Not every one, but yes, almost all. But who gives a rats ass about what 5 million of the 80 million gun owners think? 6%? The NRA speaks for a tiny % of gun owners.
I do when that 6% seems to be controlling all legislation.
They are not. Moscow Mitch is.
But this is getting far from the OP- San Jose’s new gun control law.
Posters have complained about debates hashing and rehashing the same old arguments.
So, can we keep it to San Jose’s new gun control law , please?
And who is Moscow Mitch listening to? The 6% or the 94%?
I’m willing to bet Wayne LaPierre (and whoever came after) have McConnell’s phone number on speed-dial and I bet McConnell takes those calls.
And you’re making @DrDeth 's point for him. I do NOT belong to the NRA. The NRA is a racist (historical and current) lobbying group that pads their own pockets on other people’s belief. But I am a gun owner. Part of the huge number of such that are as I pointed out, tired of the the arguments that you must be all one thing or another.
Your effort to dismiss us because you want to have nice, neat categories is the true nonsense. It’s fine to be pissed off that the obstructionist Republican politicians prevent anyone from getting things done, but please blame the 6%, and the party that indulges them. Saying people who disagree with you, and theoretically represent the group you would want to recruit to your POV are full of ‘nonsense’ is extremely counterproductive.
Unlimited access to silencers and dual 50 round drum mags, the ability to open carry everywhere with combat slings so you can ‘pew pew’ at the drop of a hat, prohibiting the police from even inquiring why you’re ‘gettin’ strapped’ 20 feet from a school or court . . . ya know, common sense gun control!
Why, then, are few of those measures adopted anywhere? 80% want universal background checks, but only 22 states require them. Surely the state legislators would listen a cadre of gun owners testifying in favor of these mild gun controls. But that never happens.
That’s a good question, why doesn’t -San Jose- which is the topic of the thread create any of the common sense measures suggested over the years? Why not have rules regarding appropriate storage for guns in households with children as an example? But instead they are attempting to mandate a fix for a problem that is poorly defined, while requiring something that does not, and may never exist.
Seems that even in a rather liberal state, where they would expect to have maximum support, they don’t want to create ‘common sense’ measures. So that suggests the problem is more political - they don’t want to face a battle with the extremes of either POV. So they throw out something like this instead.
I’m a big fan of this one. Silencers are a safety item and should be treated as such.
I’ve never heard of this one. Can you point me to people complaining about being asked questions (not being detained) by police while open (or for that matter conceiled) carrying?
Is your objection to open carrying or the “combat sling”?
Well, my Tommy gun would look silly without them . . .
California already has rather strict laws regarding storage of a firearm in a house where children are present.
3.2.1. Child present
Per Penal Code 25100 PC it is a crime for a gun owner to:
store a loaded firearm in a home, or within an area of the owner’s control, and
do so when the owner knows, or should know, that a child could access it without a parent’s permission.
This means if a gun owner knows that a child can access a stored gun, he/she should:
make certain that it is unloaded, and store it in a place outside of the child’s access (like a locked container).A violation of the above law is a misdemeanor offense. The crime is punishable by up to one year in county jail.
California also has universal background checks. Seems that this rather liberal state has already created at least some of these common sense measures.
Not easily, but you can try to search YouTube for open carry/police encounters. Some of them are responsible gun owners. Too many of them are only open carrying so they can fuck with the cops, much like 1st amendment ‘’‘Auditors’‘’.
The sling. I’ve seen folks in those videos with a ‘chest carry’ sling with their finger millimeters away from the trigger, the entire time they’re carrying, while ‘locked and loaded’. Stuff that would get you chewed out by your fellow soldiers even in a front-line combat zone.
And yeah, some of that was slightly exaggerated for effect, but folks are simply not willing to compromise.
Yeah, suppressors can be a safety item, particularly at gun ranges. But is it really too much to ask that if the only time you actually use the thing is at the range maybe you could not take it home?
I’d point out that we’ve spent a not-insignificant amount of money on systems to detect and locate gunshots so police can respond to shootings. Do we really want suppressors to become as ubiquitous for bad guys as handguns are now?
I don’t have answers, but it really feels like there are too many adult children that don’t want any rules interfering with them playing with their toys.
I’ve pointed this out before when they take a gun off of a criminal it ain’t an ‘Illegal’ branded gun, it’s a Glock or some other brand name that everyone knows. People should be very bothered by that but they don’t seem to be in the slightest.
To cut to the chase, new gun control laws are B.S. to me. I won’t abide by them.
Fair enough. I don’t spend much time on YouTube and certainly none of it on 2nd amendment stuff.
That’s funny I knew exactly what you meant even though the only one I’ve seen was on my best friend shortly after he got back from Afghanistan and was practicing clearing the house with his new dot sight. I’m not sure I have a problem with people wearing guns in the sling but it seems that having your finger near the trigger would be brandishing which should get you a felony.
Several problems with this. I use multiple “ranges” so driving to one to get my silencer to drive to another would be ridiculous. Second one of my “ranges” is my father-in-law’s backyard where we do our family shoots every Thanksgiving and Christmas. Are you proposing I keep it at his house? Lastly, in multiple other threads we have anti-gun people saying that gun owners need to be responsible and liable for their weapons at all time (assuming you would count the silencer in the same liability class) so turning it over to a third party to secure seems to be a problem.
I don’t know anything about these systems but silencers despite the name do not silence a super-sonic round. I’m not sure of the sensitivity of these systems but I find it unlikely a silencer will defeat them and if so silencers are really easy to manufacture and the current law primarily stops law abiding citizens from using them.
I don’t know what you mean and I’m not sure why the brand of gun should bother me.
Because the bad guys ain’t making zip guns in their basements which we can do little about.
Got it. You’re saying we could throw up our hands and give up if Joe built an uzi in his basement before he shot up a school but it’s a problem if he legally bought the gun a decade before.
I think eliminating straw buyers is something most pro second amendment people are for. How to do that while still allowing for Christmas presents or someone to sell their inherited gun collection is a point of debate but I don’t think you’ll find many even on the psycho malita front that wouldn’t prefer to get rid of the straw buyers.
It is really something that needs to be done nationally.
Of course it needs to be done nationally and it needs to be done by the gun owning community.
The second amendment addresses weapons in the militia context. It is absurd to extend the second to cover brandishing and plinking. The city of San Jose is attempting to provide some response to a perceived threat. It makes sense to support, and guide the effort.
I disagree and you have not demonstrated this.
Just because you keep repeating your assertion does not making it more convincing.
Demonstrably false. The Supreme Court says otherwise. You are free to disagree with the Supreme Court. You are free to urge the case was wrongly decided. You can argue the case should be overruled. But it is intellectually dishonest to portray your opinion as fact when it is not fact.
Who says anything about brandishing? If people don’t plink, they cannot perform their militia duties or defend themselves.
Repeating it does not support your argument.
SCOTUS has historically not recognized the second amendment to be a fundamental right. The current court has chosen to address the scope of the second in its’ next term. The result of their deliberations will be interesting.
Rules and laws are generally guided by interest groups. I served on many SAE committees that guided standards and legislation regarding automobiles. The gun owning community is the best informed group on the topic. The topic is public safety, not a religious adherence to some interpretation of the second amendment.
Perhaps you can offer a counter argument to my repetition. Under what conditions might the city allow AR 15 plinking within its’ limits?
Agreed. So the gun owners in favor of these changes should be imploring their Representatives and Senators to change the laws. That hasn’t happened either.