Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

[Pine Mountain]

The police lobby is extremely strong in California, and has many politicians in their back pocket, including the highly corrupt senator Diane Feinstein. California is therefore moving toward increased police authoritarianism. The police lobby hates semi-automatic rifles, because they can pierce their ballistic vests, and don't have the huge delays between shots that bolt-action rifles do. This has been an issue ever since colluding police lobbyist groups across the country, and the politicians that they own, have passed police-authoritarian laws in various states that make it a crime to disobey a police officer. Such laws have prompted many intelligent conscientious people in the general public to buy semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves against the threat of cops who might give them commands and then kidnap (aka 'arrest') them if they disobey.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The first is false; the second is irrelevant.

It's a good idea, and a necessary precondition to building a free society. That's all that matters. We in the present are not bound by what people 225 years ago wanted.

So taking away freedoms is helping create a free society?
I don't see it.

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.

By saying "We in the present are not bound by what people 225 years ago wanted" would you be okay with a repeal of the first amendment?

Fine, whatever. Freedom of speech is a good idea and should remain for that reason alone; its constitutional status is irrelevant.

The second and first are of equal importance, if we get rid of one, whats to stop a tyrannical government from abusing its power farther down the road?

It's like you don't understand anything anyone ever talks about...

[Blasveck]

So taking away freedoms is helping create a free society?
I don't see it.

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.

By saying "We in the present are not bound by what people 225 years ago wanted" would you be okay with a repeal of the first amendment?

Fine, whatever. Freedom of speech is a good idea and should remain for that reason alone; its constitutional status is irrelevant.

The second and first are of equal importance, if we get rid of one, whats to stop a tyrannical government from abusing its power farther down the road?

It's like you don't understand anything anyone ever talks about...

I doubt criminals care, Bluth.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.


Fine, whatever. Freedom of speech is a good idea and should remain for that reason alone; its constitutional status is irrelevant.


It's like you don't understand anything anyone ever talks about...

I doubt criminals care, Bluth.

There are no criminals--only people who transgress because they either don't know any better or are forced to out of circumstance.

Calling them "criminals" dehumanizes them, and acts like they're to blame.

And at any rate, the point is not just to ban weapons but to eliminate them altogether.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So taking away freedoms is helping create a free society?
I don't see it.

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.

Alright.
Then get rid of the state's capacity to oppress and dominate others first. THEN private people can give up firearms they predominantly don't and never do use in such a manner in the name of freedom.

Until then, leave the freedom I don't and won't use to oppress and dominate others alone.

[Blasveck]

I doubt criminals care, Bluth.

There are no criminals--only people who transgress because they either don't know any better or are forced to out of circumstance.

Calling them "criminals" dehumanizes them, and acts like they're to blame.

And at any rate, the point is not just to ban weapons but to eliminate them altogether.

And you plan on eliminating them how exactly?

And they sort of are to blame, depending on the crime, if we're assuming that most people are rational human beings with a sense of free will.

[Sevvania]

I doubt criminals care, Bluth.

There are no criminals--only people who transgress because they either don't know any better or are forced to out of circumstance.

Calling them "criminals" dehumanizes them, and acts like they're to blame.

And at any rate, the point is not just to ban weapons but to eliminate them altogether.

Do pedophiles and rapists not know any better, or are they forced to do what they do out of circumstance? What about looters, who go out and grab TV's when the water rises and the power goes out? What about kids who go out and commit crimes "because they were bored"? People who pirate DVD's and steal music on the internet?

If there are no criminals, as criminals are only people who don't know better or are forced to do something out of circumstance, then there are no weapons. Weapons are simply tools that don't know any better and are forced to act out of circumstance.

You cannot eliminate weapons altogether, because even before firearms, humanity has been able to find inventive ways of killing each other since the first neanderthal discovered that he could crack his smaller neighbor's skull with a rock.

[The Two Jerseys]

There are no criminals--only people who transgress because they either don't know any better or are forced to out of circumstance.

Calling them "criminals" dehumanizes them, and acts like they're to blame.

And at any rate, the point is not just to ban weapons but to eliminate them altogether.

Do pedophiles and rapists not know any better, or are they forced to do what they do out of circumstance? What about looters, who go out and grab TV's when the water rises and the power goes out? What about kids who go out and commit crimes "because they were bored"?

If there are no criminals, as criminals are only people who don't know better or are forced to do something out of circumstance, then there are no weapons. Weapons are simply tools that don't know any better and are forced to act out of circumstance.

You cannot eliminate weapons altogether, because even before firearms, humanity has been able to find inventive ways of killing each other since the first neanderthal discovered that he could crack his smaller neighbor's skull with a rock.

So we ban guns to protect the free society from "oppression and intimidation" by law-abiding citizens, but those who break the laws of the free society are "misguided" and deserve hugs instead of punishment? Oh, my aching head...

And please, I'm sure these criminals who've already been in prison know that what they're doing is illegal when they go out and again commit the same crime they were locked up for in the first place...

[Tule]

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.

A firearm is not inherently oppressive.
Yes it gives power to people, some of which will use that power for oppression. But for every gun owner who oppresses another person there are 10,000 who do not.

Banning guns would needlessly oppress tens of thousands of people and deny them something that gives them considerable fulfillment in life. It would punish the innocent and cause immense suffering that would rival or exceed the suffering that the guns contribute to.

Note that I used the word "contribute", because most gun murders could be prevented without resorting to the oppressive measures you are suggesting.

[Nazeroth]

Taking away the "freedom" to oppress and dominate others, yes--since that's not part of real freedom at all.

A firearm is not inherently oppressive.
Yes it gives power to people, some of which will use that power for oppression. But for every gun owner who oppresses another person there are 10,000 who do not.

Banning guns would needlessly oppress tens of thousands of people and deny them something that gives them considerable fulfillment in life. It would punish the innocent and cause immense suffering that would rival the suffering that the guns contribute to.

Note that I used the word "contribute", because most gun murders could be prevented without resorting to the oppressive measures you are suggesting.

you think liberalism with the whole " don't punish the majority for the acts of the minority" would apply that logic here.

[Yes Im Biop]

California, Proving once again to not have a fucking clue what they are doing

[United American Lands]

Okay. That's fine...

[Free Soviets]

So yeah, you're unable to deal in anything but concretes.

Because if you were, you'd be able to grasp the broader conceptual argument FS made and not get bogged down in your childish, concrete-bound "what a doofus we're talking about guns not nooks" response that completely misses the point.

It's not about concrete, Bluth.

It's about reality.
FS's argument would have made decent sense, if we currently had weapons comparable to the destruction of nukes, and that the general public having said weapons would, in fact, not increase liberty, it would, again, have been a decent comparison.

But it isn't.

did you simply not read either my post or the post i was responding to? the question was whether it was a) even possible to increase societal liberty through regulation and b) possible in the particular case of weapons. its not a comparison, its not an analogy. nukes are the easy case that demonstrate that yes, yes it is - trivially so. and that means there can be no stand on the principle of you're not the boss of me! against weapons regulation that passes the smell test.

once we clear out all the jokes pretending to be principles, then maybe we can get down to discussing the issue productively.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

This is what happens when we have politicians who don't know what they're talking about. We get this stupid rhetoric built around strange neologisms they seem to have pulled directly out of their arses, such as "dangerous assault weapons" and "partial-birth abortions." While it's not really a neologism, the idea that the Citizens United v. FEC decision, undesirable as it was, established corporate personhood as a legal concept (a useful idea which has been around for over a century), or that the solution is to abolish corporate personhood, also qualifies. Anyway, I digress.

Liberalism...

Says it all in one word.

Oh, come on. Liberalism isn't the problem. Not all liberals are anti-gun any more than all liberals are against nuclear energy or genetic engineering.

[Imperializt Russia]

If the bullet was dangerous at any point at which it is not being fired, you could probably say that.

The bullet being in the state of being fired is equivalent with the VX. A loaded gun not currently being fired equivalent of the VX in a container.

It is not. A weapon being discharged is a singular, mechanical, actioned event.
The VX's toxicity is a constantly ongoing and automatic process.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

If a criminal wants meth, he will get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally.

Legalize meth 2013!

Actually, you raise a rather important point. Drug laws in the US are fucked up in multiple ways that use SWAT raids against nonviolent offenders and actively encourage black markets and criminal activity which contributes to violence in other sectors, many times with firearms. This is due, majorly, to a series of drug laws which have focused on restricting the legality of their access and creating various agencies in charge of seeking out users or dealers with a relatively minor amount of success for an exorbitant sum of dollars and a respectable number of fuckups inherent in the policies enforcement wherein the newfound authority is abused.

Many proposed gun-control measures are rather similar in their exorbitant funding requirements for little if any practical effect.

We would be better served to reform the drug laws as they stand and eliminate the causal factor of a large portion of the violent crime in the US, because as they stand they're pretty useless and are really only exacerbating the criminal problem in the US rather than diminishing it.

+1000 internets kind sir.

I doubt criminals care, Bluth.

There are no criminals--only people who transgress because they either don't know any better or are forced to out of circumstance.

Calling them "criminals" dehumanizes them, and acts like they're to blame.

And at any rate, the point is not just to ban weapons but to eliminate them altogether.

This bullshit again. Sure committing crime out of need is a thing. But you choose to completely ignore crime out of choice? Out of the following, how many would choose "C"?

A. Working your ass off for 9 grand a year at McDonalds or whatever.
B. Studying your ass off then making 100 grand a year as a doctor.*
C. Hustling dope making that 100 grand per month, not per year.

*-assuming you or someone else managed to pay for college, obviously, and that you were intellectually gifted enough;

Given the chance, I can assure you, a lot of people would.

And what's wrong with having a pistol to keep by your bedside? I don't see the point of gun that looks like it belongs in a battlefield.

Nice nation name. And, ladies and gentlemen, obviously the final reasoning behind gun control is... looks



Would you take this to the battlefield? I sure wouldn't.



But this. This right here. This surely must belong to the battlefield, no? After all, it has all the evil black scary baby-massacring features.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Self-defense?
Seems rather obvious.

From like a mugger?
And if the mugger has a gun that's already pointed at you? Would the victim really have time to reach down, take the gun out of the holster, aim, and fire all before the mugger shoots you?
I just don't see the effectiveness of it is my point.

The same argument could be made about knives. If a mugger already has his knife drawn out and pointed towards you, and he is reasonably close to you, there is a high chance he'll get the first strike before you get your knife out and pointing towards him, assuming he intends to do this. But a gunshot or stab wound isn't a 100% instant mega kill win. At least if you carry a knife or, respectively, a gun, you stand a chance. Same thing can be said even for one's bare hands, really. Just because an assailant takes a cheap shot doesn't mean you're automatically and irreversibly fucked, it doesn't mean that throwing a punch or two doesn't make sense.

[Blakk Metal]

God dammit, now I'm madder than a wet hen.
Can we just remove California already? like push it into the ocean maybe?
Actually, firing Feinstein into the sun would work too.

Kidding aside, this bill is both asinine and unconstitutional.

I'm honestly baffled how people this leftist got to lead California. I wouldn't be surprised if there was voter fraud involved.

[Imperializt Russia]

God dammit, now I'm madder than a wet hen.
Can we just remove California already? like push it into the ocean maybe?
Actually, firing Feinstein into the sun would work too.

Kidding aside, this bill is both asinine and unconstitutional.

I'm honestly baffled how people this leftist got to lead California. I wouldn't be surprised if there was voter fraud involved.

California only votes Democrat and Californian.

[Chernoslavia]

If you are in favor of restricting gun ownership, are you then still a liberal?

It would mean less liberty, would it not?

Fake liberalism in that case then.

[Chernoslavia]

Meh. California is want to do what California wants.

No California's politicians in gated communities want to do what they want.

[Blakk Metal]

I'm honestly baffled how people this leftist got to lead California. I wouldn't be surprised if there was voter fraud involved.

California only votes Democrat and Californian.

If you actually knew shit about California you'd realize that California isn't very leftist at all.

[Thanatttynia]

Good.

[Chernoslavia]

If you are in favor of restricting gun ownership, are you then still a liberal?

It would mean less liberty, would it not?

No, though I could see how you might think it would if you settled for superficial thinking rather than critical analysis of how things interact in reality. Weapons possession is an infringement upon individual liberty, because it provides a means by which others can be intimidated and coerced into behaving how the weapons possessor wants them to behave.

This is wrong in every single way. Please do tell me then why Castro disarmed the Cuban people in 1959? Because surely it wasn't to protect other people's freedom which he soon restriced afterwards.

[Chernoslavia]

Good.

Bad.