Re: OT - Those *#&#%$^& Drivers With Cellphones
- From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jun 2006 22:09:21 GMT
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:18:54 GMT, John R. Carroll <jcarroll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
What, that California has all sorts of bizarro laws regarding
to household chemicals to forbidding things that aren't a problem?
I'm pretty sure that it's not a misconception.
Then you wont have any difficulty naming a few. Please do.
OK, .50 BMG caliber, Barrett rifles in general, magazines larger than 10
rounds, chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer"
which, in reality, are just a case of some lobbyist convincing a bunch
of lawmakers of that, not actual science... the failure of your
government to allow CCW...yeah, from here, it looks like somewhere I
wouldn't even _consider_ living. I've told headhunters as much in fact.
Furthermore, banned weapons are grandfathered for the most part.
Your 1974 AK 74 is legal here. You just can't sell the thing and it
had better be registered properly.
I'll amend my previous to include "ban and restrict" then. Infringe,
OK, but they aren't being confiscated and nobody is suggesting that they be
collected and disposed of.
Really? I think you may have missed this gem:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could
have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright
ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all
in, I would have done it." (January 1995).
That's asinine. If I have a gun stolen from me, I'm liable for the
criminal's act? Is that what you're saying, and what you're agreeing
Before you register a gun here you have to be certified to do so.
Yes, that's a good example of "infringed", if you have to ask permission
to exercise your rights.
that process includes an acknowledgement that you understand that any weapon
you register is YOUR responsibility. You further agree to know the exact
whereabouts and condition of those weapons at all times. There isn't
anything unreasonable about that at all. Gun owners are expected to act
responsibly and there isn't any surprise after the fact about what that
means. A weapon stolen that goes unreported is your problem.
You seem to have not mentioned how the criminal will be charged. Are
you both then at fault, or just the guy whose gun was stolen?
purpose of the law was to eliminate unregistered transfers. It works.
Seems to me, it'll work to make sure that people will buy unregistered
guns to avoid the risks.
I don't count my guns daily. Something could be missing from months
and I wouldn't know it. Very unlikely given my storage methods and
restrictive I am about access by other folks, but not impossible.
That's fine but don't be surprised when your careless attitude comes back to
Careless? My guns are locked in a vault. I just don't count them
daily, is my point.
Countiung your guns daily also wouldn't be necessary. You need only need be
aware. I'm sure your are and what you have written is likely at variance
with what you propose to allow. The sort of diligence you no doubt excercise
is something you ought to be able to expect from others and here in
California we have decided to remove any and all doubt about the matter.
I read that 3 times and still don't know what your point is. Can you
try again please?
have embodied your own responsible behaviour in a series of laws for those
that can't, in fact, act responsibly.
I should no more be liable for the actions of a criminal who steals a
gun from me, than I should be liable for their actions if they steal my
car and run someone over. The criminal is the problem, not another
victim of that criminal.
The important thing to remember is that a certain percentage of any
population shouldn't have a fire arm. For the purposes of our
discussion lets say that between criminals and crazies the number is
.5 percent. That's five in a thousand.
I'm guessing the percentage is higher.
I'm certain it is but I couldn't quote a source and aimed low deliberately.
How many convicted felons?
They're already not legally allowed to touch or own guns or
Of course, being _criminals_, they ignore laws that don't suit them.
So sure, some folks shouldn't have guns.
Yes, but we (presumably, I can only speak for myself), are not felons.
And the gun locked at home doesn't do me a damn bit of good if some
mugger tries to take my money or life. Unfortunately, my state is
_also_ one of the 3 or so in the country who prefer criminals to be
safe, to hell with their victims.
Prosecute the hell out of
for the possession charges, which themselves are felonies. But, I
suppose, the prisons are too full of guys who had a baggie of pot or
something, so we can't house the actual dangerous criminals.
They aren't. Non violent felonious offenders in Los Angeles County currently
serve less than 6 percent of their sentences so that there will be room for
real criminals. We have 35,000 of the violent incarcerated, and that is just
in the county system. The State is seperate.
Actually, these would be federal charges if they were enforced.
In a sparsly or even moderately populated state, that
percentage equals a small number of dispersed nut cases. They don't
have easy access to a concentration of targets and the agravating
conditions are less frequent. It's hard for them to wreak real havoc
and this happens relatively infrequently.
Yes, if you put too many rats in a small cage they start eating each
That isn't it at all.
Sure it is. Overpopulation leads to anonymity. In small communities,
neighbors know and care about each other. Sounds cheesy but it's real.
This is an example of _bad people_ with guns. Many or most of them
probably felons already, right?
Yes and no but they aquire their weapons through both unregistered transfers
from non-felons and stuff walked across the border with illegals.
Hm, isn't private ownership of guns completely illegal in Mexico? I
guess that's just another confirmation that (gasp! Shock!) prohibition
doesn't work, regardless of what's being prohibited.
of illegal border crossings has many implications and if we truly were to
regulate our international border with Mexico gun crime would drop. Illegals
also tend to be young and therefore fall into the group most likely to
commit crimes. It isn't that they are "Mexican", only that they are young,
stupid and full of piss and vinegar. Cultural mores also play a large role.
I think we agree that there are armed bad people who shouldn't be
trusted, yes. It seems that we have different ideas on how good people
should be trusted.
If so, they're owning them illegally.
If anything, that's a great argument for why honest people should be
allowed concealed carry, so they can have a chance at defending
They are allowed exactly that. It just isn't easy and it shouldn't be.
It most certainly _should_ be easy. Either a person is good, or they're
bad. A good person (as defined by lack of criminal history) is
trustworthy. A bad person (same test) is not. This isn't subtle or
Tax payers here refuse law enforcement the money to deal effectively
with this problem within existing laws, and there are already
plenty, so what we do is make the conditions of legal ownership
increasingly easy to violate.
In other words, exactly the wrong thing. But at least they're doing
_something_, I guess?
Waiting periods and proper registration procedures aren't a bad thing
They aren't? What specifically do they solve? If I can get my credit
card run in 8 seconds when I want to buy a tank of gas, what
specifically is a 3 or 5 or 7 day waiting period going to solve?
there is always a solution. Dont' live in California.
There isn't any danger of me going there, at least while the environment
stays the way it is. It's bad enough I've got Kohl and Feingold as my
Senators.. At least my representative is Sensenbrenner, who I agree
with 80-90% of the time.
We aren't doing
anything to push our laws beyuond state borders. The "Brady Bill" didn't
originate in California and wasn't written by a California legistlator.
That's just a symptom of the same problem that Feinstein, the other
whatshername, and Pelosi exhibit.
The guy that wipes out a
dozen people in Lubbock Texas would have killed a hundred here in
California. He'd have done the same in Lubbock but he ran out of
And if Texas had had concealed carry laws back then, he might have
stopped before he ran out of targets. Texas has fixed their laws now.
Texas isn't California. Texans and Californians are both well pleased with
that and as far as I know, Californians have no interest in seeing Texas
look like California and the reverse is true as well. Texans and
Californians are free to move between the two states and some do.
Basic human truths of "you can trust good people and distrust criminals"
don't magically change when you cross a state line, though. It hasn't
changed in millennia, after all.
Here, he'd have had a
more targets and the limiting factor would have been the rounds at
hand. That is what drives the dynamic here and nobody has had a
I have an idea - trust non-criminals to be armed. Even if they're
ineffective, that's better than being a safe target.
We do. There is no credible argument that this isn't the case.
Really? How do I get a CCW permit in your state, please?
Yup. Criminals exist, we're not going to change that. I just propose
letting non-criminals have a fighting chance. In state after state,
CCW laws cause person-on-person crime to go down. If there's a
counter-example, the anti-gunners would be screaming about it, and
You are much more convinced that what you call " the anti-gunners" are an
effective presence beyond their use as a political tool during an election
cycle. I could be wrong but if I am, I have you to stick up for me. I'll
continue to call bullshit for you when your phone recoerdsare at issue or
the federal legistlature and executive staert passing laws that only apply
to certain classes of people or decide that laws don't apply to everyone,
including themselves. I think I can count on you and I KNOW you can on me.
That's fine as far as it goes, I think we're both more libertarian than
any other party? But, in my case, I feel that if the second amendment
is lost, there is no way to protect the others. And unfortunately, the
people on your side of the aisle typically try to dismantle (infringe,
if you will) that. Am I a one-issue voter? Yup. Because that issue is
bigger than anything else, including the things I disagree with the
Republican party about.
Right, but by criminalizing a behavior that, in itself, isn't
unsafe, you're punishing the wrong people.
Who is being punished? Housekeeping isn't punishment. It is the price of
If I'm made to jump through hoops and/or punished for the actions of a
criminal if they steal my gun and shoot someone with it, I'm being
punished. Again hypothetical in my case because I wouldn't consider
living in those conditions.
Expecting the same care from the other members of your comunity is
entirely reasonable and so is punishing any failure to do so in
advance of a problem.
But again, punishing the ones who arne't doing anything wrong, doesn't
solve the problem.
Nobody is being "punished", unless I missed something. Insisting on diligent
and responsible behavior isn't punishment.
Rights are not conditional - you shouldn't have to play "mother may-I"
to use them.
Stranger things have happened, my wrong friend.
I don't have to look any farther than the current resident of 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue to see the truth in that.
(shrug) Given the options, I voted for him. I'd be handling the war
differently if that was my address..."OK, we made the bad man go away.
We're setting up a new governemnt of you people. If you misbehave,
we'll come back. Now behave. Good luck and goodbye."
There's probably a reason I'm not a diplomat.
- Prev by Date: Re: views on the Henrob torch
- Next by Date: Re: WWII Aircraft Touring
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Those *#&#%$^& Drivers With Cellphones
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Those *#&#%$^& Drivers With Cellphones