DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[ikeo1]

This is not about trump. This is about the fact that some people here support politicians and even worse certain gun restrictions on a GUN FORUM. Its like turkeys for Thanksgiving. We cant even get gun owners in line, much less the 9th circus and the general public.

Where is anyone saying that?

Please be mindful of what you claim. You’ve seen first hand what hyperbole can lead to and I do not want any issues with that because our greater goal is to do things from a grass roots way by building community.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Let's not be disingenuous here my dear friends.
You know who is who. Therefore we can infer some people here are OK with restrictions because "they are for the greater good". "Because of gun ViOlEnCe" and because "you need to understand that Becky is afraid of guns".
No if we start compromising our rights will forever be eroded and this will turn into an bbgun forum. I can guarantee you people here voted for Schiff, Newsom and will vote for Bonta.
Further by voting for certain politicians you empower them to enact more gun restrictions.
Consequently those who vote for certain politicians will end up supporting those very restrictions we are fighting against. Because of the natural and probable consequences of your vote

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

That’s not how all of this works. So you’re saying if the people got together and voted, in majority, to elect politicians into office that wanted to bring back slavery, then that’s all that matters. The people spoke, and slavery is now allowed again, regardless of what any of those pesky bill of rights words say?

 

[ikeo1]

Let's not be disingenuous here my dear friends.
You know who is who. Therefore we can infer some people here are OK with restrictions because "they are for the greater good". "Because of gun ViOlEnCe" and because "you need to understand that Becky is afraid of guns".
No if we start compromising our rights will forever be eroded and this will turn into an bbgun forum. I can guarantee you people here voted for Schiff, Newsom and will vote for Bonta.
Further by voting for certain politicians you empower them to enact more gun restrictions

Don’t run away from your words. When you say disingenuous, it’s making a claim and not backing it up.

You saw literal threats made here on lawmakers because people feel like you do. I do not like having to submit screenshots and things here because people make claims and make us out to be the bad guys. That’s disingenuous because you don’t respect other people’s differences.

 

[NotARobotYet]

I obviously know the difference between a 19 and a 42. I have both . The point is that why Cant a regular person buy a glock 42 new at a FFL. But they are able to buy a glock 19. It makes no sense. No of this makes it any sense.

Haha I know you do. And I know your question was rhetorical. But I also know there is no answer that will satisfy you because these are all part of much bigger problems that will only continue to get worse and more twisted if the right and left can’t figure out a way to work together and deescalate. You don’t want to do that? You think you way is right and everyone else is wrong so you shouldn’t need to change? Ok cool. Continue to enjoy the direction things are heading.

 

[Serbianguy]

Alright - now it's your turn. It’s time to put up or STFU.

NAME NAMES!

Who on this site "support politicians and even worse certain gun restrictions"

And make sure you include proof.

I’ll wait-

You’re kidding, right?

All you have to do is read though many of these posts.

And if you can’t see that for yourself, remember, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

And please, cut the hysterics. It’s not a good look.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Theres nothing illegal nor have I made any threats here. So why would you submit screenshots? People can feel angry, however we just cant commit any crimes. People are angry for a good reason. We just have to find a way to make a positive change but not with illegal acts

 

[ikeo1]

You’re kidding, right?

All you have to do is read though many of these posts.

And if you can’t see that for yourself, remember, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

And please, cut the hysterics. It’s not a good look.

If you notice there’s a pattern of constant deflection

This is a link to everyone of your posts. I see constant hand wavy generalizations and accusations with no facts. What other things do you want me to provide?

https://caguns.net/search/1047628/?c%5Busers%5D=Serbianguy&o=date

 

[governmentsucks1776]

I just answered and was given a warning. Unbelievable. Whatever

 

[ikeo1]

Theres nothing illegal nor have I made any threats here. So why would you submit screenshots? People can feel angry, however we just cant commit any crimes. People are angry for a good reason. We just have to find a way to make a positive change but not with illegal acts

It’s words like yours and @Serbianguy where you make accusations like the one you commented about without having any direct quote from people here.

You haven’t but there is a right leaning pro 2A contingent that’s looking to do MAGA Dems. You saw it for yourself. Pull it back a notch.

If you have nothing to contribute to the community but being s and antagonizing people you will be removed, we’ve done it for left leaning folks and will do it for right leaning. I’m sick of this and you know why…

 

[NotARobotYet]

That’s not how all of this works. So you’re saying if the people got together and voted, in majority, to elect politicians into office that wanted to bring back slavery, then that’s all that matters. The people spoke, and slavery is now allowed again, regardless of what any of those pesky bill of rights words say?

Nope. Nor am I saying Americans could vote to ban all civilian ownership of arms. That would take a constitutional amendment. There is a pretty big world of legal scenarios though between “people can have whatever they want” and “all arms are banned”.

 

[Warpspeed]

I just answered and was given a warning. Unbelievable. Whatever

The girls who get it, get it.

And the girls who don’t, don’t.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Let's not be disingenuous here my dear friends.
You know who is who. Therefore we can infer some people here are OK with restrictions because "they are for the greater good". "Because of gun ViOlEnCe" and because "you need to understand that Becky is afraid of guns".
No if we start compromising our rights will forever be eroded and this will turn into an bbgun forum. I can guarantee you people here voted for Schiff, Newsom and will vote for Bonta.
Further by voting for certain politicians you empower them to enact more gun restrictions.
Consequently those who vote for certain politicians will end up supporting those very restrictions we are fighting against. Because of the natural and probable consequences of your vote

So there are no restrictions for firearms in your world? Felons who are released from prison after their sentence? How about mentally unwell people should they also have no restrictions? Or is it a sliding scale really and like the other person said finding a middle ground between these and other things.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

So there are no restrictions for firearms in your world? Felons who are released from prison after their sentence? How about mentally unwell people should they also have no restrictions? Or is it a sliding scale really and like the other person said finding a middle ground between these and other things.

There should be some restrictions. I think we should have some, but we should be on par with AZ. I would be happy and that would be a good compromise with those who want gun laws

 

[grandpapeepap]

There should be some restrictions. I think we should have some, but we should be on par with AZ. I would be happy and that would be a good compromise with those who want gun laws

Should we infer you voted for newsome because you are ok with restrictions? I kid I kid

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Should we infer you voted for newsome because you are ok with restrictions? I kid I kid

Everyone who knows me, knows that I will vote Democrat when... I die.. dont ban me or give me another warning. Actually im very open to parties. I just dont agree with Democrats at all. But I wouldn't be opposed to voting for one if the candidate was good

 

[oneaudiopro]

Why is it always that those of us that support the 2nd amendment are the ones that are constantly asked to compromise and find middle ground?? What exactly are the anti-gun folks compromising on? Every day we lose more of our rights and have more restrictions put on us because of the actions of a minuscule number of criminals in our society. If we don't take a stand, we will die by a thousand cuts, slowly but surely. That's all

 

[grandpapeepap]

Why is it always that those of us that support the 2nd amendment are the ones that are constantly asked to compromise and find middle ground?? What exactly are the anti-gun folks compromising on? Every day we lose more of our rights and have more restrictions put on us because of the actions of a minuscule number of criminals in our society. If we don't take a stand, we will die by a thousand cuts, slowly but surely. That's all

Both major parties restrict rights, two sides of the same coin. So unless you can convince others to not vote for either one it will be more of the same. Ive heard it for 18 years of being an adult and voting how my 3rd party vote is a vote for a democrat while at the same time being a vote for republicans depending on who I happen to be talking to.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Don’t run away from your words. When you say disingenuous, it’s making a claim and not backing it up.

You saw literal threats made here on lawmakers because people feel like you do. I do not like having to submit screenshots and things here because people make claims and make us out to be the bad guys. That’s disingenuous because you don’t respect other people’s differences.

We don't "respect" differences or we humans wouldn't be different. Instead, we should respect one's right to hold an opinion and listen to someone's differing opinion. Not everyone is so happy to entertain opinions from another perspective, and I see a huge difference here between the political right and left.

Example, as an atheist i don't "respect" religious opinions which is why I have abandoned the foundational belief in God, but I respect people (provisionally) and one's right to hold religious views.

One huge problem is that the right and left are not equally stoic, and have differing values when it comes to "platforming" speech they find disagreeable. There is a good reason that a lot of us former progressives have "switched sides".

When it comes to our rights, there should be no compromise or "meeting in the middle". This got us laws that forbid prosecution of thieves who steal less than $950 of merchandise in California, and that awful policy will have long-term effects which hurt us all. People who support soft-on-crime legislation may wonder why certain chain stores have left a neighborhood or the state entirely.

Where is the compromise between peace and terrorism, or bodily autonomy and rape? These are extreme examples, but the "truth is in the middle" argument is an known logical fallacy. This doesn't mean the guy wanting to legally obtain standard capacity mags in California wants to also buy a nuke (strawman fallacy).

Respecting people should not be confused with respecting their many opinions, some of which are illogical and/or obviously deleterious or objectively harmful.

Conversation is paramount. Debate is good.

 

[Warpspeed]

Why is it always that those of us that support the 2nd amendment are the ones that are constantly asked to compromise and find middle ground?? What exactly are the anti-gun folks compromising on? Every day we lose more of our rights and have more restrictions put on us because of the actions of a minuscule number of criminals in our society. If we don't take a stand, we will die by a thousand cuts, slowly but surely. That's all

Middle ground would be amazing.

Neither side is willing to move off the furthest point from center. If they do then they can’t fund raise as easily.

Sorry to rehash this for those over the age of 20 but there is no such thing as an anti-gunner. Or at least they are extremely rare.

There are those who think that anyone who wants a gun should be able to own one and the other side believes that only the government should have guns. They aren’t anti-gun, they’re anti-you owning a gun. That’s where they start so allowing people to own guns is a huge compromise from their perspective. Huge.