Reasonable gun-control is an oxymoron, most advocates of that are either: (a) Uninformed about guns, so aren't going to make good laws or (b) hoplophobics (those with an irrational fear of guns), and since they aren’t rational about guns (they fear/hate them), so they don’t create well reasoned (reasonable) laws. It’s like asking arachnophobics to write reasonable laws on spiders: they’re more likely to “burn down the house, then rebuild”.
- 1.1 Basics
- 1.2 Law
- 1.3 Experiences
- 1.4 History
- 1.5 Media / People
- 1.6 Comparisons
- 1.7 Gun Quotes
BasicsAssault Weapon", to include civilian semi-automatic weapons (one squeeze of the trigger fires one bullet), because it had a few cosmetic features in common with assault rifles, and because the public might not be able to understand the difference. The media and AP immediately went along with the ruse to dupe the public.
So an assault weapon is just a low-powered (smaller cartridge) hunting rifle with some wooden parts replaced by plastic parts (to lighten it), and some cosmetic accessories thrown in; like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, accessory rails, or collapsable/foldable stock. Most guns have removable magazines, and the biggest difference coastal progressives point to is a pistol grip or magazine size. But all these features are easily swappable after-the-fact, none of which changes the lethality at all, and people can convert most rifles back and forth in about 10 minutes. Which is why gun enthusiasts think gun controllers (and their voters) are completely uninformed about guns
Of course the reality is the opposite. You don't need to justify why you get to keep your rights/liberties, others have to justify why they should get to take them away. So the proper answer to that question is, "Because, fuck you, that’s why!” If you can take someone's AR15, then what moral ground to you have to prevent them from taking your cell phone, car, Internet access, alcohol, pets, or anything else that isn’t an absolute necessity.
Peruta v. San Diego : Conceal and Carry in California
Main article: Peruta v. San Diego
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
These are the stories of my experiences pulling a gun to stop crimes, and how it differs from the stereotypes. In my life, I have personally used a gun to end an altercation three times. A rape, an armed car robbery, and a drug dealer or pederast trying to pedal something on a not so helpless young lad.
This is a story of what shooting is like for me, and how it differs from the stereotypes. Now the plural of anecdote is not data -- but lies of omission, are lies. The media loves to bombard us with selective anecdotes about how guns ruined lives, but almost never about the many, many millions of times a year more, where they are just used for hobby or sport. This is just some of those.
Why don't people trust Obama when he says he isn't trying to take anyone's guns? Because gun advocates listen to what he says at other times too. How he legislated, what he says to campaign contributors, and like his gun control speech that the media failed to fact-check, but I point out just a few of the problems with it.
Media / People
The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the truth, or not care. Bad facts, and one side of the story is propaganda (FakeNews), not journalism.
There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?
The facts are, in murder rates: U.S. ranks #121 safest out of 218 countries, #4 safest out of 49 counties in our hemisphere, #19 safest out of 36 OECD countries, our drug/gang/crime problems have nothing to do with gun control, and more guns = less murder because it's dangerous to try to kill an armed person. This article contains the stats and facts, for those who care.
Main article: Gun Quotes