California Bummer

[Guys1911]

Just watched the release of the new gun laws for the "Republic", going after all AR'S, redefining shotguns, outlawing the bullet button, outlawing some ammo, background check for ammo, and no grandfathering (gun confiscation). Guess i will be moving to Utah sooner than planned, boy they know how to ruin a weekend.

 

[Buckey08]

You don't seem to be very thankful for how much safer your going to be with all the new laws that big brother can come up with. All kidding aside,crime will be unheard of with these laws on the books just ask the people that write them! Or better yet watch Joe Biden on You-Tube, he'll be glad to tell you how they won't work.

 

[DCWilson]

Those "laws" are at this moment a wish list announced by California Senate President Darrell Steinberg on behalf of the State Senate Democratic Caucus. There is an entire legislative process to get through before they actually become laws. Don't make the situation worse than it already is.

We can all vomit and panic later when some of the 10 proposed laws actually make it to the Governor's desk. Until then there is only one proper response to the California Legislature's insane and cynical attempts to rush past New York in the race to the bottom: principled opposition.

 

[Harrison]

I have to think that the majority of voters in Cali elect, and reelect, these anti-gun politicians, knowing that they are anti-gun. Therefore, the majority of voters must be happy with insane anti-gun laws. A people get the kind of government they vote for. Sadly, we have met the enemy and it is us. Also sadly, as California goes, so eventually the western half of the U.S. tends to follow. We have already seen the Californization of quit a few western states that used to be solid conservative. The same for the eastern half of the nation following the lead of New York/New Jersey.

 

[DCWilson]

... the majority of voters in Cali elect, and reelect, these anti-gun politicians, knowing that they are anti-gun. Therefore, the majority of voters must be happy with insane anti-gun laws.

Wrong. Some minority percentage of voters will be happy with anti-gun politicians and anti-gun laws, but remember that a little more than half of Californians are not gun owners. A significant percentage of that group doesn't care about the issue because they sense they don't have a dog in the fight. They aren't "happy" when anti-gun laws are passed; they simply don't care.

Put the aggressive antis together with the uninvolved, and that's enough of a bloc to let bad laws be passed. If even one-third of the indifferent could be enrolled in support of the shooting sports cause rather than scared away by intemperate and sometimes paranoid rants, legislation could break the other way.

Winning the fight in this situation will require endless and imperturbable reasonable discourse from those who support gun rights. An aggressive or antagonistic utterance may feel good when it escapes one's lips, but it will invariably defeat its own purpose.

 

[Marlboroman]

Attention SF South Bay gun supporters. Templer Sports in Los Gatos is under attack by anti 2nd Amendment gun grabbers. Your support is needed Monday, Feb 11 at the Los Gatos Town Meeting. I am not an employee of Templer, just a concerned citizen. Search, "Templer Sports" for details.

 

[Gunslinger808]

To all the Fudds out there that didn't care about "Assault Rifles" being banned, and that were in fact quick to throw owners of them under the bus to save their "Hunting Rifles" I have One question.
How's that working out for ya?
After all, no one needs more than one round or a semi auto to hunt with!

 

[old bear]

A significant percentage of that group doesn't care about the issue because they sense they don't have a dog in the fight. They aren't "happy" when anti-gun laws are passed; they simply don't care.

This is the group, those of us who enjoy the shooting sports, need to convince we are normal and sane folks, who want to live in a safe society as much as anyone else.

As David said wild eyed Rhetoric, will only hurt our cause in the long run.

 

[DCWilson]

To all the Fudds out there that didn't care about "Assault Rifles" being banned, and that were in fact quick to throw owners of them under the bus to save their "Hunting Rifles" I have One question.
How's that working out for ya?
After all, no one needs more than one round or a semi auto to hunt with!

I'm not sure the people you characterize as Fudds exist to any significant degree. I don't have a military-style sporter and don't even long for one. But I care greatly when attempts are made to ban them because I am a fan of sound and well researched public policy; selective gun bans are based on slapdash, impressionistic opinions that are formed in a research vacuum. Everybody who wants a mililtary-style sporter should be able to own one, and if anyone can pass the review and afford the tax stamp, he should be able to buy a selective-fire rifle as well.

I will take a factory-scoped Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine over an AR-15 any day of the week. But I don't care if you like the other style. Feel free to buy any of them that a manufacturer may have made in hopes of selling them to me. I support the rights of others to acquire the specific firearms they want, subject only to the common-sense limitations of mental illness, criminal record, or restraining orders issued in response to a demonstrated capacity for violence.

 

[Gunslinger808]

I refer to the Zumbos of the world.
Those that state there is no significant sporting use for an AR 15 or full capacity magazine, while expounding on their latest improved bolt action.
Let's face it, there are lots of them out there, and I'm sure some of us have heard them belittle the evil black rifle.
Heck, I've personally had and old codger let me know his stance on them while at a public range.
My point is every inroad that is made on our Constitutional rights impacts us all, regardless of whether or not you personally have an interest in that particular type of firearm or not.
Too many would be (and have been) willing to let the enemies of the Second Ammendment trample the rights of certain firearms owners as long as it didn't infringe on their particular niche.
The days of "I don't care, it doesn't affect me" attitudes need to end, we're all in this fight together.

 

[old bear]

I've never owned an AR 15 style rifle nor do I have any desire to own one, yet the reason I do not support a ban on any weapon or magazine, that is currently legal to own, is simple. What comes next?

If we don't present a united front in this fight those who wish to eliminate all private firearm ownership will keep chipping away at our rights until none of us will be able to own any firearms.

 

[ogilvyspecial]

Sadly, we have met the enemy and it is us.

Every time I see something like the above quote, I remember something my
Dad told me while we were having a couple of beers at our local
American Legion post back around 1978, or thereabouts.

I asked him if he thought the USSR could ever take over the U.S.?

He said,
"I don't know about the Soviet Union, but if this country is ever
taken over, the american people will wake up one day and
find out that they elected those who did it."

The older I get, the smarter I think my Dad was........

 

[V-35]

I'm not sure the people you characterize as Fudds exist to any significant degree. I don't have a military-style sporter and don't even long for one. But I care greatly when attempts are made to ban them because I am a fan of sound and well researched public policy; selective gun bans are based on slapdash, impressionistic opinions that are formed in a research vacuum. Everybody who wants a mililtary-style sporter should be able to own one, and if anyone can pass the review and afford the tax stamp, he should be able to buy a selective-fire rifle as well.

I will take a factory-scoped Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine over an AR-15 any day of the week. But I don't care if you like the other style. Feel free to buy any of them that a manufacturer may have made in hopes of selling them to me. I support the rights of others to acquire the specific firearms they want, subject only to the common-sense limitations of mental illness, criminal record, or restraining orders issued in response to a demonstrated capacity for violence.

David,
My sentiments exactly (including the MS Carbine that I bought for less than I sold the Colt LE6920 M4 for that I mistakenly bought during the Panic of '08. I never fired it or wanted to, but I DO want anyone who likes them and can use responsibly, to be able to own them.

I do wish I had your clarity of thought & expression. I am happy that you can defend Our position in the clear, logical and civil manner that is your style. (Ever think of becoming a spokesman for the NRA? I would certainly vote for you.).....;-)

As I have stated before, if I were in combat (unlikely at my age) I would want a M-16 or other 'Black Gun' rather than a Mannlicher Schoenauer, or Pre-Garcia Sako Carbine. (I have both BTW) However, I can look, 'fondle', and shoot these for hours on end, while the black guns are all but invisible to me.

We are all in to this assualt on our freedom together. Let us all fight together and not be fractured as the anti's want us to be.


Art

 

[Guys1911]

While DCWilson is right about the wish list, my concern is we in CA. now have a one party system. There are not even enough Republicans to block passage of anything that the dems really want. It is true we have to present a united front and call and e-mail everyday, but this feels like one of those times when hard work and being in the right may not matter. Let's hope i'm wrong.