C
Cathoholic
Guest
That’s just it!
There is nothing that contravenes society with a law-abiding woman purchasing guns for herself.
It really is none of my business what she wants to buy in that situation.
Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues
- Status
There is nothing that contravenes society with a law-abiding woman purchasing guns for herself.
It really is none of my business what she wants to buy in that situation.
U
upant
Guest
I don’t think even guns could do that
R
redcatholic
Guest
That’s not why my wife loves them…
R
redcatholic
Guest
Hey I’m all for California banning all guns. People have fair warning to move out and there’s trouble brewing in the union…
U
upant
Guest
guess you never heard of different guns for different hunts, prey, distances, ground coverage (trees/open space), etc
the new reality, the government won’t protect you and let the mob loot, burn, and occupy your piece of earth. you need a self-defense gun to protect your family,
guns in the hands of the law-abiding are not a detriment to the health and well being of the general public, the prosecutors who drop the gun charges against criminals and let the criminal go free are.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Do you mean different kinds of long guns, which this legislation is about? And if so, how many different kinds are needed?
You may indeed need a self-defense gun to protect your family and property. My father owned a registered gun when he worked in the South Bronx because his place of business had been robbed several times. But the question the California legislation raises is how many do you need before the possession of firearms becomes counterproductive, that is, accidental self-infliction of wounds, domestic dispute ending in maiming or killing, suicide, friends and others with little training borrowing weapons and misusing them, not storing firearms properly so that children find them and accidentally injure or kill themselves, and so on?
You may indeed need a self-defense gun to protect your family and property. My father owned a registered gun when he worked in the South Bronx because his place of business had been robbed several times. But the question the California legislation raises is how many do you need before the possession of firearms becomes counterproductive, that is, accidental self-infliction of wounds, domestic dispute ending in maiming or killing, suicide, friends and others with little training borrowing weapons and misusing them, not storing firearms properly so that children find them and accidentally injure or kill themselves, and so on?
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
now that is up to the individual owner, isn’t it
why is an excess counterproductive?
can’t this happen with just owning one gun?
this doesn’t hold water
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I think it does hold water. Number of guns matters with regard to their getting into the wrong hands, theft, improper storage, and so on. What individuals do or do not do has an effect, both positive and negative, on others, particularly family members and friends, but also society as a whole. We live in neighborhoods, communities, villages, towns, cities, states, countries, and planet Earth.
U
upant
Guest
do you think someone who spends a lot of money on guns is just going to leave them around for anyone to see, use, abuse? what is the data, show the evidence that multiple guns are the issue.
it only takes one gun in the wrong hands to do damage and it is usually the quick pick that does it
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Would you mind linking me to your posts where you said this about Government please?
Or is this just against “law-abiding” citizens?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The kinds of abuses that are getting conflated with the “law-abiding” citizen are inappropriate.
There are people who just should have no weapon.
Like people like this . . . .
Bay Area Professor Who Assaulted 7 Conservatives with Bike Lock Gets Probation World News
Quinnipiac Professor Matthew Loter Allegedly Assaults YouTuber for Criticizing Social Justice World News
California man kills fellow Covid patient for praying. Uses oxygen tank for weapon World News
But that is NOT who we were discussing here and that is NOT who Newsom is targeting.
They are going after the “good guy” or assuming he/she is going to become “bad”.
That low-ball view of humanity is NOT the way “Rights” work.
There are people who just should have no weapon.
Like people like this . . . .
Or this guy . . .
Or this guy . . .
And maybe even this “sucker-puncher” might get at least a temporary suspension (or at least “attempted” sucker puncher) here . . .
But that is NOT who we were discussing here and that is NOT who Newsom is targeting.
They are going after the “good guy” or assuming he/she is going to become “bad”.
That low-ball view of humanity is NOT the way “Rights” work.
Last edited:
C
ConcernedAmerican
Guest
The bill of rights limits the actions of government, not supermarkets.
C
ConcernedAmerican
Guest
I have a collection of well over 200 firearms. Many bought myself, many inherited my father, grandfathers and uncles. They span over 150 years of history and represent many countries. I don’t really care if that seems irresponsible to people. You don’t get to decide that.
Just as long as they don’t move into other states and vote for the same kind of anti-rights progressives who passed this law.
This is true. My rights should not hurt you. Your rights should not come at my financial expense. This is why government has no mandate to provide for rights.
Further, rights are not license. I can’t invite violence with words. I can’t slander or libel someone’s reputation. I can’t use my firearm in a way that hurts you outside of self defense.
As long as I do not harm others, government has no mandate to interfere with my rights. You have no grounds to insist government do so.
Free access to rights is what rights are. If I buy a gun a month, a newspaper a month, see my doctor once a month, and I pay for it myself, I’m not a detriment to you or society. In fact, it is a detriment to society if government tries to stop me from exercising my inherent rights.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
On the other side, the lawsuit is all about legality for legality’s sake.
The law suit is all about rights for rights’ sake.Cathoholic:
On the other side, the lawsuit is all about legality for legality’s sake.
Of course, progressives like Newsom have a low regard for rights.
Of course they are. If the left can eliminate the distinction between law abiding gun owners and criminals, it makes banning all civilian firearms an easier sell.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
You’re a gun collector, which is beyond the norm of most people’s activities. Same for hunters. Legislation such as that of California should be defined with such things in mind. The devil is always in the details with regard to fair legislation. But the guiding principle of placing limits on gun ownership because of a desire to safeguard society is, I believe, a good one, and that, in my view, includes limits on numbers of guns. Law-abiding citizens, of all people, should understand the need to protect society from excesses of all kinds, and not only the excesses of government.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I was drawing an analogy to the fact that our rights as law-abiding and tax-paying citizens are not boundless, whether we are under the jurisdiction of local ordinances, state government, federal government, or the private sector. When restrictions and limitations on our individual freedom seem unjust, we have the right to protest in a lawful way, we have the right to civil disobedience, the right to boycott a business, the right to sue, in some cases the right to strike, and the right to vote a given leader out of office. Beyond that ensues violence and anarchy, whether perpetrated by the right or by the left.
Last edited:
- Status