advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 05, 2021 08:00AM
Why?

Quote

[In the ruling’s opening lines], Judge Benitez’s...wrote that, like a Swiss Army knife, the AR-15 assault rifle “is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.”

facepalm

...and it’s a floor wax and desert topping. Everyone should have one.

Bush appointee. At least he stayed the decision (for a whole month) to allow appeal of this gun-nut BS.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 05, 2021 08:01AM
Fritz just beat me to the punch.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 05, 2021 08:22AM
I think it would be fairly routine for any half-awake attorney in a rented suit to argue that “perfect” might be something more like a small nuke. For some people, a moat with crocodiles is totally doable. Even an AK requires a little aiming, and really who’s got time for that?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 05, 2021 09:51AM
And he issues this ruling on national Gun Violence Awareness Day, when we wear orange to show solidarity with families of victims of gun violence, and remembrance of their lost loved ones.

This same judge also blocked the ban on high capacity magazines, a ruling that is up for review.

His wording suggests that civilians need to be ready to do "homeland security" and that if a weapon sells well, it must be suitable for the public. The gun manufacturing lobby has no better friend than a judge like this.

(Maybe except the Governor of Tennesee, who just did a ceremony honoring Constitutional Carry in a gun factory.

[www.tennessean.com])



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2021 11:31AM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 05, 2021 11:08AM
Quote
Lemon Drop

His wording suggests that civilians need to be ready to do "homeland security"

I find this to be a particularly inscrutable, yet amusing, part of gun nut culture.

Exactly who are they going to use these guns against in the name of “homeland security”? Are the Russians coming? Oh, I forgot, Russians are now the good guys, since they are Trump’s friend. Well, then great unwashed hordes of Arabs, or perhaps illegal aliens? Or are we talking about those commie Dems in Washington coming to take away our guns?

During the George Floyd unrest, my nutty-conservative neighbor came over and darkly commented that we have to keep watch out and if necessary, “defend” each other.

Seriously, WTF do these armed-Walter-Mitty types keep fantasizing about?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 05, 2021 11:46AM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Lemon Drop

His wording suggests that civilians need to be ready to do "homeland security"

I find this to be a particularly inscrutable, yet amusing, part of gun nut culture.

Exactly who are they going to use these guns against in the name of “homeland security”? Are the Russians coming? Oh, I forgot, Russians are now the good guys, since they are Trump’s friend. Well, then great unwashed hordes of Arabs, or perhaps illegal aliens? Or are we talking about those commie Dems in Washington coming to take away our guns?

During the George Floyd unrest, my nutty-conservative neighbor came over and darkly commented that we have to keep watch out and if necessary, “defend” each other.

Seriously, WTF do these armed-Walter-Mitty types keep fantasizing about?

A second civil war, only this time their side wins.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 05, 2021 01:34PM
What do they want? To be Major Kong riding the nuke like a buckin' bronco in Dr. Strangelove


Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway Synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

Great "home defense" weapon. Idiot.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Buzz
Date: June 05, 2021 03:36PM
I'm not anti-guns, nor am I a gun nut.
I am, however, anti nuts having guns.
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mrbill62
Date: June 05, 2021 04:37PM
Quote
deckeda

Orlando: AR-15 ->NOT an AR - Sig MCX. Terrorist attack. Security Co Psychologist where shooter worked & who cleared him for firearms license didn't do interview. Security Co fined for multiple lapses. (2016)

Parkland: AR-15 -> Shooter made multiple references to school shootings. Sheriff's office rec'd at least 45 calls about shooter. FBI ignored phone tip 1 month previously. Florida's Sun Sentinel did an excellent series of articles of the failures of the Sheriff, FBI, & the school district. MASSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT FAILURES (2018)

Las Vegas: AR-15 -> Actually multiple AR's. Still no known motive. (2017)

Aurora, CO: AR-15 -> Notebook with evidence of premeditation. Too bad the jury didn't choose the death penalty. (2012)

Sandy Hook: AR-15 -> Crazy son murders mother & steals her gun. Shooter was obsessed with mass murders of all kinds. (2012)

Waffle House: AR-15 -> Shooter diagnosed schizophrenic after several incidents. IL authorities confiscated his firearms. Firearms were given to father after he promised to keep them away from son. Apparently he did not. (2018)

San Bernardino: AR-15 -> Terrorist attack w/straw purchased weapons (illegal). IIRC was initially described as "workplace violence". (2015)

Midland/Odessa: AR-15 -> Shooter was banned possessor, bought weapon illegally via private sale.

Poway Synagogue: AR-15 -> Shooter had manifesto & history of anti-muslim, anti-semitism, & a few more anti's & tried to use Christian beliefs to justify his crimes. (2019)

Sutherland Springs: AR-15 -> Stopped by the mythical "good guy with a gun". Shooter was a prohibited owner d/t convictions of domestic violence. USAF failed to report the DV conviction to NCIC. LE/Military Failure. (2017)

Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15 -> Anti-semitism. I knew & had worked with one of the victims. (2018)

Know I'm wasting my time, but I bet very, very, very, few have actually read the Court's decision & simply relied on their own echo chamber media.

Here is the transcript of the decision.

Most of the comments here & elsewhere have been made on select quotes w/o going further. The short attention span version.

Issued June 4th with a 30 day stay ... becomes effective July 4, 2021.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 05, 2021 05:03PM
So you read all 94 pages?

After the first third, I can relate that, to me, it leans on Heller (a lot) and seems to spend a lot of time talking about how darn popular these guns are; therefore they must be ideal for “home defense”. The judge even helpfully estimates how many, many average Californians would certainly own assault rifles if not for this law.

But they don’t; fewer than 1 in 6 Californians own a gun of any sort, and the majority of Californians seem to prefer to not have assault-style rifles easily available.

The plausible connection to a well-regulated militia seems largely glossed over, as most pro-gun advocacy does. Gun nuts see an absolute right to own, well, anything they want, regardless; the majority of the people (certainly in the state of California) disagree. As do I.

I’m expecting this to be overturned on appeal.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mrbill62
Date: June 05, 2021 05:38PM
Quote
pdq
So you read all 94 pages?

After the first third, I can relate that, to me, it leans on Heller (a lot) and seems to spend a lot of time talking about how darn popular these guns are; therefore they must be ideal for “home defense”. The judge even helpfully estimates how many, many average Californians would certainly own assault rifles if not for this law.

But they don’t; fewer than 1 in 6 Californians own a gun of any sort, and the majority of Californians seem to prefer to not have assault-style rifles easily available.

The plausible connection to a well-regulated militia seems largely glossed over, as most pro-gun advocacy does. Gun nuts see an absolute right to own, well, anything they want, regardless; the majority of the people (certainly in the state of California) disagree. As do I.

I’m expecting this to be overturned on appeal.

Yes I did.

Twice.

Did you? Doubtful or you lack comprehension skills, or you are guided by emotion. Facts are evidence.

The popularity of AR's falls under the Heller Scrutiny test "in common use" - remember that decision? Reminder

I bet you did nothing more than skim & didn't read the footnotes.
You must have missed the imaginary 2.2 rounds statistic by the statistician whose sources vary wildly depending in where she testifies.
Or the Retired General's (both Regular Army & National Guard.)
How about the Navy Surgeon/ER Physician who is also a police officer?
Did you read the part where the Judge applied not only the Heller Scrutiny but also the multi-part scrutiny used by the 9th District.
You missed the CA AG citing a case where no decision was made.
As well as the pages on pages of other facts.

As to what Californians want, see the Tenth Amendment.

Oh, the 9th will overturn it, but the Judge has set it up perfectly for the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 05, 2021 07:15PM
Well, I read the part about how glorious they are for home defense and how they’re pretty much like a Swiss Army Knife and how the last 30 years was a waste of time.

So linking to Heller or anything else is likely still not o my irrelevant here, but specious.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: bfd
Date: June 05, 2021 07:31PM
For every one decent jurist sitting in the San Diego Federal Courthouse, there seems to be at least 5 knuckleheads … More billable hours for the new California AG.

Benitez has pulled this stunt many times before, and hopefully this one will get whacked out of a higher court again. Sooner or later, though, this one might go all the way up the flagpole. A different side of the "state's rights" argument, to be sure.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mrbill62
Date: June 05, 2021 08:18PM
Quote
deckeda
Well, I read the part about how glorious they are for home defense and how they’re pretty much like a Swiss Army Knife and how the last 30 years was a waste of time.

So linking to Heller or anything else is likely still not o my irrelevant here, but specious.

Then you couldn't be bothered to go beyond 2 pages and are unwilling to even consider an informed opinion about the decision.

Just for fun I'll do some quotes you were too lazy to read:

End of page 2 to beginning of page 3
Quote

One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.

page 3
Quote

In California, murder by knife occurs seven times moreoften than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15.2 A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.3 In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle.4 The same pattern can be observed across the nation.

page 11
Quote

Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.

pages 12-13
Quote

With these principles firmly established, it is time to put the constitutionality of AWCA to the test. Two tests will be used: (1) the Heller test; and (2) the Ninth Circuit’s two-step levels-of-scrutiny test. The Heller test is a test that any citizen can understand. Heller asks whether a law bans a firearm that is commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It is a hardware test.20Hellerdraws a distinction between firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes and unusual arms adapted to unlawful uses as well as arms solely useful for military purposes.21 As applied to AWCA, the Heller test asks: is a modern riflecommonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose? For the AR-15 type rifle the answer is “yes.”

pages 40-41
Quote

Accuracy is very important for self-defense because a civilian is accountable for every round he fires. If he misses the attacker, he will hit something he did not intend to hit, which may be an innocent bystander.61 The State does not dispute the importance of accuracy alone for self-defense.62Does the state want rifles that are less accurate? No and yes . The State wants rifles that are less accurate during rapid firing because rapid firing, it is claimed, correlates with criminal use. And there is no need for rapid firing for self-defense, according to the Attorney General. The Attorney General argues that the features prohibited by § 30515 are characteristic of military weapons and military weapons are designed to be accurate with rapid firing. Perhaps. But that a civilian rifle has design features similar to a military rifle does not detract from its constitutional protection for self-defense.

page 41
Quote

The ability to fire fully automatic is, above everything else, what distinguishes an M-16 from an AR-15-type semi-automatic civilian rifle. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). But the M-16 was modified to allow for burst and single fire (semi-automatic) capabilities because it was recognized that firing in full automatic is less accurate and wastes ammunition. And this is where the mantra that an AR-15 is “almost as fast as the M-16” fails. Because the M-16 provides fast but inaccurate shooting in full automatic mode, when accuracy is needed, the M-16 has the option of the slower single round semiautomatic firing like an AR-15.

page 41
Quote

Emanuel Kapelsohn testified, Accuracy is very important for self-defense because, unlike a criminal using a firearm, the civilian or the police officer, either one is accountable for every round they fire. And any round that misses the attacker, who is attacking the civilian or the police officer, if it doesn’t hit what they intended to hit, the attacker, then by definition it hits something they didn’t intend to hit. That may be an innocent bystander. So the accomplishment of a good level of accuracy is paramount in civilian self-defense training with firearms, and the AR-15 permits that.63

The myth of 2.2 shots which covers pages 47-54 is entertaining especially the myth failing the scientific method.

Pages 55-57 address the state's witness' (2.2 shot myth) variable count of mass shootings. They seem to rely on media articles rather than crime reports. (Shouldn't the AG have access to crime reports?)

pages 62-63
Quote

Dr. Robert A. Margulies, M.D., has unusually impressive credentials. He has practiced emergencymedicine for more than 50 years. For 24 years he served in active duty in the U.S. Navy including combat experience or the front lines of conflict. Dr. Margulies also currently serves as a sworn reserve police officer and a certified police firearms instructor.125According to Dr. Margulies, The biggest flaw with Dr. Colwell’s declaration is that he does not explain why the supposedly extreme wounds generated from an intermediate cartridge, such as the 223/5.56 round fired from a California-defined “assault weapon” bearing the features or characteristics set forth in California Penal Code § 30515(a) would present a greater wound profile than a wound suffered from the same round fired from a non-assault weapon, using the same barrel length.

page 63
Quote

According to Dr. Margulies, “looking at a gunshot wound, one is able to determine during the treatment of that wound that it was either, relatively speaking, a low-velocity or a high-velocity injury. You couldn’t tell the difference between a nine-millimeter and a .45 ACP injury just from looking at the injury; you couldn’t tell the difference between a 5.56 x 45 or a 7.62 x 39 [by] simply looking at the injury. You could determine that one came from a higher velocity cartridge than from a lower velocity cartridge.”127

page 64
Quote

As an emergency room physician, Dr. Margulies says, “[f]or me to talk about a wound, I have to know the cartridge, the bullet, the barrel, the distance and the point of impact. It's going to make a lot of difference if it strikes somebody in the shoulder or strikes them in the middle of the forehead. So I have to know all those things. It’s not going to make any difference to me treating the patient if it came from a bolt-action .223 or it came from a semiautomatic AR-15.”130

pages 64-65
Quote

A modern rifle like the AR-15 platform rifle typically uses lower power cartridges than either military rifles or hunting rifles. While there are exceptions, for purposes of the state regulation it does not matter. This is confirmed by the Attorney General’s own evidence. As set forth by Vincent J.M. DiMaio, M.D., in the authoritative work Gunshot Wounds, Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, 3d, CRC Press (2016), the wounds from assault rifles are less severe than hunting rifles. Dr. DiMaio explains, One of the common fallacies about assault rifles is that the wounds they produce are more severe than those due to ordinary centerfire rifles. In fact, the wounds are less severe than those produced by virtually all hunting rifles . . . . [T]he severity of the wound is determined by the amount of kinetic energy lost by a bullet in the body. The intermediate cartridges used in assault rifles possess significantly less kinetic energy than a regular centerfire rifle cartridge designed for hunting. In addition, since most ammunition used in these weapons is loaded with a full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet, the wound is even less severe than one might expect.131

Pages 70-80, the Judge addresses other court decisions & non-decisions cited by the CA AG.

Pages 78-80 are especially entertaining with the Judge negating every argument regarding "assault weapons", a Ruger Mini-14, and a 1911 pistol.
Quote

The Attorney General sneers that “assault weapons have a military pedigree.” Id. at 10. The 1911 pistol also has a military pedigree.152

That's enough for now other than to reiterate there was much more to the decision than the superficial ones made so far.

I am in agreement with Buzz.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Acer
Date: June 05, 2021 09:50PM
Good news, everyone! AR-15 wounds are less severe than those of hunting rifles!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 05, 2021 09:51PM
Well over one million Americans have died from guns in my lifetime. Obviously we need to legalize more guns.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 05, 2021 10:33PM
A federal judge wrote this mess? My goodness. It reads like something straight off 2A.com world


Had to look up this judge's academic and professional background.

I think "lightweight " is a kind way to describe this activist judge.

The part about damage to tissue caused by the AR-15, trauma surgeons are going to rip him a new one on that, if you'll pardon the expression. Ultimately this will not be about severity of wounds or frequency of mass murders around the country or what weapon is best for self defense.

It's just a simple matter of whether courts and legislatures believe we should let states have gun safety and responsibility measures that the public wants, or not.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Acer
Date: June 05, 2021 11:55PM
Knife attacks are more common, there's no denying. Because everyone in perhaps the entire planet, from huts to penthouses has access to one if not many if they prepare food. I wonder what the ratio of number of knives to knife deaths is. I have perhaps a dozen in my house, none of which have been used to attack anyone to my knowledge. I have cut myself on occasion while cleaning one, though. Maybe I should replace the knives in my kitchen with AR-15s. I hear they are safer. I certainly can't cut myself or anyone else with one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2021 11:56PM by Acer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 06, 2021 12:33AM
Golly. Lotta words to explain why guns aren’t more lethal.

Got more, “mr bill?”
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mrbill62
Date: June 06, 2021 02:17AM
Quote
deckeda
Golly. Lotta words to explain why guns aren’t more lethal.

Got more, “mr bill?”

Can't argue facts, mock. Typical. You can't stand rational, independent thinkers.

Having worked 30 years in Emergency Medicine (RN & Paramedic) treated more various GSWs, & taken advanced courses - even attended Advanced Trauma Life Support (usually physician only); I have plenty more words to explain the lethality, unfortunately, you wouldn't understand most of them.

Quote

Good news, everyone! AR-15 wounds are less severe than those of hunting rifles!
Another lazy thinker who accidentally stumbles on truth. Was it painful for you?

I'm surprised that the lot of you haven't resorted to the "weapons of war" claims.

Also, it's fun to watch as several of you follow this playbook almost completely.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 06, 2021 03:31AM
All that really matters is that gunners have the 2nd, the SCOTUS and the Russian-funded NRA in their pockets right next to their guns. Let the death toll be damned.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: JoeH
Date: June 06, 2021 09:44AM
Quote
mrbill62
Quote
deckeda
Golly. Lotta words to explain why guns aren’t more lethal.

Got more, “mr bill?”

Can't argue facts, mock. Typical. You can't stand rational, independent thinkers.

Having worked 30 years in Emergency Medicine (RN & Paramedic) treated more various GSWs, & taken advanced courses - even attended Advanced Trauma Life Support (usually physician only); I have plenty more words to explain the lethality, unfortunately, you wouldn't understand most of them.

Quote

Good news, everyone! AR-15 wounds are less severe than those of hunting rifles!
Another lazy thinker who accidentally stumbles on truth. Was it painful for you?

I'm surprised that the lot of you haven't resorted to the "weapons of war" claims.

Also, it's fun to watch as several of you follow this playbook almost completely.

Speaking of following a playbook, you should look in a mirror.

I've pretty much just skipped over all of your posts on both sides, your main reason for being here seems to be "educate" us all on the right way to look st guns. In that you are very god at repeating the gun nut party line.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Acer
Date: June 06, 2021 10:27AM
I don't agree with all of mrbill62's opinions on firearms, but I have no problem with him or anyone else expressing those opinions here. And I think the way he expresses them are fine. He's not throwing bombs and running off to A/S to giggle about them. His post with references to the actual decision is solid. Agree with his conclusions or not, he's put more raw effort into this specific thread than anyone else has so far, including myself.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2021 10:29AM by Acer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 06, 2021 10:45AM
A few of questions for mr. bill:

1. Do YOU need a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you need a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you need?
1c. If so, why do you need THAT gun?

2. Do YOU want a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you want a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you want?
1c. If so, why do you want THAT gun?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 06, 2021 11:33AM
Quote
DeusxMac
A few of questions for mr. bill:

1. Do YOU need a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you need a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you need?
1c. If so, why do you need THAT gun?

2. Do YOU want a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you want a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you want?
1c. If so, why do you want THAT gun?

Trying to figure out the relevance of this to the thread...it seems to be devolving from the merits of the case to making it personal; to somewhat get back on topic - replace "gun" with pretty much anything else (telephone, car, a pair of pants)...whether or not a particular individual wants an object or how he or she decides to use that object should have no bearing on the legality of that object.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 06, 2021 01:59PM
Lots of very strange things in that ruling.

In one section he says that "more people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."

No citation is given with this bizarre statement so no idea what numbers he is using or where he got them. How is vaccine safety relevant in any way to a decision on gun regulation? This sounds like something you'd hear on Tucker Carlson, not in a federal judiciary ruling.


And about the Heller decision "common use test", written by Scalia, that is actually used to argue in favor of assault weapon bans. This judge's interpretation of that is unusual.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Buzz
Date: June 06, 2021 02:47PM
I'm not anti-guns, nor am I a gun nut.
I am, however, anti nuts having guns.

Nuts without guns are a problem.
Nuts with guns are bigger problem.
Sometimes a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Guns without nuts are not a problem.
Let's first deal with the nuts that are a problem.
Then assess guns without having to deal with the nuts problem.

Don't over-complicate the issue by continually trying to incorporate guns into the nuts problem.
They are separate issues, and only one (nuts) is a problem without the other.
Let's start by fixing that.

Pissing contests from either side, or both sides, don't fix anything; they just piss on everything.
Unlike some, I'd rather my environment not smell like urine.
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 06, 2021 03:44PM
Quote
pdq
Why?

Quote

[In the ruling’s opening lines], Judge Benitez’s...wrote that, like a Swiss Army knife, the AR-15 assault rifle “is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.”

facepalm

...and it’s a floor wax and desert topping. Everyone should have one.

Bush appointee. At least he stayed the decision (for a whole month) to allow appeal of this gun-nut BS.

With Nader, this guy isn't appointed.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 06, 2021 04:30PM
Quote
vision63
Quote
pdq
Bush appointee. At least he stayed the decision (for a whole month) to allow appeal of this gun-nut BS.

With Nader, this guy isn't appointed.

huh smiley

Nader? Who’s Nader? Which Nader?

Did I miss something?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 06, 2021 04:40PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
vision63
Quote
pdq
Bush appointee. At least he stayed the decision (for a whole month) to allow appeal of this gun-nut BS.

With Nader, this guy isn't appointed.

huh smiley

Nader? Who’s Nader? Which Nader?

Did I miss something?

I thought he meant without Ralph Nader as third party spoiler... Gore would have won on 2000 and this judge would never have been appointed.

Could be wrong tho.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 06, 2021 04:55PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
pdq
Quote
vision63
Quote
pdq
Bush appointee. At least he stayed the decision (for a whole month) to allow appeal of this gun-nut BS.

With Nader, this guy isn't appointed.

huh smiley

Nader? Who’s Nader? Which Nader?

Did I miss something?

I thought he meant without Ralph Nader as third party spoiler... Gore would have won on 2000 and this judge would never have been appointed.

Could be wrong tho.

I'm an Elephant. :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 06, 2021 08:55PM
Quote
vision63

I'm an Elephant. :-)

So with a little training you too could become a circus performer? jest smiley


or maybe a Republican?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: vision63
Date: June 06, 2021 09:55PM
Quote
RgrF
Quote
vision63

I'm an Elephant. :-)

So with a little training you too could become a circus performer? jest smiley


or maybe a Republican?

I'm talented enough to be just about anything. Awesomeness.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 07, 2021 08:26AM
Quote
Buzz
I'm not anti-guns, nor am I a gun nut.
I am, however, anti nuts having guns.

Nuts without guns are a problem.
Nuts with guns are bigger problem.
Sometimes a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Guns without nuts are not a problem.
Let's first deal with the nuts that are a problem.
Then assess guns without having to deal with the nuts problem.

Don't over-complicate the issue by continually trying to incorporate guns into the nuts problem.
They are separate issues, and only one (nuts) is a problem without the other.
Let's start by fixing that.

Pissing contests from either side, or both sides, don't fix anything; they just piss on everything.
Unlike some, I'd rather my environment not smell like urine.
==

The nuts don’t bother me as much as the accidents and suicides. Five year olds offing their three year old sibling is unspeakably tragic. The 14 year old shooting themselves. We don’t need guns. We may want them but we don’t need them, not in our homes. You want to hunt, rent a rifle. You want to shoot targets, use the weapons provided at a range. You need to prove your manhood, get help, not a gun.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 07, 2021 10:16AM
>The nuts don’t bother me as much as the accidents and suicides.

1000%



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Acer
Date: June 07, 2021 12:53PM
Quote
mattkime
>The nuts don’t bother me as much as the accidents and suicides.

1000%

Well, that and a dozen people shot in 90 seconds.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Buzz
Date: June 07, 2021 02:39PM
Quote
Speedy

The nuts don’t bother me as much as the accidents and suicides. Five year olds offing their three year old sibling is unspeakably tragic. The 14 year old shooting themselves. We don’t need guns. We may want them but we don’t need them, not in our homes. You want to hunt, rent a rifle. You want to shoot targets, use the weapons provided at a range. You need to prove your manhood, get help, not a gun.

Any parent that allows a five year old access to a gun, is a nut. There are many more ways to commit suicide than using a gun. My almost 13 y.o. cousin accidentally shooting himself, after finding his father's gun hidden deep in his parent's closet while he was home alone back in the 1950's, was truly tragic. My aunt and uncle bought adjacent crypts at the mausoleum for their son and themselves at that time. My uncle died in 1990 and was entombed in his crypt. My aunt died just a few years ago, up in her 90's, and (against religious custom) insisted on being cremated and her ashes be entombed in her son's crypt. I do know gun tragedy.

You're right, guns could be borrowed or rented at venues, but that's not gonna keep all the guns out of the hands of all the nuts that are intent on doing nutty stuff. Up until ~35 years ago when my neuro crud started kicking in, I woulda felt comfortable defending myself and those around me without a gun. As my neuro crud has progressed, you bet I'm gonna defend my home and family with a gun.

I'm in favor of reasonable gun controls, but I'm not gonna confuse the much greater need to control the nuts out there, above and beyond, and separate from what to do with guns.

Nuts without guns are a problem.
Nuts with guns are bigger problem.
Sometimes a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Guns without nuts are not a problem.
Let's first deal with the nuts that are a problem.
Then assess guns without having to deal with the nuts problem.

Don't over-complicate the issue by continually trying to incorporate guns into the nuts problem.
They are separate issues, and only one (nuts) is a problem without the other.
Let's start by fixing that.

Pissing contests from either side, or both sides, don't fix anything; they just piss on everything.
Unlike some, I'd rather my environment not smell like urine.


More people die and are hurt from traffic accidents, than from guns. By your logic we should outlaw all vehicles. Just walk everywhere. Wait. More people die and are hurt from accidental falls than from guns. I guess that means no walking without your helmet and padded suit. Forget Covid-19, more people die and are hurt from the flu than from guns. Maybe we need to quarantine everybody 24/7/365. I'm gonna go with the fact that somewhere around at least 99% of people that get the flu, don't do so willingly. More people die and are hurt from accidental poisoning than from guns. Obviously we need better control over what substances make their way into our bodies. Accidental burns, electric shocks, smoke inhalation, choking, and drowning are also more popular killers and injurers than guns.

Why not concentrate more on controlling all of these causes as vehemently as controlling guns?

What do most of these more prevalent causes of accidental injury and death have in common with injuries and death caused by guns?

Say it with me.... "It's the Nuts!"

Again, reasonable gun controls are just a tiny, and separate piece of the global solution that is needed, and I'm not against that. IRL, controlling the nuts is way more important. Does the drug crazed nut that breaks into your home with a knife and baseball bat, that cares more about robbing you to get money for their next fix, than for you or your loved ones' lives or well being, bother you? He or she sure as hell bothers me, and I'm gonna shoot 'em before they harm anyone in, or around my home. Your presence may scare them into harming you, before you can willingly hand over your valuables.... or they may not want to leave witnesses. I don't need to prove my manhood; I want to protect my family.

I'm not anti-guns, nor am I a gun nut.
I am, however, anti nuts having guns.

==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 07, 2021 03:13PM
How do we determine who the 'nuts' are before they start shooting?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Buzz
Date: June 07, 2021 06:53PM
I'm all for better background checks, and more stringent gun ownership requirements. Gun safety classes for new gun owners. Mandatory parental/legal guardian cosigning for gun buyers under 25. We can make guns more difficult to get for some of the nuts, which in theory ought to cut down on accidents; but the nuttiest nuts are gonna find a way to get their guns, and bad things are still gonna happen.

There seems to be a massive societal disconnect equating guns with all kinds of bad stuff. Without nuts, most non-willful gun related bad stuff doesn't happen, nor does a lot of the other accidental bad stuff noted in my earlier post. Making guns the "bad guy", instead of of focusing on the nuts that are the real bad guys hasn't worked, in like forever. Let's focus on keeping the nuts from doing nutty stuff.
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 07, 2021 07:21PM
Let’s focus on banning guns. That addict breaking into your house is less common a danger (because they only want your property, not your life) than the gun your grandchild uses on a sibling.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2021 07:22PM by Speedy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 07, 2021 10:54PM
This is ludicrous. It's like saying we should allow people to commute to work in Formula 1 cars because they have superior safety features and commuting in an F1 would be much quicker. So what if they go 200+ mph? Just ask any doctor, the crushed corpse of a person hit by a Formula 1 racer is not in any worse shape than the crushed corpse of a person hit by a Toyota.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: Sam3
Date: June 08, 2021 03:36AM
Quote

...Again, reasonable gun controls are just a tiny, and separate piece of the global solution that is needed,...

Sorry, but there is no need for a global solution, as there is no global problem. Other countries in the world have already figured out what to do, it's just the USA that can't grasp the solution, even though it is staring us in the face.

So every spouse that kills their partner in a fit of rage because there was a gun readily available, then calms down and has such remorse that they can't live with themselves any more and proceed to blow their brains out is a "nut"? Even though both parties probably would still be alive had not that gun been there?



The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 08, 2021 01:53PM
Quote
mattkime
How do we determine who the 'nuts' are before they start shooting?

Quote
Sam3
So every spouse that kills their partner in a fit of rage because there was a gun readily available, then calms down and has such remorse that they can't live with themselves any more and proceed to blow their brains out is a "nut"?

^this. "Law abiding gun owners" are often law abiding up til the moment they start shooting up the place.

Why are we the only developed country that has to deal with the level of gun violence we have (and it's not even close).

Gun nuts (a tiny minority of the population) are seriously f'ing up this country.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2021 01:54PM by pdq.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 08, 2021 02:04PM
Sorry for late reply; long weekend houseguests...

Quote
SDGuy
Quote
DeusxMac
A few of questions for mr. bill:

1. Do YOU need a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you need a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you need?
1c. If so, why do you need THAT gun?

2. Do YOU want a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you want a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you want?
1c. If so, why do you want THAT gun?

Trying to figure out the relevance of this to the thread...it seems to be devolving from the merits of the case to making it personal; to somewhat get back on topic - replace "gun" with pretty much anything else (telephone, car, a pair of pants)...whether or not a particular individual wants an object or how he or she decides to use that object should have no bearing on the legality of that object.

The relevance is that all our gun "discussions" here have at their rudimentary core, gun owners' need/desire to own guns.

It would be informative to hear that fundamental reasoning - rationale - from gun owner-advocates.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 08, 2021 02:20PM
Quote
Buzz
I'm not anti-guns, nor am I a gun nut.
I am, however, anti nuts having guns.

As others have pointed out, who decides who is a "nut" and who isn't? They don't self-identify do they?

Quote
Buzz
Nuts without guns are a problem.
Nuts with guns are bigger problem.
Sometimes a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Yep!

Quote
Buzz
Guns without nuts are not a problem.
Let's first deal with the nuts that are a problem.
Then assess guns without having to deal with the nuts problem.

1. As above, who determines "nut"? Are there levels of "nut"; gun-OK nut, gun-not-OK-nut?
2. Who knows how to "deal with the nuts"? Is this a skill already understood and mastered, but being withheld from use?

Quote
Buzz
Don't over-complicate the issue by continually trying to incorporate guns into the nuts problem.
They are separate issues, and only one (nuts) is a problem without the other.
Let's start by fixing that.

1. It IS complicated! Even the term "nuts" is dangerously simplistic.
2. see 2. above

Quote
Buzz
Pissing contests from either side, or both sides, don't fix anything; they just piss on everything.
Unlike some, I'd rather my environment not smell like urine.
==

Would that the issues and consequences were just a "pissing contest". I'd take the smell rather than the dead bodies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2021 02:21PM by DeusxMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Assault weapons ban declared unconstitutional by CA judge
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 08, 2021 06:40PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Sorry for late reply; long weekend houseguests...

Quote
SDGuy
Quote
DeusxMac
A few of questions for mr. bill:

1. Do YOU need a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you need a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you need?
1c. If so, why do you need THAT gun?

2. Do YOU want a gun?
1a. If so, WHY do you want a gun?
1b. If so, WHAT gun do you want?
1c. If so, why do you want THAT gun?

Trying to figure out the relevance of this to the thread...it seems to be devolving from the merits of the case to making it personal; to somewhat get back on topic - replace "gun" with pretty much anything else (telephone, car, a pair of pants)...whether or not a particular individual wants an object or how he or she decides to use that object should have no bearing on the legality of that object.

The relevance is that all our gun "discussions" here have at their rudimentary core, gun owners' need/desire to own guns.

It would be informative to hear that fundamental reasoning - rationale - from gun owner-advocates.

Well - it may be informative about one individual, but as far as relevance to the overall topic at hand/debate at hand? Minimal, at best - it would be on par with asking someone WHY they want to own pretty much anything (what do you plan to do with it? Do you really need it to do that? Why do you want to do that?)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 137
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020