This is how AB1127 is being celebrated

[cali_jazz]

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

Ok ladies, we are straying quite a ways from the topic of the Glock ban and losing our civility. Let us self course-correct lest the thread ban hammer bless us. ok?

 

[SomeOne]

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.

Most importantly, think twice before checking a box on the ballot. This is the best way to ensure your 2A

 

[SomeOne]

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.

If you don't really vote, the conversation is mute. Yet, I elaborate. If you vote for the "science" your anti-2A candidate promote, you pretty much agree, that you don't need more than 3 rounds in the magazine (because the average self-defense encounter is 2-3 rounds, according to their "science"). Also, you agree that disarming the population makes us all safer, again according to their "science". If this is what you call science, then I will call you out.
Oh, right. You don't vote.
Note, I didn't even go off-topic into XX/XY science.

 

[SomeOne]

Ok ladies, we are straying quite a ways from the topic of the Glock ban and losing our civility. Let us self course-correct lest the thread ban hammer bless us. ok?

Every convo on a new 2A infringement goes to the root cause. You can't avoid that, it's in the human nature to look for the core problem. We can discuss it in a more or less civil ways, but the discussion topic is unavoidable.

 

[cali_jazz]

Every convo on a new 2A infringement goes to the root cause. You can't avoid that, it's in the human nature to look for the core problem. We can discuss it in a more or less civil ways, but the discussion topic is unavoidable.

Yea, I'm not sure how transgenderism and Covid vaccines is "unavoidable" or "goes to the root cause" in a discussion about banning Glocks, regardless personal attacks and insults are a no-go here.

 

[SomeOne]

Yea, I'm not sure how transgenderism and Covid vaccines is "unavoidable" or "goes to the root cause" in a discussion about banning Glocks, regardless personal attacks and insults are a no-go here.

At the risk of being banned here, I'll try to explain. Obviously, the core issue is the Democratic party strong anti-2A stance. That's the core issue and you can't get around it. Now, those LGO who keep voting D have no argument when cornered. This is where all other off-topic stuff, including transgender, covid, science/no-science, religion, personal attacks pop up. Again, why does this become less civil? Because LGO have no argument point, so they try to substantiate their stance using all other off-topic reasons here.

I got banned on r/CAguns for delivering this message. Since the political inclination here is somewhat similar to reddit, I won't be surprised if I get banned here as well.

 

[ikeo1]

At the risk of being banned here, I'll try to explain. Obviously, the core issue is the Democratic party strong anti-2A stance. That's the core issue and you can't get around it. Now, those LGO who keep voting D have no argument when cornered. This is where all other off-topic stuff, including transgender, covid, science/no-science, religion, personal attacks pop up. Again, why does this become less civil? Because LGO have no argument point, so they try to substantiate their stance using all other off-topic reasons here.

I got banned on r/CAguns for delivering this message. Since the political inclination here is somewhat similar to reddit, I won't be surprised if I get banned here as well.

I think it's a bit more nuanced.. Some people are single issue voters, others have a weighting depending on the community they come from. Sometimes people are mixed between groups like myself. Understanding and Acceptance is hard, but I try to default to: you mind your business I mind mine. We both vote and see who wins. Take the loss gracefully and try again but try to convince people to come to your side. The thing about democracy is these things can come back and change, but they take time because current sentiment is in favor of the current majority.

This is why its difficult for people to agree, you want someone who puts 2A higher than something they put higher priority on. Instead, the idea is compromise but division politics is the way to maintain control because off topic is more of a wholistic POV.

With something like 2A, you have to make it acceptable for Democrats so they can enjoy it and not be so fearful of it. Show them how safe groups like ours actually are and how we treat safety, so they respect it more.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

If you don't really vote, the conversation is mute. Yet, I elaborate. If you vote for the "science" your anti-2A candidate promote, you pretty much agree, that you don't need more than 3 rounds in the magazine (because the average self-defense encounter is 2-3 rounds, according to their "science"). Also, you agree that disarming the population makes us all safer, again according to their "science". If this is what you call science, then I will call you out.
Oh, right. You don't vote.
Note, I didn't even go off-topic into XX/XY science.

At the end of the day data is all we have to make actual decisions, anything else is just religion and inherently inaccurate. I've brought up elsewhere the paradox of the 2a that protecting against the tyranny of the government doesn't automatically make society safer on the micro level. You can see many examples both in this country and around the world that banning guns has resulted in less gun violence and vice versa. If you have data that says otherwise I'd love to see it. A very interesting uptick on gun violence is occuring in Texas since 2016 when they started liberalizing gun laws, they are now back to 1990s level of gun crime unlike here.

All that said, I carry every day, with an extra magazine because I live in a neighborhood where gun crime is real and common. Am I actually safer? Maybe me specifically because I train and I'm not just going to assault someone but I honestly only feel the need to carry because I know others are. Another part of it is I just like guns, im a gun enthusiast. but I'm aware that it's an emotional reaction vs a reaction based on science because even in my ty neighborhood the chances of me needing to save myself with a firearm are very close to zero.

But to your point about science and what counts, these gun laws are annoying but we still have guns. The science im talking about primarily is medical science, and how we have been world leaders in research and development due to public funding for that research. This has trickled down on so many ways with giving us jobs as well as a leg up in the world economy. It's also just extended our lives which is probably going to backfire as we have to take care of the boomers. It's impossible to overstate the value in the medical advancements that are largely brought by public grants that have now largely been trashed for political reasons along with the CDC being gutted. People are going to die from these decisions, out economy will suffer because of these decisions. There are supposed adults in this very forum that are like " I read on Instantgram that vaccines don't work" and they literally vote for people based on a lie that someone told them. They have no education or expertise in any science let alone medical training and they are on here getting mad at people based on complete and utter ignorance.

The reality of science is that it's not convenient. Especially with social issues and 2a we have a perceived idea of what we think is best but if ignore what's actually going on then you will always be angry and at odds with reality. but the upside is that if you can show with data that something is valid and useful you have a much better chance of getting your point across to people that matter. So that's why I've brought up in this forum many times that our community is really lacking in coming up with real solutions. We need to actually propose policy that will make centrist soccer moms feel safer vs seeing them as a threat. They literally just want their kids to not get shot at school with a Glock switch. So how can you actually use data presented to a smart and reasonable person that's not just "shall not he infridnhggggged" because that tactic falls on deaf ears and digs the hole deeper.

 

[ikeo1]

We need to actually propose policy that will make centrist soccer moms feel safer vs seeing them as a threat. They literally just want their kids to not get shot at school with a Glock switch. So how can you actually use data presented to a smart and reasonable person that's not just "shall not he infridnhggggged" because that tactic falls on deaf ears and digs the hole deeper.

tldr; for everyone

 

[Deleted member 16735]

tldr; for everyone

LOL thanks

 

[treelogger]

LGO

What does LGO mean?

 

[cali_jazz]

What does LGO mean?

I'm guessing Liberal Gun Owners

 

[BigBossman]

At the risk of being banned here, I'll try to explain. Obviously, the core issue is the Democratic party strong anti-2A stance. That's the core issue and you can't get around it. Now, those LGO who keep voting D have no argument when cornered. This is where all other off-topic stuff, including transgender, covid, science/no-science, religion, personal attacks pop up. Again, why does this become less civil? Because LGO have no argument point, so they try to substantiate their stance using all other off-topic reasons here.

I got banned on r/CAguns for delivering this message. Since the political inclination here is somewhat similar to reddit, I won't be surprised if I get banned here as well.

That pretty much sums it up. Also, if you don't vote you don't have any room to motherless about anything that comes your way from elected politicians. And if you vote for the people that want to abrogate your second amendment constitutional rights, you have no right to motherless about that either. You voted for it so enjoy it.

 

[Warpspeed]

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 think that's how it works. I don't think that many people who identify as liberal really care that much about guns or the 2A. They are far more invested in other issues such as abortion, LBGTQ or similar issues and the anti-2A stuff just comes along for the ride.

 

[Warpspeed]

At the risk of being banned here, I'll try to explain. Obviously, the core issue is the Democratic party strong anti-2A stance. That's the core issue and you can't get around it. Now, those LGO who keep voting D have no argument when cornered. This is where all other off-topic stuff, including transgender, covid, science/no-science, religion, personal attacks pop up. Again, why does this become less civil? Because LGO have no argument point, so they try to substantiate their stance using all other off-topic reasons here.

I got banned on r/CAguns for delivering this message. Since the political inclination here is somewhat similar to reddit, I won't be surprised if I get banned here as well.

You are going to have to try harder than that to get banned. That was perhaps the weakest attempt I've seen all week.

For the most part all we care about is the name calling and disrespectfulness that comes out when someone's point of view doesn't get validated like they think it should. Disagree with the position or point and not get personal and you will be fine. I promise.

 

[star.3d]

The notion that a vote for a Democrat means you support all of the candidate's proposals is daft. My own views are almost never captured by a Red/Blue binary - every election is a bunch of tradeoffs, and never a party line vote. What's being attempted in this thread, and others, is galvanizing collective action for gun rights. It's not sufficient to vote once every 2-4yrs, then get on CAguns and bellyache in the interim. If it's true that Everytown got 100,000 people to back AB1127 (I have no idea how we fact check this - there were nowhere near this many comments cited in the bill legislative analysis), then we're about 99,999 people short of anything resembling pushback. One private citizen commented in opposition of this bill - either they didn't log everyone, or that one person was me.

 

[cali_jazz]

View attachment 103359
View attachment 103360

What is the source of this information? This looks like the bill sponsors and staff went out and solicited support to propose it and not the results of an open public comment solicitation.

 

[star.3d]

What is the source of this information? This looks like the bill sponsors and staff went out and solicited support to propose it and not the results of an open public comment solicitation.

AB1127 was written by Everytown and MDAGSA and sponsored by Jesse Gabriel, who also sponsored the 11% firearm excise tax bill in 2023. The source of this info is a legislative analyst on capitol hill (link here). This analyst (an attorney) summarizes related legislation, evaluates legal concerns, and summarizes supporting and opposing opinions from the public. Note, Gun Owners of California had commented by the first analysis. CRPA didn't comment at all, though they do have a lobbyist in Sacramento.

Yes, the bill sponsors absolutely do run a campaign to rally written support for their bills. And we need to do the opposite! This does work - AB1333 ground to a halt this year partly because of public pushback; this bill would've required a 'duty to retreat' in lethal self defense cases.

 

[Ro-bo]

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).

Not to speak for others, but I think they meant that in a more general sense.
The core of AB1127 is predicated on the existence of "machinegun-convertible" parts. Likewise, the existence of lightning links could very well be used to once more, even redundantly in some cases as you mention, ban AR15 pattern rifles. This is not beyond the state legislature at all, imo.

Now that the legal challenge was filed on Tuesday, I'm sure all will be well as it always is once that happens.

 

[Ro-bo]

So how can you actually use data presented to a smart and reasonable person that's not just "shall not he infridnhggggged" because that tactic falls on deaf ears and digs the hole deeper.

Sloganeering results in people rolling their eyes, I agree; totally useless.
But presenting reams of data to an otherwise uninterested person is just as ineffective. They'll probably just be more polite at rejecting your information. There's a business and marketing axiom that claims an eight second window of opportunity to hold someone's attention. Our pro-2A messaging isn't immune to basic human psychology and those same attention span limitations in normal interactions. The challenge is getting someone to think just enough about something to make them go find the deeper answers themselves. When people feel like they're being led to someone else's conclusion, they put up resistance. I know I do. All the time.

Other social movements have done that well. The 2A community has never been good with PR messaging though.

This is all probably better contained in a dedicated thread though. I don't want to send this one off-topic anymore than it is.