Yeah, that’s why I’m seeking clarification on whether it’s “owns” or “possesses”.
Federal District Court: CA's 10-day firearms waiting period unconstitutional if you already own guns
Uuh, no. What he said was reasonable. Your silly extrapolation was what I was criticizing.
I mean to specifically refer to law abiding folks. In other words, the law as it was written was designed to make the process of purchasing a firearm harder for law abiding folks, in an effort to discourage legal gun ownership.
CA is ripe for attack on many fronts. I wonder what stupid asinine CA gun law will fall next.
Maybe it’s the one that says you can’t buy more than one handgun in a 30 day period. Or the one that says you can’t order ammunition online, but only in certain cities and counties. But what I really think, is that it will be Pena v. Cid challenging the “not unsafe” handgun roster which has banned sale of all newly manufactured handguns in the state.
It’s not silly at all, unless you also deny his underlying premise.
Which underlying premise that?
Your conclusion that he “admitted all guns are the same” or the idea that someone has to justify a “need” of more than one gun? Those are both silly. His underlying premise was that most guns can kill someone. Which isn’t silly.
It was quoted right in the post you are responding to.
Right. Your leaps of logic based on that premise are silly. So silly I can’t believe I’ve wasted this much time on it.
When you can’t refute, bluster.
I already refuted in my first post. You are just tap dancing.
It’s not a pro gun control position. Stop bending what people are posting to say things they aren’t saying. Why didn’t you comment on the rest of my post about how absurd gun control legislation is?
For the record I don’t believe people who don’t own/possess any guns should have to wait either. And in most states, they don’t.
You didn’t refute anything. You said:
Apparently, however, that different utility is insignificant if you accept pkbites’ premise - as you say you do. You also posted this, which is a non-sequitur.
pkbites was making a policy-based argument.
I seriously thought this was sarcasm, not that you were actually making this strawman as an argument.
All guns have some characteristics that overlap, and some that do not. For the purpsoes of the required 10 day waiting period in CA, it has been decided that there is enough overlap that if you already possess/own a firearm (or meet the other criteria) then the waiting period is unconstitutional. The basis of the waiting period was among other things, to provide time to determine if a person was prohibited. Since that is already satisfied in the circumstances identified by the court, the basis for the waiting period is not sustainable.
Guns also have characteristics that differ from each other. Those were not relevant for the decision. Your error was ascribing a position to **pkbites **that he did not take. I thought this was pretty obvious. Do you honestly believe that pkbites thinks that all guns are exactly the same, for all purposes?
Yeah, I did. You can call that bluster if you like but I am not going to re-word and explain what is probably extremely obvious to everyone but yourself. I say this as someone who is not remotely pro-gun.
Of course not. I can only respond to what he posted, though.
You interpreted his statements to mean something which you don’t believe he actually thinks. Wouldn’t it be more productive to question his phrasing? Yes you can only respond to what he posts, but you choose how your respond, and he did not post what you accepted as an admission.
Phrasing gets messed up all the time. Sometimes people write things that don’t convey what they intended. I find it a lot more informative to actually question these items rather than see them as an opportunity to pounce on some turn of phrase. And in this case, I really don’t think his meaning was unclear - it would be a stretch to interpret as you did. And that’s me being generous.
I was (obviously, IMHO) being sarcastic when I asked when he went anti-gun. Either “guns are guns” or they aren’t. You can’t say he misspoke because his entire point is that differences in gun types are apparently not relevant to one of their major functions. That’s obviously not true, which was my point.
I thought your sarcasm was obvious and your point equally clear.
You can’t have it both ways. Either guns are all equally adept at killing people or they are not. If they are all equally adept, then there’s no reason to be concerned about banning particular guns or owning more than an individual can use for self-defense at a given time. If they are not all equally adept, then the fact that you own a single unspecified gun does not prove that buying a second gun couldn’t make you more able to carry out any murderous intentions you might have.
Guns are equally adept at killing people, but not equally adept at other tasks, such as shooting clay pigeons and deer. :rolleyes:
Do you have a Second Amendment right to shoot clay pigeons? Not so clear.
For the purposes of the legal argument, which I think is centered on the self-defense value of guns, it is perfectly logical to say you cannot have it both ways.
For the record, I disagree with your premise that guns are equally adept at killing people. That seems self-evidently false. Do you really believe that?
With all these tangents I’ve forgotten what this thread was originally about.