California AW Gun Ban Expiratin

It's being lifted nationwide to help us fight the war on terror. :mrgreen:

 

Not if you tell them it's part of your "Faith Based Initiative".

 

WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA . . . Just don’t bring your assault weapon.
Since 1989, California has had an assault weapons ban even stronger than the expiring federal law.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/sto...-11636235c.html
It is still in effect.

Oh, and while you are at it packing your car for that vacation in California, leave out that .50-caliber BMG rifle too. On Monday the Governator signed a bill banning that thing too.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/sto...-11655839c.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"39336)</div>

Unless you have a fire-arms license. I know some who just got his. I personally don't know what he is going to use if for, I guess just to have it and shoot things at 1000 yrds away. He showed us the bullets the other day, HUGE.

I am not a gun fan, my grandfather had them, he used them to feed his family during the depression. Providing food for your family is one thing, he did not need a AW to do so.

shona

 

He is slowly eeking towards the small circle of Govt. level Republicans that I like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigbaldcuban\";p=\"39362)</div>

If that “small circle†include Senator John McCane, I think you and I may have been hatched from the same political pod. :mrgreen:

 

Yep. McCain's in there. So's the leader of the State Senate here in TX. Bill Ratliffe

 

Interesting since a report yesterday suggested the reason it didn't come up for a vote, even though the ban is popular with the majority of the population, is that the NRA worked hard to get democrats (and maybe republicans?) voted out of office if they had voted for the ban the last time. Sounds like Arnold is showing his personal Terminator self-confidence.

 

So is there a right to bear arms (in a well-regulated militia) in Iraq? If not, why isn't this the US policy there? Just hand out a gun and 3 clips to every man, woman and child, and then pull out. Supposedly, law and order are the result of a heavily armed population... I wonder how our troops would feel about an NRA-sponsored "Guns for Everyone" program.

 

I cleaned my Glock 17 to commemorate the passing of the ban. By the terms of the ban, my hand gun is an assault weapon because I can put more that six cartridges in the clip. The ban was completely useless because for the entire life of the ban one could purchase pre-ban clips (used clips made before the ban was passed) from any gun store. In fact, I bought my gun and clips used in a gun store while the ban was in effect.

I support responsible gun ownership. My guns are all all stored in a locked cabinet, they all have trigger locks, and the ammunition is stored in a separate locked drawer.

 

Yay! Because more guns make people safer as is well-proven in the US!

Dave.

 

I imagine it is hard to draw the line on what is, and what is not an assault weapon. OK, so they originally chose "more than 6 rounds". What is it that you, or any other law abiding citizen, do with a gun that requires more than 6 rounds? I have no problem with gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, potentially for personal protection but I don't envision I would need to hide behind my refrigerator and pick off a horde of invaders with one clip. Nor do I think that if I hunted, I would need to spray bullets all over a game animal, hoping one would kill it.

I have been target shooting with my uncle who has a 9mm pistol. I don't recall how many rounds the clip held, but it fit fully inside the grip. Likewise I went target shooting with a friend who had a .357 Magnum revolver. I don't recall being overburdened reloading either weapon. In both cases, we would be taking turns anyway - when the the gun is empty, next guy's turn.

I can not support the 'personal need' for any fully automatic weapon, any weapon that can launch a grenade, has a bayonet mount (except for historic reenactments), fire dozens of rounds without reloading, etc. In fact, it should be illegal to manufacture, import, sell or fabricate anything that could modify a legal weapon making it illegal. And no, I don't include hacksaws, which can be used to shorten the barrel of a shotgun ;-)

I believe that the "right to bear arms" was intended for organized militias, in support of the community, in the same fashion as volunteer fire departments. Ready to protect if the need arose, going about their real work 99% of the time That does not include mafia, gangs, white supremacist militias, etc. As the country grew over the past 200 years, local militias turned into police departments.

 

Citizens have a right to bear arms... Ignoring the part about a well-regulated militia for now: does that mean I could mix some chemical weapons for myself in my basement? Or brew a bio weapon? Or build a nuclear bomb? (don't think that its out of the realm of possibility: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=1BALXX01VLSPO).

These WMD are "arms," are they not? So do I have the legal right to possess them? And if you said yes, would you change your mind if I were your slightly unhinged neighbor?

 

Good point Sun!

Or how about this WMD/Urban Assault Vehicle (or is it Urban Insult Vehicle?)

Just combine the International CXT and Phalanx Close-In Weapons System. . .

[img=left:4b264e6c1f]http://priuschat.com/data/MetaMirrorCache/money.cnn.com_2004_09_13_pf_autos_monster_truck_cap_navistar_cxt.03.jpg[/IMG]
. . . Because after all, a Hummer H2 and a AK-47 just isn't good enough.


[img=right:4b264e6c1f]http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/phalanx.jpg[/IMG]

 

I would never lecture my good neighbors to the south as to what best laws they feel necessary to protect their way of life. I would just like to mention that we here in Canada have expended a Billion ( no, thats not an error) Canadian dollars to attempt a gun registry up here and it is still not working after 5 years. My Dad gave me a Remington 22 single shot in 1944 when I was 13 years of age and except for shooting a few bottles I've never used it in the past 50 years. Five year ago I registered it and have a permit and a registration but a month ago I received a letter from the almost now defunct registry for $60 to register it again for another five years. The British Columbia's Provincial Government have stated that they do not intend to pursue prosecution of any violations of the Federal Act and will leave that up to the Federal Government. I think at least two other provinces are doing the same. I do, personally, think that the fewer guns we have around the better but I cannot believe that registering them will solve anything. :guns:
Just had a thought, but don't rat on me, I could use the 22 to provide the funds for the new Prius (Oct??) Hmmmm! :mrgreen:

 

I'm glad the ban expired. It served no purpose beyond another means of governmental meddling in private citizens lives. Crime was not reduced at all, nor was society made "safer" by the legislation.

There is one cliche that holds very true:

An armed populace is a citizen of its government. A disarmed populace is a subject of theirs.

I don't own any guns at current, nor do I forsee myself running out tomorrow to go buy one. However, I will still fight tooth and nail to preserve the right to do so. Laws not worth the paper they are written on, shouldn't be on the books. The AW gun ban was one such law.

 

Heh, thx. I actually stole that logic from Bowling for Columbine.

Despite being a flaming liberal (I'm actually on fire right now), I'm of two minds when it comes to gun control. I partially agree with Wolfman.

Liberals often talk about the root causes of crime; criminals don't WANT to be criminals. But I'm not entirely sure banning guns would help things all that much. A drop in gun-violence would only lead to an increase in knife and baseball bat-violence. Wanting to take away guns from everyone (the liberal view) is, in my opinion, somewhat akin to the three-strikes and you're in prison for life law (the conservative view). I don't think either one is an effective tool against crime.

On the other hand, if gun ownership is truly an inalienable right like free speech and such, shouldn't Iraqi's be allowed to own guns? Don't they have a right to keep those arms caches we keep raiding? The ragtag Sadr militia is fighting their government for their ... rights? power? pride? Well, whatever they're fighting for, Second Amendment advocates should rejoice! Those militia men are "subject" to no government! No one will be taking away their guns anytime soon. And Iraq is clearly a better place for it.