Foolishly, some of us continue to focus on "the gun" as the thing. There is no such thing as "things," only systems. Many American systems Venn Diagrammed on those power stations to cut power to untold thousands. While it is true that guns can deliver high speed 90 grain projectiles accurately to pieces of equipment, those bullets did not up and fling themselves there of their own volition. People decided the point of aim.

>insert standard root-cause mitigation rant<

I believe we can identify most if not all the systems that intersected at those power stations. Once identified, we can work to make the systems work better, in less harmful ways. Tilt not against the windmills. Rather, seek to remove the fertilizer, sunlight, and water from the invasive weeds which actually are the problem. Triggers do not pull themselves. People do, and we are influenced by many systems. Systems.

CDFingers

Eris wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:54 am

sikacz wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:28 am

Eris wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:18 pm I say it's time to stop REacting and start PROactively fighting the Proud Boys and their ilk. We need to have armed protests outside the homes of the leaders of these hate groups. They need to be made to live in fear the same way they are doing to us.

An armed society is polite society philosophy, eh. I recall some here being opposed to being armed at demonstrations, and now a mod calling for a show of “force”. This does underline a primary reason I can’t vote for many of the current slew of dems, I choose to have the option to be armed.

Heh! Well, to be clear I'm only speaking for myself and not as a mod. If I were to truly uncensor myself I'd have to stop being a mod.

I agree with sika's philosophy "An armed society is polite society...", many Europeans have arms like the Swiss and they are very polite. The former British dominions are the ones that seem to be following Mother England and disarming the populace i.e., Australia, New Zealand, Canada...

If arms made for a polite society, we'd still be British.

I do wonder how much of the speculation about NC comes from the coincidental timing with the Proud Boys in Columbus.

Elsewhere, parallels have been drawn to a substation shot up near San Jose nearly a decade ago. Lots of 7.62x39 casings without fingerprints. Lots of 7.62mm holes in transformer cooling fins. I suspect that this attack was at least inspired by that one. There are grid-scale vulnerabilities against nation-state level actors who take time to plan out larger attacks, but this might have been more of a Bubba situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack

It returned us to a polite society the British system was not polite. Oppression never is.

sikacz wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:28 am

Eris wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:18 pm I say it's time to stop REacting and start PROactively fighting the Proud Boys and their ilk. We need to have armed protests outside the homes of the leaders of these hate groups. They need to be made to live in fear the same way they are doing to us.

An armed society is polite society philosophy, eh. I recall some here being opposed to being armed at demonstrations, and now a mod calling for a show of “force”. This does underline a primary reason I can’t vote for many of the current slew of dems, I choose to have the option to be armed.

And you along with a lot of 'dems' ARE armed. It's not a zero sum game..You CAN be armed and will continue to be 'allowed' to be armed. Dems aren't going to take your guns..saying that just fuels the right wing hysteria about guns.

For right below....expect some sort of AWB(not a fan, banning tools doesn't do anything), BUT, there are more guns than people in the US and MILLIONS of AR type weapons. ANY AWB will be grand fathered..NOBODY knows who has what. There isn't going to be squads of people knocking on doors..that's right wing hysteria.
Guys legally buying guns and killing a bunch of people hurt the 'pro gun' movement more than anything. 2A proponents yell daily about the "dangers" of UBC.
Easy access is the problem. Harder to adopt a pet than buy a gun.
LEO who refuse to implement RFLs, do too..(Colorado Springs club G shooting)...

I agree that Dems won't take your guns. Some guns may not be available, but others will be. Focus on reality. If it's real, believe in it.

CDFingers

Democrats can't confiscate guns, but they can make it very, very difficult to buy and keep them. Just like abortion restrictions they slowly turn the faucet off until they aren't available. It's exactly what they are doing in CA, first the Roster, then require microstamping, then wipe out many guns already on the Roster, then registration for all ARs...CA is the poster child for the degradation of 2A rights.

highdesert wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:10 am Democrats can't confiscate guns, but they can make it very, very difficult to buy and keep them. Just like abortion restrictions they slowly turn the faucet off until they aren't available. It's exactly what they are doing in CA, first the Roster, then require microstamping, then wipe out many guns already on the Roster, then registration for all ARs...CA is the poster child for the degradation of 2A rights.

Yup. Attrition is just slow confiscation. Heller was unambiguous that handguns are protected. Breun reinforced Hellers right to keep and bear (which must also include purchase). Yet the Dems in CA continue to defend and celebrate the roster, AW ban and magazine ban. They have also reintroduced AB2 to gut CCW (to make it far more restrictive than it was pre Bruen). Yes, Democrats really are after your guns.

To say you may have some guns but not any gun is to say you may use the words in the first half of the dictionary but not the second half. 1) it's fucking dumb and 2) it's unconstitutional.

featureless wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:33 am
To say you may have some guns but not any gun is to say you may use the words in the first half of the dictionary but not the second half. 1) it's fucking dumb and 2) it's unconstitutional.

When such false equivalencies must be tried, we know the position behind them is weak. Sometimes it'll be that way.

CDFingers

featureless wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:33 am

highdesert wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:10 am Democrats can't confiscate guns, but they can make it very, very difficult to buy and keep them. Just like abortion restrictions they slowly turn the faucet off until they aren't available. It's exactly what they are doing in CA, first the Roster, then require microstamping, then wipe out many guns already on the Roster, then registration for all ARs...CA is the poster child for the degradation of 2A rights.

Yup. Attrition is just slow confiscation. Heller was unambiguous that handguns are protected. Breun reinforced Hellers right to keep and bear (which must also include purchase). Yet the Dems in CA continue to defend and celebrate the roster, AW ban and magazine ban. They have also reintroduced AB2 to gut CCW (to make it far more restrictive than it was pre Bruen). Yes, Democrats really are after your guns.

To say you may have some guns but not any gun is to say you may use the words in the first half of the dictionary but not the second half. 1) it's fucking dumb and 2) it's unconstitutional.

Agree. There’s nothing weak about this. California is to blame for much of the division driven in our political system by the influence they wield, the outright unconstitutional laws they create and their refusal to follow the laws as interpreted by the SCOTUS. I’d even blame California for the SCOTUS we have now, pushing the neoliberal agenda helped align forces that brought us a court that has ruled against women and will likely rule against minorities which no longer enjoy the protections that were thought secured after the 1960’s.
California as in the state and not all Californians , we have plenty of Californians here that do not support what California is doing.

sikacz wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:13 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:33 am

highdesert wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:10 am Democrats can't confiscate guns, but they can make it very, very difficult to buy and keep them. Just like abortion restrictions they slowly turn the faucet off until they aren't available. It's exactly what they are doing in CA, first the Roster, then require microstamping, then wipe out many guns already on the Roster, then registration for all ARs...CA is the poster child for the degradation of 2A rights.

Yup. Attrition is just slow confiscation. Heller was unambiguous that handguns are protected. Breun reinforced Hellers right to keep and bear (which must also include purchase). Yet the Dems in CA continue to defend and celebrate the roster, AW ban and magazine ban. They have also reintroduced AB2 to gut CCW (to make it far more restrictive than it was pre Bruen). Yes, Democrats really are after your guns.

To say you may have some guns but not any gun is to say you may use the words in the first half of the dictionary but not the second half. 1) it's fucking dumb and 2) it's unconstitutional.

Agree. There’s nothing weak about this. California is to blame for much of the division driven in our political system by the influence they wield, the outright unconstitutional laws they create and their refusal to follow the laws as interpreted by the SCOTUS. I’d even blame California for the SCOTUS we have now, pushing the neoliberal agenda helped align forces that brought us a court that has ruled against women and will likely rule against minorities which no longer enjoy the protections that were thought secured after the 1960’s.
California as in the state and not all Californians , we have plenty of Californians here that do not support what California is doing.

Yes, you do. That's one reason I am here, because as a Californian, I don't support what California is doing.

Though I have to say, it's not the first reason. And as someone who was born and raise in Manhattan, (and spent a fair amount of time in Boston) I do find the idea that California is the epitome of anti-gun sentiment and legislation to be a bit odd.

One reason I moved here from New York was because you actually can own guns here. And as onerous, complicated, and incomprehensible as the laws are, they have not stopped me from buying a single gun that I wanted (or could afford) to own-- even if that's mostly dumb luck. I bought two of them before 2005, or whatever, the other was a shotgun, and the fourth happened to be an SA.

I'm not defending the laws, I'm just trying to explain why-- as strange as it might sound to folks from Arizona, Texas, and many other states-- I didn't get concerned about California gun laws until recently.

(Thank God single action revolvers aren't on the roster. Look, I'm new here, don't flame me if I got this wrong, but with a practical rate of fire of a little under a second per shot, they just don't seem a hell of a lot more harmless than double action-- at least for the first five.)

It wasn't until I joined this forum-- and I'm about to plunk down my dues when I finish this post-- that I learned about microstamping and all the other crazy regs. I could never live in New York City again. I can't even carry a knife with a pocket clip on the subway.

To a New Yorker, L.A. is a gun-friendly town, though not like it used to be. Since I've lived here, my guns stayed mostly in my safe, and I was only vaguely aware that the laws were changing. In the early '90s, there were literally gun shops on Hollywood Boulevard. (I believe they only sold Ring of Fire guns!) So I've learned the hell of a lot just in the few weeks I've been here, and I'm glad this club exists.

* * * * *

I actually do worry that if guns were banned, the methods people would use for mass murder would be far more indiscriminate and would kill far more people. The shooting at the substation demonstrates how vulnerable a lot of our infrastructure is, for sure, but you don't need a gun to go after a lot of it. In fact, it bothers me enough that I'm not going to list any of those potential methods here, but they are not nearly as selective.

And I believe there are more and more individuals who would actually do some of those things. People are putting fentanyl in pill presses and selling it as Tylenol and Codeine. And SSRIs are approved by the FDA-- drugs that do help a small percentage of people they are prescribed for, but can also destroy empathy so suddenly and thoroughly that when patients kill themselves, they do it right in the damn kitchen and don't even bother locking themselves in the bathroom or garage.

Sometimes, I think I'm more worried about careless or accidental mass murder, or even extinction level events, than I am about the intentional variety.

Comparing gun laws with the First Amendment is a false equivalency, and I'll show you why. In the First, we find that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. When we examine "abridge," we see it means to shorten while retaining the essential meaning. This is why incitement to riot is not free speech, nor is lying about a fire in a theater, among other examples; foolishly, Citizens United decrees that money is free speech. When we examine the Second, we find that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "Infringe" is a bit archaic, yet when we look it up, we find it means to break or to exceed the limits of. These two are not the same. Thus, a false equivalency, which is weak rhetorically.

Scalia wrote in Heller that the Second was not a right "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose;” he determined that the Second does not prohibit all gun laws. Thus, gun laws are not unconstitutional. And our Federal system allows that the fifty states each may make laws, subject to review by the SCOTUS. I agree that California has gun laws which should be rescinded, and I've listed them before. Yet I do not find that those laws I'd like to see rescinded "break" or "exceed the limits" of the RKBA. An out right ban would do that. I predict that will never happen. Yet many find it fashionable to light their hair afire and run about aimlessly regarding an outright ban. I think that a waste of perfectly good photons.

To be able to have some guns but not others is a reality in many states like California. Prohibiting some guns but not others neither breaks nor exceeds the limits of the Second. Such laws may very well be foolish, like a ten day wait in California for a second or subsequent gun. Other foolish laws may easily be found, and we can work to rescind them if that floats our boats.

When we codify a Universal Background Check in order to prevent the legal purchase of guns by those who should not have them due to criminal and violent history; when we employ Red Flag Laws, with caveats to return guns under proper circumstances; when we impose age limits for gun purchases; when we impose safe storage laws--none of these break or exceed the limits of the Second, according to Heller. Some may be danged inconvenient, like safe storage laws. I mean, we'd like our groovy Winchester hanging above the fireplace. But our twelve year old might have pocketed a couple .30-30 rounds from the last range trip and could take that rifle and blast his neighbor who beat him in Call of Duty. This is why I maintain that unless you're carrying it, fondling it, or can see directly where it's stashed, that your guns should be locked up. In California we can't buy a gun unless we sign an affidavit that we have a safe or if we bring or buy a gun lock. And we have to pay a buck for a background check for every ammo purchase. We hates it but we pays it.

As has been shown on this board, the only absolute right in the Constitution is the right against self incrimination. All the others have been limited, either by the wording itself or by statute. That we may "want" a gun prohibited in California is most unfortunate. To whine that it's unconstitutional is weak. When we hold positions on controversial issues, we should learn of the strength of our positions. Holding demonstrably weak positions is part of life in America. We have to remember from our past that for about thirteen years, beer was prohibited. Oh, the humanity. We fixed it, yet other things still need fixing as we progress toward a more perfect union. Democracy is a messy business.

CDFingers

Ah, but Heller's holding on what arms are protected was in common use for lawful purposes, seconded by Bruen. What Scalia said is true, but to ban an arm, it must be both dangerous and unusual. So, AWBs, magazine bans and rosters go too far. Waiting periods also likely go too far because they delay a right and are not historically supported. Background checks and storage are very likely constitutional. These were all upheld post Heller by the crafty invention of the two step analysis. We learn from Bruen this is one step too many. Interest balancing is no longer allowed.

All laws are subject to review by the SCOTUS. Messy, but legal.

Are not all guns dangerous? Here's this: After the war, a Russian soldier walked though town with his 91/30 over his shoulder. A babushka saw him and asked, "Isn't that dangerous now?" He replied, "Da. Is gun. Is dangerous."

CDFingers