This is how AB1127 is being celebrated

[SomeOne]

Correct, that is the simplified answer.

It's a working solution.

 

[AA2323]

if this holds up in court then CA will 100% move to ban ARs because they can accept FRTs as well as be "easily modified" to go full auto. count on it, this Glock-ban is simply a test run to ban ARs.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

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.

I don't really vote so I'm not taking personal offense. But, that's extremely naive. If the only pro gun candidates also want to end civilization and science then you aren't really given a choice. There haven't been any candidates worth voting for, ever.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Plenty worth voting against.

 

[ikeo1]

if this holds up in court then CA will 100% move to ban ARs because they can accept FRTs as well as be "easily modified" to go full auto. count on it, this Glock-ban is simply a test run to ban ARs.

That's what SCOTUS is for... Every politician is testing the legal system these days. That's what differentiates us from authoritarian. Checks and balances. It's only for new ones anyways, PPT's should still be ok.

Another generation firearm will make it to CA. I think with how hot firearms have sold in the last year/two with the roster additions, companies will want to offer products in CA.

 

[Ro-bo]

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.

Fair enough but for the record, I didn't say that we should deal in emotions and slogans. I warned that statistical arguments can imply tacit agreement with a premise that we don't necessarily hold as true. We can point to, say, the insignificance of crimes or whatnot ("only X% of [some_type_gun] are used in homicides, therefore [______]") and the implication becomes that if X rises to a certain point, we'll agree with some action (a ban, etc.)

The point is, we need to be careful and not overstate statistics.

A real world example of how our own information has bitten us in the ass before, is the "average 2-3 rounds fired in defensive shooting situations". That 2-3 round figure is part of a brief that's been cited in lot's of firearm cases, mainly ones regarding magazine capacity. What a lot of people don't know though, is that figure was compiled not from crime data, but from examining articles in the NRA's Armed Citizen pieces in its publications. That 2-3 round figure has stuck like glue though, and it lacks real scientific basis.

 

[Ro-bo]

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.

So let's do a better job with our message. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but I don't think all hope is lost.
The 2A crowd is a pretty fringe group, and even though there are lot's of gun owners out there, they're two separate things. That alone is untapped support if it's done right. But we won't get anywhere without forging some better alliances. Right now, we have the stigma of politics working against us. I can't emphasize enough how that is the first thing that needs to go.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Plenty worth voting against.

and that's why the word "reactionary" is defined as right wing ideology in the dictionary. There's no actual end game of conservatism it's just anti-modernism. There's no vision of how society should be it's simply trying to slow down progress. I'm not advocating for voting Democratic, I have plenty of issues with them but the other choice is far far worse and I wouldn't ever even consider a candidate that aligns with conservatism. So if someone that wants society to succeed and thrive can also liberalize gun control with meaningful policy they will get my vote.

 

[Jimi Jah]

If those you are voting for want to neuter your gun rights that might warrent some deep meditation.

 

[treelogger]

If those you are voting for want to neuter your gun rights that might warrent some deep meditation.

If those you are voting for want to neuter your X rights, for any value of X, that might warrant some deep meditation.

The obvious simplistic answer is "never vote for anyone", since they all want to infringe some right. That answer is unworkable and useless. Matter-of-fact, all of human society (excepting Robinson Crusoe before the arrival of Friday) is about infringing some right of some person, in favor of another right of another person. The old Sartre quote says it well: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We make complex tradeoffs, such as prohibiting the swinging of fists into other people's direction in public; that is the nature of society: a small limitation on the swinging of fists is worth it, for the preservation of many noses.

The issue for each person engaged in society (such as voting) is to decide which rights they consider particularly important. That can be selfish (guns are one of my hobbies, and I want to engage in that hobby without unnecessary paperwork and hassle), or selfless (I am completely straight, yet I fight for LGBTQ rights, because I believe that equal rights are the only workable foundation for societal peace). Some rights are quite abstract. For example, I am a strong believer in the rule of law and respect for the law, even if I disagree with the law; I know that many anti-authoritarians disagree with me, and the last few decades have seen a general degradation of that in politics. Different people can come to different conclusions in those tradeoffs. Once we have all meditated and come to a conclusion, we need to work on influencing our system of governance (called politics or elections), as best as possible.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

If those you are voting for want to neuter your gun rights that might warrent some deep meditation.

I agree with what treelogger has stated much more aptly than I, but I am confused by the shallowness of your reply. I've described why I would never vote for someone aligned with conservatism and in the same message say I also don't align with the Democratic party. That's great that your life is so easy that all you care about is guns. I have to wonder though, because I expect you will need social security and medicare much sooner than I so why would you want to vote for those that want to neuter the programs that you have paid for for your whole life? Why would you want to vote for those who want to neuter the economy? It all *warrants meditation and there aren't great answers because no one candidate or party gives you 100% of what you want. it's all tradeoffs.

 

[BigBossman]

I agree with what treelogger has stated much more aptly than I, but I am confused by the shallowness of your reply. I've described why I would never vote for someone aligned with conservatism and in the same message say I also don't align with the Democratic party. That's great that your life is so easy that all you care about is guns. I have to wonder though, because I expect you will need social security and medicare much sooner than I so why would you want to vote for those that want to neuter the programs that you have paid for for your whole life? Why would you want to vote for those who want to neuter the economy? It all *warrants meditation and there aren't great answers because no one candidate or party gives you 100% of what you want. it's all tradeoffs.

When you mention ending science, are you referring to men pretending to be women and trying to fit in as women? Basic scientific discovery has no place in modern liberalism and that's why I could never vote for someone who is a line with that persuasion of thought.

 

[treelogger]

When you mention ending science, are you referring to men pretending to be women and trying to fit in as women? Basic scientific discovery has no place in modern liberalism and that's why I could never vote for someone who is a line with that persuasion of thought.

Great, if you want to be a single-issue voter on the anti-LGBTQ platform, go for it. Not stopping you. It clearly doesn't bother you that your decision, if it were the majority view, would have all manner of unintended consequences.

Note that "science" and "basic scientific discovery" have little to do with this particular debate. Nobody is claiming that a "man pretending to be a woman" changes their chromosomes. But you should be aware that even something as "basic" as chromosomes has more than the two common XX and XY conditions (read up on Klinefelter sometime, it's not particularly rare). And when it gets to things like physical characteristics and emotional preferences, it is really complex. But most importantly, biology does not determine rights.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

When you mention ending science, are you referring to men pretending to be women and trying to fit in as women? Basic scientific discovery has no place in modern liberalism and that's why I could never vote for someone who is a line with that persuasion of thought.

You are just making up a straw man. When trans people ask to be called X or Y, it's a purely social construction. It's not a scientific claim. They know they have a or a vagina and that they feel like a different gender, you don't need to state the obvious. Either way, if you think transgenderism is so weird that you can't even handle the thought that they just get treated like any other person, then that reinforces my view that they deserve the same rights as anyone else and that I will never support a conservative candidate because they largely act like you and only want rights for a specific subset of people. I know trans people in real life, I have a lot of gay friends and I'm not completely straight myself. Maybe try meeting some people before you just hate them arbitrarily. It literally just doesn't even effect you, you are just making things up to get mad at i.e. being reactionary. See how quickly you proved the point?

The science I was referring to are mostly about modern medicine. Lets face it, as a boomer you likely need modern medicine more and sooner than I. You want to end your life sooner by getting measles? I would say, have at it. But prevention of measles only works at a population scale i.e. the population needs to be vaccinated not just a few individuals here and there. So as much as you want to die of measles, I want to prevent you and everyone else from getting measles because it does effect me too.

 

[Robdog1]

You are just making up a straw man. When trans people ask to be called X or Y, it's a purely social construction. It's not a scientific claim. They know they have a or a vagina and that they feel like a different gender, you don't need to state the obvious. Either way, if you think transgenderism is so weird that you can't even handle the thought that they just get treated like any other person, then that reinforces my view that they deserve the same rights as anyone else and that I will never support a conservative candidate because they largely act like you and only want rights for a specific subset of people. I know trans people in real life, I have a lot of gay friends and I'm not completely straight myself. Maybe try meeting some people before you just hate them arbitrarily. It literally just doesn't even effect you, you are just making things up to get mad at i.e. being reactionary. See how quickly you proved the point?

The science I was referring to are mostly about modern medicine. Lets face it, as a boomer you likely need modern medicine more and sooner than I. You want to end your life sooner by getting measles? I would say, have at it. But prevention of measles only works at a population scale i.e. the population needs to be vaccinated not just a few individuals here and there. So as much as you want to die of measles, I want to prevent you and everyone else from getting measles because it does effect me too.

‘Modern medicine’ because the Covid vax has worked so well we’re on, what, version 16 now when we were promised 1-15 would eradicate it. How’s that ‘modern medicine’ working for ya?

 

[treelogger]

when we were promised 1-15 would eradicate it

Sorry to be blunt, but: nonsense. We were promised no such thing.

 

[RustVendor]

‘Modern medicine’ because the Covid vax has worked so well we’re on, what, version 16 now when we were promised 1-15 would eradicate it. How’s that ‘modern medicine’ working for ya

If you are just going to make things up, why talk? go to bed old man. I'm actually shocked you are still alive.

 

[M_N04H]

If this stands, next step is banning AR15s. This isn't just about banning an outdated pistol, this is only the first step.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

‘Modern medicine’ because the Covid vax has worked so well we’re on, what, version 16 now when we were promised 1-15 would eradicate it. How’s that ‘modern medicine’ working for ya?

You are literally why we need to government to mandate vaccines, you have no idea what you are talking about. Daddy needs to take care of you because baby's brain is full of facebook memes. Old guys like to reminisce about the good old days, it sure seems like it used to be that if a guy didn't know what he was saying he would just keep it to himself but the internet seems to have empowered the true no-nothings to pretend to be experts. The internet will support any wacky idea you have, there's someone else online that will corroborate it with a made up story. It doesn't make it any more true just because people repeat it. The only people that you should listen to on medicine are doctors, period.

 

[treelogger]

If this stands, next step is banning AR15s. This isn't just about banning an outdated pistol, this is only the first step.

That has been tried. It was called "assault weapons ban". It is still in effect. Matter-of-fact, if you look at California's current assault weapons ban law, there is a very explicit mention of the Colt AR-15 in there (see PC 30510, if I remember the number right).

Strangely, most gun people I know have a handful of ARs in their gun safe. As do I. If you had been around during the Harrott and Kasler legal battles, and the OLL revolution, you would understand how the pieces work together. And the state has tried multiple times to ban all AR- and AK-style (or -series) rifles, and every time has run into a brick wall.

So please cut down on the anti-hopium.