Saturday, 2 July 2016

California Cracks Down On AR-15 Owners

quote [ 6 New Gun Control Laws Enacted In California, As Gov. Brown Signs Bills ]

I didn't want any of these laws but I figure a lot of people here would like to celebrate. I for one can't wait to see how this will play out.
[SFW] [politics] [+4 Interesting]
[by backSLIDER]
<-- Entry / Comment History

rndmnmbr said @ 7:41pm GMT on 2nd July
Your idea and my idea of "productive use" probably differs wildly. For example, I consider going to the range and wasting ammo at paper targets to be a very productive use, because it's not only good practice, it's goddamned fun.

Yes, guns can be fun.

I used to be a dyed in the wool conservative Republican. Thank you SE, you were one of the things that removed the scales from my eyes. But one of the tiny handful of things I retained, is that I believe gun ownership is a fundamental constitutional right.

I believe that we do have a significant problem with gun-related violence in the United States. I believe that concealed carry is unnecessary and dangerous (despite being a CCW cardholder myself), and open carry is outright looking for violence. I believe in restricting possession of fully-automatic weapons. I believe that gun owners should be licensed to own by a government entity (proving that they have training in the safe and effective use of weapons and in legal rights and responsibilities of ownership), registration (so that every gun can be traced back to it's rightful owner), and insurance (not only to cover legal and medical liability, but so that insurance companies can dictate forms of storage and transport for coverage). I believe in the state monopoly on violence.

But restrictions on ownership based on use, or outright ban, as in the UK and Australia? No. It's a constitutional right. I have no problem coupling appropriate responsibility to that right, but if those responsibilities are met, then the right shall not be abridged.


rndmnmbr said @ 7:46pm GMT on 2nd July
Your idea and my idea of "productive use" probably differs wildly. For example, I consider going to the range and wasting ammo at paper targets to be a very productive use, because it's not only good practice, it's goddamned fun.

Yes, guns can be fun.

I used to be a dyed in the wool conservative Republican. Thank you SE, you were one of the things that removed the scales from my eyes. But one of the tiny handful of things I retained, is that I believe gun ownership is a fundamental constitutional right.

I believe that we do have a significant problem with gun-related violence in the United States. I believe that concealed carry is unnecessary and dangerous (despite being a (now-expired, whoops) CCW cardholder myself), and open carry is outright looking for violence. I believe in restricting possession of fully-automatic weapons. I believe that gun owners should be licensed to own by a government entity (proving that they have training in the safe and effective use of weapons and in legal rights and responsibilities of ownership), registration (so that every gun can be traced back to it's rightful owner), and insurance (not only to cover legal and medical liability, but so that insurance companies can dictate forms of storage and transport for coverage). I believe in the state monopoly on violence.

But restrictions on ownership based on use, or outright ban, as in the UK and Australia? No. It's a constitutional right. I have no problem coupling appropriate responsibility to that right, but if those responsibilities are met, then the right shall not be abridged.



<-- Entry / Current Comment
rndmnmbr said @ 7:41pm GMT on 2nd July [Score:1 Interesting]
Your idea and my idea of "productive use" probably differs wildly. For example, I consider going to the range and wasting ammo at paper targets to be a very productive use, because it's not only good practice, it's goddamned fun.

Yes, guns can be fun.

I used to be a dyed in the wool conservative Republican. Thank you SE, you were one of the things that removed the scales from my eyes. But one of the tiny handful of things I retained, is that I believe gun ownership is a fundamental constitutional right.

I believe that we do have a significant problem with gun-related violence in the United States. I believe that concealed carry is unnecessary and dangerous (despite being a (now-expired, whoops) CCW cardholder myself), and open carry is outright looking for violence. I believe in restricting possession of fully-automatic weapons. I believe that gun owners should be licensed to own by a government entity (proving that they have training in the safe and effective use of weapons and in legal rights and responsibilities of ownership), registration (so that every gun can be traced back to it's rightful owner), and insurance (not only to cover legal and medical liability, but so that insurance companies can dictate forms of storage and transport for coverage). I believe in the state monopoly on violence.

But restrictions on ownership based on use, or outright ban, as in the UK and Australia? No. It's a constitutional right. I have no problem coupling appropriate responsibility to that right, but if those responsibilities are met, then the right shall not be abridged.




Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR