Try to Help Our California Friends

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Because it was stated:

At what point does the constitution prevent them from going any further?

The sentence makes no sense as the Constitution is not a sentient entity with physical powers. The Constitution has to be interpreted by the governmental processes of the USA. One might think that if you think something is unconstitutional then some force will act.

It works as I said. My point is that gun rights folks sometimes are prone to screeds:

a long and often angry piece of writing that usually accuses someone of something or complains about something

which accomplish nothing. We know how this works. We know the court fights and legislative combat about the RKBA. We know the debate about whether there should have been the SCOTUS cases like Heller and the risks of losing. That's what the NRA was scared of a 5/4 against the RKBA that could have happened. No cosmic savior would arise to fix that. As it is, the 'reasonable restriction' part of Heller is seen now as damaging.

That's why Civics classes are useful in the real battle as compared to screeds.

[MurBob]

The sentence makes no sense as the Constitution is not a sentient entity with physical powers. The Constitution has to be interpreted by the governmental processes of the USA. One might think that if you think something is unconstitutional then some force will act.

You're arguing semantics?? Really?

One might think that if you think something is unconstitutional then some force will act.

As I understand it, we call these mysterious forces lawyers and police.. Effectiveness would be another discussion.

That's why Civics classes are useful in the real battle as compared to screeds.

I would agree.. But you can't expect civility or responsibility (or a bunch of other "ilities") when people are coerced by a society based on religion and shallow idolization. Those characteristics are not compatible.

In light of that, volume, emotion and "screeds" will tend to dominate.

[2ndsojourn]

From the article linked in Post #19:

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-release...unce-firearms?

"....close the “bullet button” loophole."

It's disingenuous, (a lie if you will) to call it a loophole. They do that to get the majority uninformed public to drink the Kool Aid.

The so-called 'loophole' is a specific exemption written into the law that allows for a detachable magazine as long as it requires a tool of some sort to remove it. That's not a loophole.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But you can't expect civility or responsibility (or a bunch of other "ilities") when people are coerced by a society based on religion and shallow idolization.

Folks, we don't do religion, so if you are coerced by religion (didn't Obama complain about that) or watch American Idol, let's end that part of this discussion and return to the specifics of California and no generalized screeds about the state of whatever.

[natman]

From the article linked in Post #19:

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-release...unce-firearms?

"....close the “bullet button” loophole."

It's disingenuous, (a lie if you will) to call it a loophole. They do that to get the majority uninformed public to drink the Kool Aid.

The so-called 'loophole' is a specific exemption written into the law that allows for a detachable magazine as long as it requires a tool of some sort to remove it. That's not a loophole.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

In the gun bigot's dictionary any feature of a law they don't like is a loophole.

Intra-state private sales without an FFL was specifically left to the discretion of the states in GCA '68. Now it's the "Gun show loophole". As you correctly point out, the use of the word "loophole" is a propaganda tactic to drum up support.

[NateKirk]

Once you lose the power of the majority, your legislative options are limited

For now with most states I think we have the majority if not in numbers than in passion. Politicians will abide by the voice that actually cares enough to vote, and statistics show that our side is much more active than the antis.

The major threat though is culture change, like in California. I think by the time that my generation is in power in 30 or 40 years the second amendment will be on the chopping block.

[MurBob]

Folks, we don't do religion,

Probably a good policy

so if you are coerced by religion (didn't Obama complain about that) or watch American Idol, let's end that part of this discussion and return to the specifics of California and no generalized screeds about the state of whatever.

I think it would be a true statement to say that discussing the merits of California gun control, or any policies on violence, without addressing the larger predominant issues, would kind of be like a fire fighter discussing a house fire while thousands of acres around the house burn.

I'm sure that analogy is flawed in some way but I think I made my point.

[kilimanjaro]

We don't have to wait 30 or 40 years to see the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block. The election this November is going to decide the issue.

This is the first time I have ever heard a presidential candidate declare that confiscation as in Australia is a public good, and a proposed national policy. Give these people 4 or 8 years to implement it, and they will do it.

We think Heller saved our bacon, but the reality is the left has won substantial victories in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and will win another in California soon. They believe they are on a roll, as it were, and will not stop. They also believe gun owners will divide among themselves, the AR/AK people and the duck hunters, and that law abiding citizens will just turn them in when asked. They have no reason to stop short of their goal.