M14 Forum


California to ban ALL semi-auto rifles w/a detachable magazine... UPDATE

This is a discussion on California to ban ALL semi-auto rifles w/a detachable magazine... UPDATE within the Gun Rights forums, part of the Gun Forum category; I am not sure how anyone cannot see what is happening is part of an overall plan to disarm Americans. For this to happen no ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights

140Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old February 11th, 2013, 08:45 PM   #76
Rifleman
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern California
Posts: 49
I am not sure how anyone cannot see what is happening is part of an overall plan to disarm Americans. For this to happen no one needs to repeal the second ammendment.

All they have to do is continue down this path of restrictions to who, what type of weapon, how much ammo, who can buy ammo etc, national registration, no grandfathering etc etc. This has nothing to do with safety for civilians in schools or theaters.

So yes I agree a civil war or maybe some sort of armed disobedience to any enforced gun laws such as confiscation of AR's, high cap mags etc.

Now certainly you have to let the courts be the best avenue for repeal of given laws. But it does not look good given the political powers in both fed and state govts.

No one, less myself want to imagine a civil war because basically you lose everything and there is no guarantee that we would return to our constitution after it ends.

tirado12 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 11th, 2013, 10:13 PM   #77
Snappin In
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern WV
Posts: 36
They just dont want the people with better hardware than the police. Just ban bad men makes as much sense.

john09040 is offline  
Old February 11th, 2013, 11:55 PM   #78
Rest in Peace
 
Gun Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 796
The problem is you don't revolt while they are picking away at our rights -- they are "boiling a frog" taking one kind of gun and telling the gun owners that don't own that type that they are "safe"

For now. By the time everyone realizes what's going on, the rights will be gone and WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEM BACK.

Also, ANY armed resistance will be spun by all the media as "crazy gun nuts" Like Waco, and no one will EVER know the truth. Not paranoia, just truth, brothers.

Gun Rider is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 05:24 AM   #79
Lifer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Coastal NC
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman View Post
Do you think the 2A is anywhere near being repealed?
It was tongue in cheek. None of the BoR has been, nor should they ever be, repealed.
Are you serious?

Obamacare has countless violations of your rights stated in the BOR.

And you claim that they should never be repealed, yet you habitually flip out on those making any reference to arming themselves for what the 2A was intended for.

Thanks from csacpt and Divepanama
Swamp Rat is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 10:13 AM   #80
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divepanama View Post
That is completely and unequivocally incorrect. You are very misinformed or at this point being completely duplicitous on this subject at his point. The fact that we, as the citizenry, have allowed and enabled those we elected to gut portions of the COTUS thanks to such idiotic nonsense as the Patriot Act and other other "feel good " nonsense does not in any way support or validate your position that the BoR is separate from the rest of the COTUS.
Those violations of the BoR weren't done Constitutionally, now were they?
So, no, I'm not wrong... you just don't like what I am saying.

Quote:
The Bill of Rights are a integral part of the U.S Constitution. Historically, if you would bother to do any research, it has been recorded that without the incorporation of the original BoR as a part of the Constitution then ratification would have failed.
Here we go on the unnecessary history lesson again. I know perfectly well the history of the Constitution and that it wouldn't have passed without the BoR attached...
Stop assuming you're more educated than others, that's a good starting point for meaningful discourse. Or, just throw up your hands and swear that I have my eyes closed, rather than discuss the topic.
Quote:
Obviously... blah blah blah, more inaccurate hyperbole
Quote:
Now if the government wishes to violate the COTUS (which includes the BoR), which they have as you have pointed out, then we as the citizenry are actually no longer obliged to obey any edicts or laws according to the nature of the social contract we have entered in with government.
Ah, so, if something is violated, it's a free for all... where's that in the Constitution btw?
Oh, this is you explaining how you are picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution and BoR you will obey... which are, the parts you like... Got it.
Or do you accept that, per the COTUS, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is acceptable?

Quote:
Have a nice evening and remember that the military offers tuition assistance for those on active duty. If that applies to you then a few POSC/CL classes would benefit you greatly on this subject. If not then the GI Bill/FASA might be a good investment
I'm out of the military, and was an officer, thank you.
You haven't actually said anything I don't know, despite your thinking that you are enlightening me.
I also already have my college education.
I got it at George Mason University... you know, George Mason, the guy who penned the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Again, please stop thinking you're coming from special place where you know more than other people when you have no idea what they know.

I agree that the US has, on many occasion, violated the COTUS and BoR. That, however, doesn't excuse you from following laws. It may justify you, but you'll get the hammer from the Fed...
Which I should know, since I work now in the Federal Courthouse... so, yes, please, school me on the Constitution some more... I work with the Constitution on a daily basis, for the record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rider View Post
The problem is you don't revolt while they are picking away at our rights -- they are "boiling a frog" taking one kind of gun and telling the gun owners that don't own that type that they are "safe"

For now. By the time everyone realizes what's going on, the rights will be gone and WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEM BACK.
What right is going away?
The right to not get a background check in a private sale?
Currently, no weapons are actually looking like they will get banned...
I will agree that a banning of LCMs is an affront and should be checked!

Quote:
Also, ANY armed resistance will be spun by all the media as "crazy gun nuts" Like Waco, and no one will EVER know the truth. Not paranoia, just truth, brothers.
Quite honestly, seeing some of the posts here, I think the same. Not yours, but this Charlesnpyle guy who claims the next Civil War is right around the corner and advising forming fire teams and squads of paramilitary... that's not an OK thought pattern at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp Rat View Post
Are you serious?

Obamacare has countless violations of your rights stated in the BOR.

And you claim that they should never be repealed, yet you habitually flip out on those making any reference to arming themselves for what the 2A was intended for.
Ummm, why are we on Obamacare? I already pointed out that, in recent history, both Obama AND Bush completely violated the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And, yeah, if you are specifically arming yourself for a Civil War, right now... you're a wingnut, and maybe you need to seek help. I stand by that.

Where's the revolution from the blow hards?

Kochman is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 10:41 AM   #81
Master Gunner
 
adrbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 877
Good points from both sides.

The logic supporting the notion that our rights as defined in the BoR cannot be repealed, even by a Constitutional amendment, is a bit hazy to me. It has certainly happened before. As much as I hate the 16th, I respect the Constitutional amendment process and am thereby obligated to respect that amendment as well.

I agree that people who support the Constitution must accept the fact that it can be modified -- for better, or for worse. That said, I support the notion that we should have some rights that cannot be modified, or repealed, even by the amendment process. However, as per my understanding of the founding documents, we are not protected from that at the moment. I'd like to see an amendment, that cannot be repealed, stating that our rights as defined in the BoR are protected from repeal or modification.

adrbe is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 12:57 PM   #82
Fire Team Leader
 
Divepanama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman View Post
Those violations of the BoR weren't done Constitutionally, now were they?
So, no, I'm not wrong... you just don't like what I am saying.
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking what you're saying. You stated that the BoR is a separate document from the COTUS and I pointed out that you are incorrect. Which you still are. Now you are simply attempting to misdirect my refutation of your assertion because to cannot defend your statement.


Quote:
Here we go on the unnecessary history lesson again. I know perfectly well the history of the Constitution and that it wouldn't have passed without the BoR attached...
Stop assuming you're more educated than others, that's a good starting point for meaningful discourse. Or, just throw up your hands and swear that I have my eyes closed, rather than discuss the topic.
Obviously the history lesson was necessary or else you would not have needed it.

Quote:
Ah, so, if something is violated, it's a free for all... where's that in the Constitution btw?
Oh, this is you explaining how you are picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution and BoR you will obey... which are, the parts you like... Got it.
Or do you accept that, per the COTUS, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is acceptable?
Exactly what is your point? If you referencing the idea of the social contract then in your correct concerning the "free for all". Once a party of the contract ignores or violates it then the other party is no longer obliged to be held by it either. This also addresses your SCOTUS comment. Remember that the SCOTUS can and has handed down flawed decisions.

Quote:
I'm out of the military, and was an officer, thank you.
Your status as a commissioned officer has no bearing nor infers any superiority in this conversation, thank you.

Quote:
You haven't actually said anything I don't know, despite your thinking that you are enlightening me.
I also already have my college education.
I got it at George Mason University... you know, George Mason, the guy who penned the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Again, please stop thinking you're coming from special place where you know more than other people when you have no idea what they know.
Again immaterial. Unless George Mason himself taught you constitutional theory then having a degree from them means the same as I saying having gone to Notre Dame makes me an expert on being Catholic.

Quote:
I agree that the US has, on many occasion, violated the COTUS and BoR. That, however, doesn't excuse you from following laws. It may justify you, but you'll get the hammer from the Fed...
Which I should know, since I work now in the Federal Courthouse... so, yes, please, school me on the Constitution some more... I work with the Constitution on a daily basis, for the record.
Interesting perspective and exactly why our country is in the sad shape we are in now. We should never, as citizens who are part of the "consent to be governed", allow government to violate the Constitution-period. The fact that so many, including you it would see, accept this is a sad commentary of the citizenry as a whole today.


Quote:
What right is going away?
The right to not get a background check in a private sale?
Currently, no weapons are actually looking like they will get banned...
I will agree that a banning of LCMs is an affront and should be checked!
We'll answer that with "shall not be infringed", enough said.


Quote:
Quite honestly, seeing some of the posts here, I think the same. Not yours, but this Charlesnpyle guy who claims the next Civil War is right around the corner and advising forming fire teams and squads of paramilitary... that's not an OK thought pattern at this point.
OK thought pattern??????? Unless the person you are referring to is actually doing something illegal what does his "thought pattern" matter. Who approves of OK "thought patterns" then? Interesting viewpoint.

Quote:
Ummm, why are we on Obamacare? I already pointed out that, in recent history, both Obama AND Bush completely violated the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Actually we have Obamacare because the attorney's representing the government argued it as permissible under the taxing authority of Congress and the court agreed. The Chief justice opinion basically said it was not in the courts authority to override a tax. Read between the lines and it's clear that Chief Justice Roberts basically told Congress and the American people that they need to man up and do their part, stop expecting the court to rescue us from our own stutpidity

Quote:
And, yeah, if you are specifically arming yourself for a Civil War, right now... you're a wingnut, and maybe you need to seek help. I stand by that.
If we are too have a civil war, it's not because of folks arming themselves. The question you should ask is why do so many feel they need to be armed now?? It would seem the wingnuts are the ones in political power who seek to shove their statist agenda down honest, hard working folks.

Quote:
Where's the revolution from the blow hards?
Ask BHO. He's the one who stated he would fundamentally transform this country. It would seem he is a man of his word, at least when it came to that.
Hate to tell you but the "revolution" has been happening for awhile now but not from "wingnuts" you think. Our country is seeing a revolution of those who benefit from the system vs those who support it. Those in political power vs the citizenry. Those who view our rights as government granted vs those who see them as unalienable.
So yes, we're in a revolution. It goes back almost 100 years to the early progressives and continues today. BHO is only the latest, and most dangerous IMO, progressive who continues the transformation of the country from it original form of Constitutional Republicanism to Social Democracy.

It looks like Ben Franklin was right when he stated that he only saw our original form of government not lasting more than 2-3 generations. But then again he and others were excellent students of history.

But personally I think Marcus Cicero said it best with:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

We definitely see "traitors within" when it comes to the COTUS today. Of course with that goes this:
“Politicians are not born; they are excreted.”

No truer words today thanks to the ignorant and apathetic citizenry today who voted for and/or accept what our "representatives" are doing with the COTUS (which includes the BoR) today.

Since we have strayed all over the map I will venture to say that we have nothing further to discuss unless this thread returns back to its original premise, further gun ban in the state of California.

Good day.

Divepanama is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 01:06 PM   #83
Fire Team Leader
 
Divepanama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrbe View Post
Good points from both sides.

The logic supporting the notion that our rights as defined in the BoR cannot be repealed, even by a Constitutional amendment, is a bit hazy to me. It has certainly happened before. As much as I hate the 16th, I respect the Constitutional amendment process and am thereby obligated to respect that amendment as well.

I agree that people who support the Constitution must accept the fact that it can be modified -- for better, or for worse. That said, I support the notion that we should have some rights that cannot be modified, or repealed, even by the amendment process. However, as per my understanding of the founding documents, we are not protected from that at the moment. I'd like to see an amendment, that cannot be repealed, stating that our rights as defined in the BoR are protected from repeal or modification.
Read the following link.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...ish-any-right/

Even though it is pretty 2A specific it does an excellent job of explaining, in a nut shell, that government cannot deny or remove what it does not have the power to grant.

Regards,

Thanks from csacpt and Beavis1971
Divepanama is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 05:23 PM   #84
Lifer
 
Palladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FOB Kalifornia
Posts: 3,337
Man, called up my state legislators.

I've never had to ask them to oppose bills in blocks.

6 for State Senate and 11 for the Assembly.

sheesh.

Thanks from Beavis1971 and B1298
Palladin is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 05:38 PM   #85
Rifleman
 
Kansasredneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Kansas
Posts: 74
Many other bills and even constitutional amendments have been blocked by the courts pending full court review. This and the New York law both need to be blocked pending review.

Kansasredneck is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 06:25 PM   #86
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divepanama View Post
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking what you're saying. You stated that the BoR is a separate document from the COTUS and I pointed out that you are incorrect. Which you still are.
No, I am not. They were passed together, but are two different documents.

Quote:
Obviously the history lesson was necessary or else you would not have needed it.
Have you found arrogance to be helpful in your not behind the computer screen life?

Quote:
Exactly what is your point? If you referencing the idea of the social contract then in your correct concerning the "free for all". Once a party of the contract ignores or violates it then the other party is no longer obliged to be held by it either. This also addresses your SCOTUS comment. Remember that the SCOTUS can and has handed down flawed decisions.
Nothing run by humans will ever be perfect.
My point is, you are picking and choosing in a completely arbitrary manner.

Quote:
Your status as a commissioned officer has no bearing nor infers any superiority in this conversation, thank you.
Well, you kept going on about my service. I'm out.
The fact that I was an O does have bearing. Secondly, no one ever inferred any superiority because of it... that's your own insecurity popping its head up.

Quote:
Again immaterial. Unless George Mason himself taught you constitutional theory then having a degree from them means the same as I saying having gone to Notre Dame makes me an expert on being Catholic.
You don't think when I was taking American History classes in College that he got a little more attention? That the Constitution, practically a Virginian document, got a good amount of attention.

My point, panama, is stop thinking you're the only person who knows anything about the Constitution. I guarantee you, you aren't.

[quote]Interesting perspective and exactly why our country is in the sad shape we are in now. We should never, as citizens who are part of the "consent to be governed", allow government to violate the Constitution-period. The fact that so many, including you it would see, accept this is a sad commentary of the citizenry as a whole today.
Perhaps I should be glad that you're finally starting to get the hint that I might know a thing or two about the Constitution... or are you still "superior" here?
The fact is, we have an imperfect system because humans are involved. You are being arbitrary as hell in your line in the sand stance... and quite honestly, nothing more than an internet blowhard, because you clearly aren't taking action despite the great injustices of the USA...
So, blow your smoke somewhere else.

Quote:
We'll answer that with "shall not be infringed", enough said.
Therefore, your stance is, a bum on the street, clearly suffering from serious mental derangement, should be able to buy a gun without a background check?
Furthermore, you want someone with a history of domestic violence to not only be able to buy a gun, but I assume that you don't want a waiting period involved?
You seem to be taking a purist stance...
It's totally insane, and you are deep in the fringe... You may have like 2% support, thank God the rest of the country is willing to apply a little common sense rather than think that a document written well before M240Bs were in existence over 200 years ago is PERFECT and not ever need to be looked at in anything but the most preferred interpretation of yours.

Quote:
OK thought pattern??????? Unless the person you are referring to is actually doing something illegal what does his "thought pattern" matter. Who approves of OK "thought patterns" then? Interesting viewpoint.
Hey man, I suggest they get help if they think we're on the brink of civil war. Nothing illegal about suggesting someone who suffers from delusions get a little professional help.

Quote:
Actually we have Obamacare because...
I guess you missed the point that this has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Quote:
If we are too have a civil war, it's not because of folks arming themselves. The question you should ask is why do so many feel they need to be armed now??
Paranoia is the obvious answer... if you buy guns because you think there is a civil war right around the corner, you need a quick reality check. Not from the government, for the record...

Quote:
It would seem the wingnuts are the ones in political power who seek to shove their statist agenda down honest, hard working folks.
Obviously there are wingnuts on both sides of most coins... this isn't really a profound thing you are pointing out.

Quote:
Ask BHO. He's the one who stated he would fundamentally transform this country. It would seem he is a man of his word, at least when it came to that.
I said, where's the revolution blow hards... and this is your reply? The guy elected to make a huge change from Bush (who hasn't made a huge change from Bush), is somehow revolutionary?! Not following you at all.

Quote:
Hate to tell you but the "revolution" has been happening for awhile now but not from "wingnuts" you think. Our country is seeing a revolution of those who benefit from the system vs those who support it. Those in political power vs the citizenry. Those who view our rights as government granted vs those who see them as unalienable.
I agree with a good amount of this... not the idea of it being a revolution.
Our country has shifted to being controlled by special interests and corporations in a very alarming way.

Quote:
So yes, we're in a revolution. It goes back almost 100 years to the early progressives and continues today.
I'd say, other than the swing to corporate domination of the electoral process... much of the change in the country has been for the better. It's certainly not without flaw... but I'd rather live in 2000 USA (note, before 9/11) than 1900 USA for many reasons.

Quote:
It looks like Ben Franklin was right when he stated that he only saw our original form of government not lasting more than 2-3 generations. But then again he and others were excellent students of history.
Well, since back then only land owning white males could vote... I'd say thank God he was right.

Then there was a rant of some sort full of vagaries that just made you sound like a really pissed off dude.

The politicians we don't like are not "traitors", they are people with different ideas, that come from different experiences, etc. They mean well, somewhere in their pea brains. They also get elected by majorities, and represent majorities in their areas.
If enough of these morons are getting elected, that's because the majority of people are lacking in some field or another, and until that gets ironed out, don't expect the pendulum to shift. I apologize for my own vagueness right here, because I don't want to espouse political views.
However, I will provide one example.
If enough areas are so poor that they elect representatives that in the end tax the rich more severely... guess what? Something is fundamentally wrong in our system... if it wasn't, there wouldn't be the poor to elect "reformers" or "tax the rich" guys. As things get evened out, the politics do to.
As an example of this... Venezuela. When Chavez took power, he was elected by a largely very poor populace. He taxed the hell out of the rich, re-distributed the wealth, etc.
Over the years, as people have been able to do better down there than before... even if the country is having serious issues... his % of the people voting for him has gone steadily down. He almost lost the last election.
The rich were controlling all the resources to the extent that the rest of the people had no options...
Now they have some options, including, in who to vote for now that the field isn't tilted so extremely against them.

Kochman is offline  
Old February 12th, 2013, 06:49 PM   #87
Fire Team Leader
 
Divepanama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 189
Kochman, what part of
Quote:
we have nothing further to discuss unless this thread returns back to its original premise, further gun ban in the state of California.
do you not understand??? We are obviously polar opposites when it comes to the Constitution and the basis of our rights. You are a statist in that regard, I am not. Whatever floats your boat.

It's obvious that you are now simply trolling for arguments sake so I will say it one last time, since I obviously was not clear enough for you to understand and comprehend, unless you have something new to add that pertains the original premise of this thread then we have nothing further to discuss. So lets get back on track. If not and you want to troll an argument just for arguments sake then find someone else who will play into such sophomoric nonsense.

Good night

Thanks from kmcintosh78

Last edited by Divepanama; February 13th, 2013 at 10:18 AM.
Divepanama is offline  
Old February 13th, 2013, 09:27 AM   #88
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 515
ROE #5, Trolling

Posting controversial topics with the intent of, or anticipated result of, baiting other users into an emotional response will not be tolerated. Do not disrupt normal, stay on-topic discussion.


Last edited by XXIV Corps; February 13th, 2013 at 10:26 AM. Reason: ROE #5, Trolling
Kochman is offline  
Old February 13th, 2013, 12:57 PM   #89
M14 Forum Admin
 
huntinghawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NC Florida
Posts: 16,496

Awards Showcase

Without naming names, two members are one post from being banned.

Keep posts on topic.

HH

huntinghawk is online now  
Old February 15th, 2013, 10:00 PM   #90
Scout Sniper
 
BlueOvalFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: PRK
Posts: 800

Awards Showcase

Provided a canned letter and info to contact your district senator which can be found in my original post.

Get busy folks and get the word out.

BlueOvalFan is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights



Search tags for this page
ca magazine ban
,
ca semi auto ban
,
ca semi auto rifle ban
,
california detachable magazine
,
california gun magazine ban
,

california magazine ban

,
california proposed gun law rifles w detachable
,
california rifle laws detachable magazine
,

california semi auto ban

,
california semi-auto ban
,
california semiauto ban
,
semi auto ban in ca
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High Capacity Magazine Ban introduced in House skeeter355 Gun Rights 46 January 4th, 2013 11:03 PM
eric holder/assault weapons ban thomastred Gun Rights 0 March 18th, 2009 04:35 PM
Obama's Ban Plan in Detail anagram-sam Gun Rights 51 November 1st, 2008 06:05 PM
Notes on USGI magazine drawings & mystery magazines Different Ammunition 2 July 31st, 2005 07:08 AM
Florida-"Assault Weapons"& Magazine Ban Filed tatonka Gun Rights 5 January 25th, 2005 08:42 AM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List