted through well-ordered militias, not necessarily every citizen period.
Click to expand...

"The people" is comprised of individuals.
 
Excellent, lets ban AR15's and Semi-Auto AK's and the whole lot. That out to curb maybe 1% of the violent crimes that are commited with guns.
 
The whole bill of rights was skillfully worded by James Madison so that it would be open to interpretation... so there is no right or wrong interpretation. Madison did that because he wanted the Federal govt to have the final say and because limiting the Federal govt was never something he believed in.

As with the first, 5th (the government determines what "just compensation" is), 8th (the govt determines which punishments are "cruel or unusual"), and 10th amendments, the 2nd Amendment drew a line with arbitrary boundaries, not an absolute limitation on the govt. Having a complete wall between religion and state in a republic is impossible, just as having complete decentralization of arms in a republic is impossible.
 
Rainsford said:
Would a madman be able to kill a crowd of people at a movie theater without assault weapons or guns in general? Maybe, but the whole point of a gun, and the reason people argue so strongly for widespread gun ownership, is that it's a LOT easier to kill people with a gun than pretty much anything else. Of course that can be used for good, which is the point of pro-gun arguments, but it clearly can help bad guys as well.

I'm not necessarily against gun ownership, I just think it's a more complicated issue than the NRA folks say it is...
Click to expand...


Timothy McVeigh found an easier way than using a gun. If you think banning a weapon will stop something like this, just remember the guys in the North Hollywood shootout were using illegal guns.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Can we please stop comparing the right to free speech with a well regulated militia?

There is no relationship or equivalency there whatsoever.

Now if you want to explore how the 2nd and 10th amendment cause Republicans to twist themselves into legal knots (see hr822) that would make more sense under the light of gun control and state rights.
Click to expand...

You mean "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

If you want to argue that "the right of the people" actually means the rights of the government (or militia) then lets hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top