Dave Bennett
Adventurist
Here, I think this is yours
20 posts in and two months on board... boy you sure know how to enter a room!
Anti gun legislation
- Thread starter Mr. Leary
- Start date
Here, I think this is yours
20 posts in and two months on board... boy you sure know how to enter a room!
Dave Bennett
Adventurist
Nice. :victory:
cnynrat
Expedition Leader
It means he declared the law unconstitutional because it was too vague. Specifically, the law applied many restrictions to the sale of ammunition "principally for use in handguns." Since many calibers are used in both handguns and rifles (.22LR is one common example), how is anyone to know which calibers fall under the jurisdiction of this law?
After the lawsuit against AB962 was filed, the CA legislature realized the outcome would be what happened yesterday. As a result, during the last session they attempted to pass an update to the law that specifically identified the calibers to which the law would apply, but this second bill failed to pass. As an indication either of how clueless they are, or what their real intentions are (take your pick), they included .223 caliber ammo in the second bill. By no stretch of anyone's imagination is .223 "principally for use in handguns". 5.56mm ammo was not included in the second bill. Go figure.
After the lawsuit against AB962 was filed, the CA legislature realized the outcome would be what happened yesterday. As a result, during the last session they attempted to pass an update to the law that specifically identified the calibers to which the law would apply, but this second bill failed to pass. As an indication either of how clueless they are, or what their real intentions are (take your pick), they included .223 caliber ammo in the second bill. By no stretch of anyone's imagination is .223 "principally for use in handguns". 5.56mm ammo was not included in the second bill. Go figure.
Last edited:
Here, I think this is yours
20 posts in and two months on board... boy you sure know how to enter a room!
Why? Because you posted unfounded garbage without checking it and wyowander posted real facts with references? Of course dictators wouldn't let their subjects own guns, thats not the point. The point was that you posted worthless garbage thinking it was the truth because you didn't take 5 seconds to check your facts.
I don't know about you, but there is no way anyone, under any law, is going to take away my guns. We are changing the laws here in AZ, you can do it in your state too.
Dave Bennett
Adventurist
Wow. You need to chill out dood, you're taking all this WAY too seriously. It was a joke.
Please dont turn a civil discussion ugly with angry sounding posts and name calling.
Please dont turn a civil discussion ugly with angry sounding posts and name calling.
Last edited:
Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
Kinda like people dancing at a wedding to "I'll be watching you" by the Police. The words mean whatever meaning that is assigned, whether in line with the original intent or not.
"Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Ceasar
Easy now. Lets not let this discussion get ugly. I'm sure everyone here has had to self edit a few times (more then a few in my case).
This is the responsible way to do this. Its the reason we live in a democracy, but you don't get to ignore the laws you don't like.
thebrassnuckles
Explorer
I have 2 AR's, and an AK.
all legal. in CA.
I have bullet buttons that lock the magazine in place. I am limited to 10 round magazines... but all that means is I need to be a better shot.
and one of my AR's is a 450 bushmaster, I cant fit more than 10 rounds in a gi 30 rounder anyways... but 10 rounds of 275 grain .45 cal bullets going at 2500 fps will stop just about anything.
Hill Bill E.
Oath Keeper
Actually, we live in a Republic.
More here: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Although, the word Democracy, does have a double meaning.
So depending on your intent, or the readers interpetation, your statement may not be false.
Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
I stand corrected. we live in a republic with a democratic system to elect representative officials.
007
Explorer
A Republic with no constitution is just a Democracy, It would be like taking the teacher out of a third grade classroom and holding a popularity contest to see who ruled the roost.
It would start out with ice cream parties and promises for all, but eventually one kid would end up with all the power.
The Republic was designed to keep the teacher in the classroom so to speak, and a balance of power so that each State was accountable to its people first, and the federal government second.
Fast forward and you can clearly see that our Federal government is now way more powerful than State, and even the State leaders must answer to the Feds despite what the people want.
A state representative can try to use the constitution to enforce State rights, but the Feds will withhold funding to that state for not going along, even though its money that the federal IRS took from the state in the first place.
Speed limit laws are just one example, but gun control laws can be enforced in the same manner, despite what the people of that state want.
Checkout the 16th and 17th amendments to see how in 1913 the Republic was chipped away and the tide turned to favor Federal power after the IRS was born.
greenmeanie
Adventurer
Your conditional statements are correct but incomplete. You forgot:
Would they have been invaded in spite of those 430,000 civilian troops? - Yes. The Germans even planned and stated so.
This makes the point valid as it disproves the previous comment that the militia prevented the Germans from invading.
As far as the guerrila warfare goes nobody was trained in it and at 20% they would have attracted the ire of their invaders. A simple web search of their action against the partisans in eastern Europe shows that the Germans were not limited by a hearts and minds campaign.
/Edit/ I should add that the Swiss militia was an effective means of raising a large army in a country with comparitively limited resources. As such it can't be criticized as the country was obviously better off with it than without. It was, however, not a giant slaying force of crack troops that struck fear into its opposition as is it is often presented. Circumstances overtook the German plans.
Last edited:
Wyowanderer
Explorer
Ditto. Let's all play nice and try to be friends.
C-Fish
Adventurer
This thread has taken some wild turns...this topic is very polarizing isn't it?
I've had to self edit more times than I can remember...
To get this back on track with the OP's original post, I present this.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_d3d84718-242a-11e0-a26f-001cc4c002e0.html
Now, tell me how you really feel about this type of legislation. :Wow1:
Here is another take on this debate (one which I agree with 100%).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/11/be-prepared-for-evil/
I've had to self edit more times than I can remember...
To get this back on track with the OP's original post, I present this.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_d3d84718-242a-11e0-a26f-001cc4c002e0.html
Now, tell me how you really feel about this type of legislation. :Wow1:
Here is another take on this debate (one which I agree with 100%).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/11/be-prepared-for-evil/
Hill Bill E.
Oath Keeper
Excellent posting of 'both sides of the coin', so to speak.
I'm with you, Ted's argument makes more sense to me. And in my view, is the only real answer to the situation.
BorregoWrangler
Rendezvous Conspiracy
^^^ That's assuming that the parents and loved ones of those who were killed and maimed in Tucson are in favor of more gun control. The father of the 9 year old girl who was killed has stated in interviews that he does not want to see more restrictions or regulations on the rights and freedoms we have in this country because of what happened.
History has shown us that not all those who've been affected by shootings are in favor of anti-gun legislation. This of course, doesn't apply to everyone involved with the tragedy in Arizona, but the way one is affected and the outlook one has because of these kinds of incidents will vary from person to person.
History has shown us that not all those who've been affected by shootings are in favor of anti-gun legislation. This of course, doesn't apply to everyone involved with the tragedy in Arizona, but the way one is affected and the outlook one has because of these kinds of incidents will vary from person to person.