This is how AB1127 is being celebrated

[Ro-bo]

Agree. I don't know of any statistics with an accuracy that would be load-bearing for sensible decisions. But there are lots of anecdotal reports of Glock switches in use, usually among gang members are the extensive gun black market. A friend is a PD (public defender), and he sees them regularly among his clientele. Since most criminal cases today get dealt with in plea deals, there is little public record of how many get into the court system; this makes statistics very difficult to gather.

Even if there was a clearer picture, speaking only to the statistics, at what point would you agree that AB1127 is justified?
This is the folly of trying to counter the debate with nothing but the numbers. It's a total trap. Why lend validity to *their* argument?

 

[Ro-bo]

And you aren’t going to change legislation by trying to be friends with the very people who are out to take your guns and leave you defenseless.

In any social movement, change doesn't happen because one fringe element convinces the other fringe element they're wrong. We don't have to, nor would it be smart to concentrate efforts on the edge opposite us on the bell curve. Our target is the giant hump in the middle. In other words, we don't have to "be friends" with the people you're talking about. We just have to convince those straddling the fence, the bulk of everyone else, not to listen them, and see our point of view instead. That makes it a much less daunting task.

The major obstacle to that with respect to the 2A, is politics. We're bogged down by the guns=conservative mindset of the nation/world. It's an anti-truism that grew legs out of total ignorance of how gun control actually evolved, and how those conservatives contributed. The first step to advancing true 2A advocacy is divesting ourselves of the politics, and disallowing that conservative side from taking undeserved credit for things they never did, while simultaneously bogging us down with other divisive issues that turn away the moderates who exist in the middle of that bell graph I mentioned above. The next step, or maybe even a concurrent one, is getting more women involved in our cause. We're complaining about a very successful group in this thread but not taking the obvious lesson that presents.

 

[treelogger]

Even if there was a clearer picture, speaking only to the statistics, at what point would you agree that AB1127 is justified?

Good question. The current debate doesn't help us answer it. The facts include that Glocks are pretty much the only common pistol that is converted to full auto in reasonable numbers, to a large extent because it is cheap and easy. And that full-auto Glocks are found with some regularity in crimes, and in the "criminal element". Glock could fix that, but (a) at what cost, and (b) it wouldn't help the many millions of existing Glocks out there. The current California "Glock ban" is closing the bathroom window after the horse has left the barn: it is for political fanfare and virtue signaling. So the reasonable tradeoff is unknown.

This is the folly of trying to counter the debate with nothing but the numbers. It's a total trap. Why lend validity to *their* argument?

If we (the pro-gun side) refuse to deal in numbers, and only throw around emotions and slogans, we have lowered ourselves to an untenable position.

 

[Jimi Jah]

All these laws are not to stop crime. Excremento knows criminals don't follow their gun laws.

They are to punish those exercising their rights.

Voters that could have prevented this already voted with their feet.

 

[treelogger]

All these laws are not to stop crime. Excremento knows criminals don't follow their gun laws.

They are to punish those exercising their rights.

Close, but not quite correct.

To begin with, we have no idea whether guns are a right or not. The answer depends on who is on the Supreme Court this season. For half a century, individuals (outside of militia service) had no constitutional right to guns, see the Miller decision. Justice Scalia changed that, and Justice Thomas made it harder to mess with the 2A ... but that was probably the high point of the wave, and Rahimi started going the other way.

And the purpose of California's anti-gun legislation is to harass republicans, and associated groups. Which is great (for the state government), because it makes republicans angry, and democrats giddy. It's working as designed, see the comments here and in other places.

Voters that could have prevented this already voted with their feet.

That's the "great sort" in action.

 

[Robdog1]

In any social movement, change doesn't happen because one fringe element convinces the other fringe element they're wrong. We don't have to, nor would it be smart to concentrate efforts on the edge opposite us on the bell curve. Our target is the giant hump in the middle. In other words, we don't have to "be friends" with the people you're talking about. We just have to convince those straddling the fence, the bulk of everyone else, not to listen them, and see our point of view instead. That makes it a much less daunting task.

The major obstacle to that with respect to the 2A, is politics. We're bogged down by the guns=conservative mindset of the nation/world. It's an anti-truism that grew legs out of total ignorance of how gun control actually evolved, and how those conservatives contributed. The first step to advancing true 2A advocacy is divesting ourselves of the politics, and disallowing that conservative side from taking undeserved credit for things they never did, while simultaneously bogging us down with other divisive issues that turn away the moderates who exist in the middle of that bell graph I mentioned above. The next step, or maybe even a concurrent one, is getting more women involved in our cause. We're complaining about a very successful group in this thread but not taking the obvious lesson that presents.

that’s all fine and dandy EXCEPT for the fact that most of the ‘on the fence’ people will just as soon vote for the idiots in Excremento who in turn drive this crap even further. CA is a lost cause, and we’re bleeding people who actually care BECAUSE of the ‘on the fence” people voting for the same crap over and over. Those ‘on the fence’ people don’t know what they’re voting for, or who, they just know that they like what they see. It’s called having an uneducated electorate and a lazy electorate.

 

[treelogger]

that’s all fine and dandy EXCEPT for the fact that most of the ‘on the fence’ people will just as soon vote for the idiots in Excremento who in turn drive this crap even further. CA is a lost cause, and we’re bleeding people who actually care BECAUSE of the ‘on the fence” people voting for the same crap over and over. Those ‘on the fence’ people don’t know what they’re voting for, or who, they just know that they like what they see. It’s called having an uneducated electorate and a lazy electorate.

And this is why we can't have nice things. Do you think that insulting the overwhelming majority of voters and the government they voted themselves strengthens your argument, and makes you win in the future? No, it doesn't.

We could say that most California voters are not knowledgeable about guns, nor about the real causes of crime. We could say that they are making a "safety versus liberty" tradeoff that is biased. We could say that the solutions proposed in Sacramento [see what I did there?] do not address the real issues, and exist mostly for grandstanding and virtue signaling. We could ask for reasonable input for better solutions. If we allows ourselves to get mad [sic], the anti-gun side is winning. Why did I write sic? Because "mad" can mean both angry and insane; the line between the two meanings is thin or nonexistent.

 

[SomeOne]

While they celebrate the local win, we'll celebrate Wolford v. Lopez (Hawaii sensitive places) nationwide.

 

[SomeOne]

My response:

This is not "gunsense" legislation.

No CA gun control law are gunsense, whatsoever. Those are a strict infringement on 2A

 

[SomeOne]

We could say that most California voters are not knowledgeable about guns, nor about the real causes of crime. We could say that they are making a "safety versus liberty" tradeoff that is biased. We could say that the solutions proposed in Sacramento [see what I did there?] do not address the real issues, and exist mostly for grandstanding and virtue signaling. We could ask for reasonable input for better solutions. If we allows ourselves to get mad [sic], the anti-gun side is winning. Why did I write sic? Because "mad" can mean both angry and insane; the line between the two meanings is thin or nonexistent.

The bottom line, the said CA voters who keep voting for anti-2A agenda are either brainwashed or infamous "not a single issue" liberal gun owners.

 

[john35]

This so called "Glock ban" bill only affects Law abiding 2A citizens. Criminals who actually use this "glock switch" do not give a damn. I bet these criminals are also celebrating.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

The bottom line, the said CA voters who keep voting for anti-2A agenda are either brainwashed or infamous "not a single issue" liberal gun owners.

No one here has voted either way on any 2a issues because we aren't in the legislature.

 

[shroom]

The bill is probably there to reduce the supply. Obviously criminals won't care that xyz is illegal, but the reduction in the supply of guns will make them more expensive to obtain, thus less attractive to commit crimes with.

Of course the bill is still total nonsense because if glocks become unobtainable or too expensive criminals will just use something else that's in wide circulation. I also seriously doubt the effectiveness of a full auto glock over a semi auto one when robbing or murdering.

 

[doggman61]

How are we in the 2A community supposed to have a voice against this?
Write our local congressman, Donte to your chosen association, knock on doors? I would really like to know some ideas.
We are the ones with the things they want to take and I think it’s safe to say the major majority of California’s elected officials care less about you having rights.
They pass laws, we sue. The cat and mouse continues.

 

[badsushi]

Do it! I would widen it to something like "Californians for Public Safety" and we could market it as "we care about public safety and part of public safety includes the right to defend yourself and the right to bear arms."

But I think that quote might need some work. There has to be an effective way of making a short argument in one sentence about why 2a supports and does not endanger public safety and personal safety. I will work on this idea... and get back with that sentence

It will be a non profit to help buy guns for dads who can’t afford them.

 

[badsushi]

As someone has already brilliantly mentioned, we need to create our own organization that highlights why 2a is good.

I proposed we call it Californians for Safety or Californians for Public safety. We will have to bundle other causes into ours slightly to make thus appeal to more pepeople.for example make this about how minorities and poc and women are most affected when firearms are not accessible to them for self defense.

A bit chunk of poc live in poor neighborhoods where robbery and theft is rampant. Police can't reach then in time and we could simply package that all up as "2a is racism" or something along those lines.

It's fairly easy but I feel it's something that if u never try to do u will never know.

Anyone else want to throw in some ideas?

We should steal the word “safety” back from the anti gunners.

 

[BigBossman]

How are we in the 2A community supposed to have a voice against this?
Write our local congressman, Donte to your chosen association, knock on doors? I would really like to know some ideas.
We are the ones with the things they want to take and I think it’s safe to say the major majority of California’s elected officials care less about you having rights.
They pass laws, we sue. The cat and mouse continues.

Here is an idea, stop voting for Democrats.

 

[doggman61]

Here is an idea, stop voting for Democrats.

Correct, that is the simplified answer.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Schwarzenegger is responsible for LCI, mag disconnect and microstamping. And more. Who to even vote for, Larry elder?

 

[SomeOne]

No one here has voted either way on any 2a issues because we aren't in the legislature.

When someone (not to be confused with SomeOne) casts a vote for an anti-2A politician (which is essentially each and every Democratic politician in CA), he or she clearly votes for anti-2A agenda. Thus, this person is either brainwashed on "gun control" or a hypocritical "not a single issue" liberal gun owner.

I was hoping I wouldn't need to use the explicit language.