So I have to live with reduced magazine capacity and bullet buttons. I'll take the trade-off any day.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/07/ca ... ently.html

Soon, we might be able to have a nuanced conversation about gun laws, because that's the sort of thing grownups can do when left alone for a few hours.

Not that I have any firearms with magazines or bullet buttons, but I'd trade that any day as well.

Fukshot wrote:So I have to live with reduced magazine capacity and bullet buttons. I'll take the trade-off any day.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/07/ca ... ently.html

Soon, we might be able to have a nuanced conversation about gun laws, because that's the sort of thing grownups can do when left alone for a few hours.

People point to California as some gun hell hole and yeah, the AWB is really dumb and arbitrary. I can own a Mini-14 or a Kel Tec SU-16, hell, I can own an AK variant without a bullet button now. However, if I put a pistol grip on it...POOF I have a deadly assault weapon. Put a bullet button on and ...BZZT it is back to being a legal to own (although tenuously) rifle.

I agree that we have to have a conversation about guns in our culture. We have to have a conversation about violence in our culture. We need to have a conversation about the media and the selling of violence, sex, greed, and other vices. We need, especially in California, to have a discussion about why we need to resort to gimmicks to fund services like education, mental health, and other needed services.

I have not been hindered in buying or owning any of the guns I have wanted to purchase by any of California's laws. I have been inconvenienced, but not hindered. I guess that is why I tend not to be so adamant in the arguments about restrictions. I also suppose this is why California will never host an LGC annual meeting.

Yeah, a lot of people on other gun sites complain bitterly about CA gun laws. I say, "What's keeping you here?"

I do own one gun (Kel Tec Sub2000) that requires a bullet button and is limited to a 10 round mag, and I can live with that just fine, given that it means a zillion right wing crazies have to live with it too.

Having no Republicans in statewide office is just a bonus.

Yeah. I don't own anything with a bullet button. My only rifle with a removable magazine is a bolt gun.

I'm occasionally annoyed by the drop test list, but even that is because of my esoteric taste in revolvers (Still looking for a S&W 696 and a snubby Chiappa Rhino please).

Given how bad many other states have things on issues that are far more pressing, I've got no problem with the tradeoff.

No Republican in statewide office, and no restrictions on firearm ownership (other than NFA weapons must be in compliance with NFA regulations, of course.)

I love Oregon.

Considering the infighting inside the Democratic camp here in MO a lack of Republicans would make zero difference.

I'd settle for the next county over not sending bigoted jerkoffs to Jefferson City. It seems that each session they try some nazi-ish attempt to 'corral those Alienz'. They actually wanted to put little marks on Resident Alien driver's licenses. That effort was shamed into obscurity by the Jewish Missourans. Something about the type of icon they wanted to use and the segregation of 'undesireables'. Yes, it would have been a gold star.

Another attempt was cancelling the ability of non-Citizens to even GET driver's licenses. Again, shame worked on the dumbasses from St Charles County.

About the only thing that MO has going for it are the low taxes on gas and minor gun restriction laws...

Apparently some people can't defend themselves from home intruders with only 10 rounds in a semi-auto weapon. They should spend more time at the range, maybe?

Zagadka wrote:Apparently some people can't defend themselves from home intruders with only 10 rounds in a semi-auto weapon. They should spend more time at the range, maybe?

2nd ammendment is not about protecting your home it's not about hunting and it's not about sports.

The founders might disagree. Sporting purposes, manly arts, finding food and defense were on their mind.

In addition to the whole defense against tyranny thing.

Read the "Founders Second Amendment"

Inquisitor wrote:The founders might disagree. Sporting purposes, manly arts, finding food and defense were on their mind.

In addition to the whole defense against tyranny thing.

Read the "Founders Second Amendment"

Point taken, but it wasn't the first purpose. Actually even defense against tyranny was only really second on the list, i'd say first was defense against other nations and giving rise to a lesser need for a permanent national military.

“They have alienated large swaths of voters,” [the Republican consultant] said. “They have become too doctrinaire on the social issues. It’s become a cult.”

Amen, ditto, x10! Now if this could just become the case nationally.

Redbird wrote:“They have alienated large swaths of voters,” [the Republican consultant] said. “They have become too doctrinaire on the social issues. It’s become a cult.”

Amen, ditto, x10! Now if this could just become the case nationally.

when it comes to guns a lot of liberals are as ignorant and ideologically stubborn as the conservatives are about ... well about everything. It's all the same shit, facts don't matter, only their interpretation matters. to be fair in arguments I can be just as guilty as the person i'm arguing with, but usually if they're reasonable, i'll tone it down some and let a rational discussion ensue but brick walls? I just like pissing them off.

To me it seems ridiculous that some states (and the federal gummint under Clinton) ban magazines over ten rounds for pistols. That means even the venerable FN/Browning Hi-Power's standard 13 round mag isn't legal. What difference do five rounds make, especially when a mag can be changed quickly? Fifteen seems to be the norm in modern service pistols. I think closing the gun show purchase loophole so that all states are (theoretically) checking every buyer out via the FFL calling the FBI would do a lot more to keep crazies with a record of legal or psychiatric transgressions from procuring firearms.

I have 15 round mags in my FN HP-DAs for home protection. You don't know what you might face. Some would advise a 20 gauge semiauto shotgun but I don't like the idea of all those little holes in the walls if all the shot doesn't hit the perp. It's true though that there's nothing more intimidating than a shotgun being cocked.

gendoikari87 wrote:usually if they're reasonable, i'll tone it down some and let a rational discussion ensue but brick walls? I just like pissing them off.

They DON'T have to explain why they're not brick walls, but you DO have to explain why they are.

I too revel in the contracting relevance of the CA Republican Party. Their adamant position on equality, reproductive rights and immigration have marginalized them quite a bit.

But I think 90% of CA gun laws are dumb and have no purpose. If you want to have a discussion about magazine size, that's fine. But all these anti-Black rifle laws are insane. Did anyone ever die because of the type of grip on the gun that was used to shoot them? How many murders are prevented by requiring me to add a half-inch stock extension to my Sub 2000? Is a mass-murderer going to worry about the penalties of removing his bullet button before going on a shooting spree? I can buy a CZ-75 without a decocker, but not one with a decocker because CA says that manually dropping the hammer on this weapon is safer than using a proven mechanism that prevents accidental discharge.

Now DiFi wants to limit how much ammo we can buy at one time. That crazy bastard in CO couldn't have fired more than a few hundred rounds, but how often have democratic lawmakers talked about the 6,000 rounds of ammo he stockpiled via mail-order? Like he was carrying x60 100 round drums with him into the theater.

Be honest, many democrats won't be satisfied with anything less than the criminalization of all firearm ownership.

That's the kind of fanaticism that should be left to our Republican friends.

senorgrand wrote:Be honest, many democrats won't be satisfied with anything less than the criminalization of all firearm ownership.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I remember seeing an interview with a congresswoman that was defending the AWB. (I don't remember now who it was.) The interviewer asked her to define a number of the things that the AWB banned. She was unable to. She clearly had the same familiarity with firearms that Cenk Ugyur has, as shown in that recent post.

My point being that she (stupidly) believed that banning these things would help solve a problem. I don't think she had any malice in banning those things. I think she was just dumb.

wfaulk wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Be honest, many democrats won't be satisfied with anything less than the criminalization of all firearm ownership.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I remember seeing an interview with a congresswoman that was defending the AWB. (I don't remember now who it was.) The interviewer asked her to define a number of the things that the AWB banned. She was unable to. She clearly had the same familiarity with firearms that Cenk Ugyur has, as shown in that recent post.

My point being that she (stupidly) believed that banning these things would help solve a problem. I don't think she had any malice in banning those things. I think she was just dumb.

So true. I recently had a conversation with a local politician about gun issues. He was shocked when I explained to him that the defining characteristic of an assault rifle was a LESS POWERFUL cartridge.

Found it. It was Carolyn McCarthy, who introduced new AWB bills in 2003 (before the old one expired), 2005, and 2007. She was unable to define "barrel shroud". Unfortunately, it was Tucker Carlson that called her on it.

wfaulk wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Be honest, many democrats won't be satisfied with anything less than the criminalization of all firearm ownership.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I remember seeing an interview with a congresswoman that was defending the AWB. (I don't remember now who it was.) The interviewer asked her to define a number of the things that the AWB banned. She was unable to. She clearly had the same familiarity with firearms that Cenk Ugyur has, as shown in that recent post.

My point being that she (stupidly) believed that banning these things would help solve a problem. I don't think she had any malice in banning those things. I think she was just dumb.

I agree. It is ignorance and it is quite common. I was watching the Ed Show (forwarding through more like) and Michael Eric Dyson was on. I usually admire his passion and eloquence on many topics but he was talking about hunting and said this gem, "You don't need an AK-47 to hunt bear because they don't wear a kevlar vest". It was obvious hyperbole but the reality that even I as a non-hunter know is that the cartridge fired by the AK-47 would not be optimally effective against bear. It has similar characteristics to the 30-30 which is a standard deer round.

Today, a local radio host Karel, was talking about, "why do people want those awful killing machines, assault weapons" or something like that. Then, in the same breath he said, "Look, I know that we aren't ever going to get rid of shotguns, rifles, pistols and semi-automatics...." Facepalm!!

I know it would probably not do any good, but I would like a well spoken, and calm liberal gun owner to go on those shows with those pictures of the Browning BAR, a Mini-14, and a Saiga Rifle with wooden Monte Carlo stock and ask one of those hosts, "So what would you call this firearm, a hunting rifle?" To which they would most likely answer, Yes. Then show the Mini and the Saiga with pistol grips and ask the same question, to which they would most likely say, 'Assault Weapon'" They are the SAME freakin rifle! with one modification.

That is what the AWB debate is about. We can have a discussion on magazine size. But unless they come out and say, "I would like to ban all self loading/semi-auto rifles" they are just being ignorant or dishonest.

That is what the AWB debate is about. We can have a discussion on magazine size. But unless they come out and say, "I would like to ban all self loading/semi-auto rifles" they are just being ignorant or dishonest.

Well said!

Redbird wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:usually if they're reasonable, i'll tone it down some and let a rational discussion ensue but brick walls? I just like pissing them off.

They DON'T have to explain why they're not brick walls, but you DO have to explain why they are.

Oh I never said they had to, but if they're not going to be reasonable i'm not either and nothing productive will get done. Give not one inch to someone who isn't willing to do the same. And right now the NRA is winning. So if the anti gunners aren't going to be reasonable they loose completely.

^ Just funnin' witcha - a reference to our 'discussion' in another thread.

Seriously now: your point's well made, but if the totally unreasonable NRA is winning, then is the only "reasonable" way of responding to accept some of their reasoning in order to appear reasonable? Is that what it's come down to?

Redbird wrote:^ Just funnin' witcha - a reference to our 'discussion' in another thread.

Seriously now: your point's well made, but if the totally unreasonable NRA is winning, then is the only "reasonable" way of responding to accept some of their reasoning in order to appear reasonable? Is that what it's come down to?

So far, not so much. Thankfully.

Redbird wrote:^ Just funnin' witcha - a reference to our 'discussion' in another thread.

Seriously now: your point's well made, but if the totally unreasonable NRA is winning, then is the only "reasonable" way of responding to accept some of their reasoning in order to appear reasonable? Is that what it's come down to?

None of the above. You don't punish people for something they didn't do, at least not while they are in control of their own faculties. That's just the way freedom is. you can mitigate some disasters, but not all if you want to live in a free society. and yes, it sounds harsh because it is, but that's just the price you pay for freedom.

You can however do that mitigating without punishing the responsible law abiding citizens. And this is why both the NRA and the Brady campaign are both nucking futs. The NRA's policies might get a few more killed here and there but the brady campaign not only attacks our freedom, but that of our nations in the long run. So it's a fine line to walk and not one you can do while one side or both are screeming at each other.