WEATHER »

Jackson Introducing Bill to Ban Specific Shotgun

Says Rifled Bore Shotguns with Revolving Cylinders Serve No Purpose to Sport, Hunting


Friday, February 8, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson unveiled a bill this week that would ban “rifled bore” shotguns with revolving cylinders, like the Circuit Judge .410/.45. The bill is part of a larger 10-part bill addressing gun violence in California that will be officially introduced in a few weeks’ time.

This kind of gun is currently not banned by the state, though its smooth bore counterpart is. “It’s an incredibly dangerous and deadly weapon that serves no purpose to sport or hunting,” said Jackson.

“As gun technology evolves, our laws need to keep pace with them,” she went on. “Shotguns with a rifled barrel and revolving cylinder are relatively new, and can fire a large number of cartridges in a short period of time. The danger of these guns far outweighs any recreational use they may have.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Could it be that the people who are so obsessed with getting rid of guns are realizing that their social engineering policies have resulted in the violent culture we now live in and are simply trying to scapegoat the "gun nuts"? Also, I heard on the news this morning that the new gun laws passed in California are a "good start". A start to what?...more laws? Why don't these people just admit their full agenda now? After all, by their own admission, the new laws they're proposing aren't enough, but apparently they're willing for more people to die before unleashing their full agenda.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Naw bc, they want us to think that the 2nd and 3rd amendments were intended to protect hunters and sporting use and that the craphole mess our culture is in has nothing to do with nutty policies from both parties AND a lack of personal responsibility from our fellow citizens.
HB Jackson-Crime Stopper!

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonder if Barbara Boxer is going to give hers up, since that is what she owns.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of Sen. Boxer people may think because “It’s in the Constitution,” that the 2nd amendment will always be safeguarded. For these people, I suggest they read Senator Barbara Boxer’s autobiography “Strangers in The Senate.” On page 179, Boxer writes “Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the ‘Public Health and Safety Act,’ and that’s an appropriate name.” For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes “Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee’s approach will lead to a better America.” (funny how she doesn’t mention this on her website)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2013 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"billclausen" first wrote his gotcha insight into Barbara Boxer on this website September 24, 2008 at 2:47 p.m, virtually word for word as it appears above this comment. Sometime after that (I believe the 3rd or 4th time I saw the same tepid anecdote), I wrote the following:

. . . . "Barbara Boxer's "Strangers in the Senate: Politics and the New Revolution of Women in America," was published September 1994.

. . . . It is now July, 2011.

. . . . Just a suggestion "billclausen," but you may need to update your talking points.

. . . . Other notable events from 1994:

. . . . - Tonya Harding wins the national Figure Skating championship title but is stripped of her title following an attack on her rival Nancy Kerrigan.

. . . . - Northridge Earthquake, magnitude 6.7, hits the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles

. . . . - OJ Simpson flees police in his white Ford Bronco

. . . . - The Whitewater investigation begins

. . . . - Netscape Navigator released quickly becoming market leader for browsing the web

. . . . - Lisa Marie Presley marries Michael Jackson

. . . . - Kurt Cobain commits suicide

. . . . - Popular Films: "Forrest Gump," "The Lion King," "Dumb & Dumber," "Pulp Fiction."

. . . . * * * . How Much things cost in 1994. * * *

. . . . - Yearly Inflation Rate . . . USA 2.61%

. . . . - Year End Close Dow Jones Industrial Average . . . 3834

. . . . - Interest Rates Year End Federal Reserve . . . 8.50%

. . . . - Average Cost of new house . . . $119,050.00

. . . . - Average Income per year . . . $37,070.00

. . . . - Average Monthly Rent . . . $533.00

. . . . - Cost of a gallon of Gas . . . $1.09

. . . . - Movie Ticket . . . $4.08

. . . . - Average cost of new car . . . $12,350.00

. . . . - Loaf of Bread . . . $1.59

. . . . - Dozen Eggs . . . 86 cents "

I suppose I should add, for the benefit of "billclausen," that it is now February, 2013

binky (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2013 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah Binky, always dependable . Well yes, I suppose you're right, I've been at this a long time, but even though it's 2013 Boxer is still in power, and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't changed her views on this matter.

I just like to keep people informed.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 2:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BC "After all, by their own admission, the new laws they're proposing aren't enough, but apparently they're willing for more people to die before unleashing their full agenda."

You are right about that Bill more people will die so that you terrible marksmen can have your automatic weapons to hunt deer? Or dogs? Or...?

Also, I'd like to know how people like AZ2SB know what Ms. Boxer owns?

joerak (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"“It’s an incredibly dangerous and deadly weapon that serves no purpose to sport or hunting,” said Jackson."

This tyrant wannabe doesn't even give lip service to the right to self-defense. Perhaps those in public service should be required to pass a test on the constitution, or at least an IQ test.

Regarding the Second Amendment, in addition to the initial clause regarding a "well-regulated militia" that many like to argue about (even though the US Supreme Court has ruled twice — in 2004 and 2008 — that the Second Amendment applies to individuals), there's also "being necessary to the security of a free State" that clearly suggests protection against government tyrants — both foreign and domestic — especially to anyone familiar with numerous remarks of the founders regarding the reasoning behind this amendment.

Perhaps Jackson is gunning for the job of the hypocrite Diane Feinstein, with her concealed carry permit and surrounded by armed guards everywhere she goes, who clearly stated in an interview that she would introduce national legislation banning all weapons if she thought it could get 51 votes (only applicable to us serfs, of course, not government thugs protected by armed guards).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I support the assault weapons ban outlawing rifles ect goes too far. Many families and individuals, especially in the East and MidWest survive on food they get from hunting, without it they would starve or be malnourished.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kudos to you, Hannah-Beth, we need this specific rule and more gun control. BC, when you write "Could it be that the people who are so obsessed with getting rid of guns are realizing that their social engineering policies have resulted in the violent culture" it feels really simplistic. There are many many reasons for our sadly violent culture. Two hunters out on Little Pine Mtn just blast another guy's dog; it IS a violent culture.
I do not believe the Second Amendment is in any danger at all. Those with hunting rifles going out for food will be fine.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From a practical viewpoint, where do you draw the line between what should be legal and illegal? What should the criteria be? Should that line even exist?

Let the dancing begin.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where can I buy one?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These people have sworn an oath to protect and defend The Constitution. By taking these steps against the 2nd amendment, they have violated that oath of office, therefore, becoming traders to their word, their constituents and their country. I think a million man march on their house of ill repute (AKA the state house) would not be out of line. Also, a RICO (organized crime) action against them may soon be pending for this mis-conduct in office..

fabarber (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

traders, traitors, what's the difference?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect most of these government thugs care far more about which corporations (most of which are transnational criminal organizations) contribute to their campaigns than about what any of us marches against, though I definitely like your idea of a RICO action.

At the same time as the federal government has been granted, through the recently passed NDAA, the legal right to secretly assassinate, within the US, any citizen it considers a threat (and has, in fact, already assassinated three US citizens that we are aware of), one might think Hannah-Beth Jackson might consider the introduction of an NDAA nullification bill in California (as 16 states have already done and one has passed; see link at bottom) a far better way of serving her constituents than demonizing some shotgun.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter....

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EB, I can see the query "should that line even exist?" resonates with plenty. Do you mean "would a more severe line [gun control law series]" actually reduce gun deaths? Or, constitutionally, if the government has the legal RIGHT to impose this form of control and interpretation of 2 Amendment?" [J. Tieber's "government thugs" fits here]
Or, philosophically, do we as Americans simply appreciate and revel in our gun culture, and accept such a high percentage of gun-related deaths? In this context, the fired LA-cop gone rogue at Big Bear unfortunately shows how when we train less-than-stable men (and women) in all this weapons stuff, and they go off the rails...it's horrible.
Did you read about Dennis Kucinich's remarks at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation dinner last night?
It's interesting to be living as an unarmed civilian in this gun-totin' ultra-Western culture where so many guys think they're Wyatt Earp or the second reincarnation of John Wayne in True Grit [or Gregory Peck (?) in High Noon].

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan:

Though the specifics of the LAPD-on-LAPD crime you reference above is somewhat incidental to this thread, it is close to home, and considering your (and others here) interest in the broader issues, you might find this article posted today interesting:

'American Blowback'
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/0...

Excerpts:

"…What they want you to forget is the sheer strangeness of what is happening in Los Angeles. Christopher Dorner allegedly killed a police officer and two civilians. This was not a random shooting by a right-wing gun-nut mourning the loss of the “Real America.” Here is a man with good things to say about liberal democrats, a supporter of heightened gun control, a former LAPD officer and Navy reservist, targeting his own institution, which he accused of racism, violence, and corruption...

"…In a letter titled only “Last Resort” and addressed to “America,” he makes clear his grievances, his objectives, and the rationale behind his actions – a chilling declaration of war on the Los Angeles Police Department…

"...the vast majority of the letter paints a picture of someone who, while clearly undergoing some sort of mental break, is astonishingly lucid as to the causes and candid as to what he intends to do about it…"

_____________

fabarber: You might enjoy the reference to the LAPD charged under the RICO Act in the seventh paragraph of the article linked above.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"
You are right about that Bill more people will die so that you terrible marksmen can have your automatic weapons to hunt deer? Or dogs? Or...?

Also, I'd like to know how people like AZ2SB know what Ms. Boxer owns? "

joerak (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 6:01 a.m.

I'm a "terrible marksman", what proof do you have of that? How do you know whether or not I'm a marksman? I remember a co worker once telling me that my dad "looks like a yachtsman".

As for AZ2SB, how would I know how he knows about Barbara Boxer's arsenal? Maybe he's her gun dealer.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joerak: I'm really hurt by your mean comment. My self-esteem is SHOT. I wish also you'd quit GUNNING for people such as AZ2SB and taking AIM at anyone who disagrees with you. It seems to my you have bit of a hair-TRIGGER temper and that you missed the MARK in your post.

For you to AUTOMATICALLY assume such things about people you don't know may BACKFIREl

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, let me remind y'all that many of these people who live in D.C. and make our laws have an issue of moral duality: The want gun control in this country but have no problem authorizing the murder of civilians--preferably of other races--in lands far off.

Yep, 26 dead in Sandy Hook but many, many more dead in the MIddle East with no end in sight.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joerak- Why don't we ban death instead of guns then no one will die? And maybe we can have them create laws to have pigs fly, and it will be so.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, good question. I purposely asked a few very simple questions because I wanted to elicit some simple and clear opinions from the crowd.

Right now, I'm hoping someone will say:

*** Here's what guns should be allowed and not allowed.

*** Here's why the "Circuit Judge" should or should not be allowed.

And if they choose to concisely elaborate on why, that would be refreshing too.

I've seen lot's of people refer to the 2nd & 3rd Amendments in this thread and others. But I haven't seen anyone bother explaining what they believe those Amendments mean or how they pertain to gun ownership & regulation.

All I see are people invoking the Amendments and chastising others for misinterpresting them ... yet those same people don't have the courage or sense to declare simply what their interpretations are, as if we should be reading their minds.

The one person who has come closest to a clear honest opinion is KV. He has stated he doesn't believe assault rilfes (he defines them as AR15 class, I believe) should be sold. Whether or not one agrees with him, his was a fresh breath of candidness.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I always think the middle ground is best, I try to stay on it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

East Beach:

The founding documents of this country are often referred to as being "timeless" because they were crafted by very intelligent people to be so clear and wonderfully concise as to require little or no interpretation.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" remains quite clear to me, even after more than 250 years. If it's not clear to you, perhaps you might start by looking up the meaning of the word "infringe."

Especially considering that the US Supreme Court has ruled twice, in 2004 and 2008, that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, can any reasonable person argue that there's sufficient wiggle room within "infringed" for political hacks such as Dianne Feinstein and Hannah-Beth Jackson to slither, the latter with her self-serving political stunt of demonizing some obscure firearm, and thus infringing on the rights of the 100 million law-abiding US gun-owners who have never fired a weapon at anyone and likely never will?

In the meantime, nothing else important regarding firearms is happening that demands Hannah-Beth Jackson's attention: the political party she belongs to empowers an international war criminal / domestic tyrant (apparently because he possesses an engaging smile and a lovely family) to (1) use terror robot planes to murder thousands of innocent civilians in at least six countries, including, by most estimates, 200-300 children, and (2) to declare the right, via the recently-passed NDAA, and the intent, to secretly murder, within the US, in addition to the three he has already murdered, any US citizen he, or anyone he designates, deems to be a threat.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In other words, you're saying the neolioberals are the same as the neoconservatives?
If W. had an additional four years you think we'd be on a different course?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Except, Mr. JohnTieber, this is the actual wording which results in various interpretations:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Not the sentence fragment you provided.

And squaring the intent of the first part of the Amendment with the dependent clause you cited is the source of disagreement.

Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
_____________________________

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
_____________________________

Chester:

As I've noted here twice (the second time in my comment you are responding to): as this has been resolved not just once, but twice, by the US Supreme Court, I don't believe any further interpretation is needed by political hacks who apparently have little or no respect for the US or California constitutions or their oaths of office.

From my second comment yesterday (February 9, 2013 at 9:51 a.m.):

"Regarding the Second Amendment, in addition to the initial clause regarding a "well-regulated militia" that many like to argue about (even though the US Supreme Court has ruled twice — in 2004 and 2008 — that the Second Amendment applies to individuals), there's also "being necessary to the security of a free State" that clearly suggests protection against government tyrants — both foreign and domestic — especially to anyone familiar with numerous remarks of the founders regarding the reasoning behind this amendment."

For any who still insist on obfuscating this issue via reference to the introductory clause of the Second Amendment, or who, like Hannah-Beth Jackson, would like to ignore the second clause ("…being necessary to the security of a free State…") whenever it suits their purpose, below are a few excerpts in reference to what I wrote above: "…numerous remarks of the founders regarding the reasoning behind this amendment" :

THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN NEXT COMMENT....

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?" PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates at 48.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." JOHN ADAMS, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." SAM ADAMS, in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug. 20, 1789.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ JohnTieber (or anyone else for that matter!)

Since you have some opinions on the subject, would you do me the favor of a reply to the questions I asked before? ...

From a practical viewpoint, where do you draw the line between what should be legal and illegal? What should the criteria be? Should that line even exist? Should the "Circuit judge" be allowed?

I wish someone with an opinion would step up to the plate and give some straight honest answers. These are not trick questions. I just want to know what others think.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

East Beach:

I've already invested considerable time indicating my belief that the Second Amendment is unequivocal about this.

Quite frankly, considering that (1) the USA federal government has murdered, by some estimates, 20-30 million people since World War II, in dozens of countries that did not attack us and were no threat to us (link at bottom), making it (the government, not the country) the planet's largest terrorist organization, and (2) it is increasingly clear (known murders of US citizens within the US by federal forces, huge ammunition purchases by domestic agencies, rapid metastasizing of TSA goons and criminals throughout the entire transportation system and even to non-transportation-related venues, militarizing of local police, etc. etc.) that it is rapidly turning its attention to what it refers to as "The Homeland," I find it perplexing that anyone would be concerned about what level of weaponry law-abiding citizens should be "allowed" to possess, pursuant to the second clause of the Second Amendment ("…being necessary to the security of a free State…").

http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas2...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since we are a government of the people, any weapon outlawed by the governement, MUST be outlawed FOR the government. There CANNOT be a double standard.

Furthermore, any lawmaker that votes to pass ANY law restricting guns for any American, must give up ANY armed security that they have or be accused and charged with theft in office.

fabarber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So how many of you think you could actually win an armed battle with the US Federal Govt.?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And when does it become okay to take another human life to merely maintain possession of a weapon?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)


So how many of you think you could actually win an armed battle with the US Federal Govt.?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 6:58 p.m.

Strength in numbers.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

"So how many of you think you could actually win an armed battle with the US Federal Govt.?"

Probably about the 3% who battled a similarly tyrannical, criminal government from 1776 to 1783, and less than the peasants in pajamas and sandals who defeated it in Vietnam, and the insurgents armed with rifles and homemade bombs who defeated it in Iraq.

Should it come to that — and my guess is it most likely won't — as is usually the case, most will meekly do whatever the criminals and tyrants order them to do, and will have no effect on the outcome.
___________________

"And when does it become okay to take another human life to merely maintain possession of a weapon?"

No one in this discussion has suggested shooting first. I certainly haven't.

And incidentally, I've never owned a firearm, and have not even handled one since the last time I went hunting with my father more than 40 years ago.

But considering that the USA federal government currently is little more than a criminal and murderous terrorist organization, and has been for more than 60 years, I support those who don't feel the need to ask permission to exercise a right they already have from some gun-phobic ignoramus political hack, either at the state or federal level.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fabarber:

Kudos to both paragraphs of your comment five above, and also, from your comment @February 9, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. that I've excerpted below, regarding the three words I've put in CAPS: (1) Good luck, and (2) do you need any help?

"....Also, a RICO (organized crime) action against them MAY SOON BE pending for this mis-conduct in office.."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about those who don't agree with you? Are they to be shot too?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Basically where is the line drawn? What if the 97% you've deemed cowards don't support you and decide that you're the tyrant? It could happen if you were only 3%. Then what?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Encountering a series of increasingly unintelligible, poorly crafted, short, redundant comments riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, that contribute nothing to a discussion, and often don't even indicate who or what comment is being addressed, especially if these comments take the form of ad hominem attacks, such as the comment at 9:22 p.m. above, should remind those who contribute productively to any online discussion of the fact that the federal government has announced that it has begun employing people to spin its version of controversial issues, using keywords to flag such discussions.

Of course it's not possible to determine whether any particular instance is simply someone of apparent room-temperature IQ acting alone, or someone being paid; in this instance I suspect the former, due to the very low quality of the comment at 9:22 p.m. above, the comment following it, and three of the five preceding it from the same author.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you consider my questions ad hominem attacks then you def shouldn't be in possession of a weapon. In addition your personal attacks reveal me about your character and your psychology than I doubt you can grasp.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 10, 2013 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jebus, JohnTeiber, your holier-than-thou act leaves a lot to be desired.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"From a practical viewpoint, where do you draw the line between what should be legal and illegal? What should the criteria be? Should that line even exist?"
-- EastBeach

It's a reasonable question and I notice your frustration at the lack of clear answers. Here's mine:

Yes, there should be a line. The criterion should be momentum at the nozzle. The line is anything with more momentum than a bb-gun is illegal.

Hope this helps.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Would Barbara Boxer be willing to renounce her call for the ban on handguns if--in trade--assault weapons were outlawed?

I'd be curious to see if the politicians who want this assault ban would promise to re-create the legal situation vis-a-vis gun rights that existed before the mass killings which have inspired the call for assault weapons to be banned. Or, would we find out that these weapons have always been available and our CULTURE has changed? (Just a question)

I outed Barbara Boxer as clearly being anti-2nd Amendment, so it's fair to ask "how many more who are in power think as she does?".

The call for banning certain weapons seems reasonable to me--although I wonder how successful such a ban would be (I think of the failed "war on drugs) so I'm not here to argue with those who want gun CONTROL (as opposed to gun PROHIBITION--even if those who wish to split hairs insist the approach of Sen. Boxer isn't prohibition)

I would feel more at ease if the line between gun prohibition (even if it is de facto in nature) and gun control were made clear by all those who are urging these new laws. (And remember: Obama said in his debate with Romney that we need no new laws, only to enforce those already on the books)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 3:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's odd to me that people that apparently despise the 2nd and 3rd amendments and feel they know what the Founding Fathers intended with their inclusion, are often the same folks that feel in an era that pre dated lithography the FFs also felt the instantaneous nature of the internet and all electronic communications are OBVIOUSLY covered by Free Speech.
The FF did not envision hand held rocket launchers nor did they anticipate that people could disseminate information(whether true or false) in an instantaneous manner and use this ability to incite riots etc. And this problem is not dismissed by stating that only guns kill people folks; we're talking about the intent of the Constitution.
With regards to the question about whether the citizenry could defend against government troops; oh, I dunno, let's ask the people in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
And once again, the 2nd and 3rd had NOTHING to do with hunting or sporting use of weapons; read the words for Gawdsakes.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EastBeach:

As there appears to be considerable support here for what I consider the broader questions that should be asked, I'd like now to respond to your request for comments regarding particular firearms.

You mention AR-15 in your comment yesterday at 1:24 p.m.

First, regarding the term 'assault rifle', this was originally defined as an automatic weapon (of which an AR-15 is not); such firearms, which cost $15,000 or more, have been banned since 1934, with very few exceptions, usually for law enforcement and similar individuals, who must undergo extensive, expensive, and time-consuming background checks.

So the current use of the term 'assault rifle' by various political hacks is simply a deliberately provocative and pejorative term that does absolutely nothing to further classify 'rifle' and is used simply in order to scare those not knowledgeable about firearms. Regarding 'military style', a term also wildly tossed around by these tyrants and tyrant wannabes, it requires zero understanding of firearms to understand the absurdity of limiting or banning something because of its 'style.' More on 'style' below.



If one were to click on the link below, and view the bottom two images only: this is the EXACT SAME FIREARM, the left with a wood stock, the right with a modern plastic composite stock and some other accessories:


http://www.examiner.com/article/sandy-hook-and-gun-control?CID=obinsite



It's a simple .22 RIFLE, the type of rifle that 12-year olds have used to learn marksmanship in summer camp for decades. Yet, if shown a photo of the bottom right version, the hypocrite Senator Feinstein (with her own concealed carry permit as well as armed guards nearly everywhere she goes) would insist it's an 'assault rifle' and none of the 100 million law-abiding American gun-owners who have never fired a gun at anyone should be "allowed" to own it.

...THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN COMMENT BELOW...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Setting aside the concept of 'need' often incorrectly claimed to be relevant by these political hacks who apparently, despite their oaths of office, fail to understand the concept of 'right,' an AR-15 (the initials indicate the manufacturer, incidentally, not 'assault rifle') is essentially, then, a modern rifle, semi-automatic, as are, I believe, approximately 80% of rifles in circulation.

Regarding the accessories that have been added to the version illustrated at the bottom right of the link above: none increase the firepower; the utility of the scope, bipod stand, hand grip, and higher capacity magazine for sport shooting enthusiasts should be obvious. The collapsible stock makes it easy for the firearm to be adjusted to be ideal for any body size and, to be shared, for instance, between husband and wife sport shooting enthusiasts. Despite the political hacks' claims that this particular rifle is "not needed for hunting" (and setting aside the irrelevance of such claims) hunters appreciate modern rifles with plastic composite rather than wood stocks (set up for hunting, rather than sport shooting, as in the photo), as they are much lighter for carrying around in the woods for hours.

So essentially, Feinstein and Feinstein wannabes are demonizing law-abiding US citizens for owning particular firearms because they're black (the firearms, not the citizens!) and, according to them, 'military style.'

Finally, a recent federal purchase order for 7000 AR-15s — by a domestic agency, and thus presumably for potential use against US citizens within the US — describes these firearms as 'personal defense weapons.' So: legitimate defense weapons when possessed by the government thugs, but 'assault rifles' when possessed by law-abiding US citizens.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

East Beach (thinks for trying to get actual answers)

My definition for banned is full auto (machine guns to the lay person)
Guns with clips? being somehow "more evil" what a crock of horse puckey, or that a .410/.45 is somehow extra dangerous to us as citizens.
I think out military and law enforcement deserve our respect!! and also should have the capability to defend our laws, that means bigger and badder weapons available to them than me.

John I would agree with you more but your sounding a little crazy "government thugs"?

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't really understand how this gun is any different than a repeating rifle. It seems like a perfectly fine gun to use for hunting wild pigs or deer.

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dadof3:

I'm with you with no objection to continuing the full-auto ban, particularly as it has been in place since 1934, as I indicated in my comment today at 9:06 a.m. (that perhaps you're referencing).

Incidentally, my understanding (currently based only on one source) is that even the military finds full-auto useful only rarely and for very specific circumstances, such as laying down huge amounts of suppressing fire.

Regarding your question on my use of the phrase 'government thugs', you'll probably find it more understandable (whether you agree with my characterization or not) in the context of my comments above yesterday at 12:36 p.m, 2:05 p.m, and 5:36 p.m., most particularly the four facts I list in item (2) of the latter (three of which pertain, incidentally, to non-law enforcement / non-military domestic agencies).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@EastBeach,

Here would be my logic. Military vs Civilian. The Founders did not want a Standing Army because of the threat they could pose to the People, see history. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of the "Military Industrial Complex". The Founders never looked for a Central Government, see Articles of Confederation, but finally realized some centralization was necessary, but certainly not what it has become.

Civilian is the People and includes the Police. Police function is Civilian, see Posse Comitatus Act.

So in answer to your question, any weapon that is good enough for the Police is good enough for the People.

So if you want to demand that Police only have 6 shot revolvers, deer rifles and waterfowl shotguns then I think you would have a basis to demand that of the People.

As Social Engineering begins to look more like Fascism, as Police begin to look more like Para-Military with military, military style weapons and armored personnel carriers. Federal Agencies begin to look more military than the real military, DHS.

The People are concerned and rightfully so.

If lawmakers want to de-militarize Civilian Federal, State and Local agencies I think you would have a good case for 6 shot revolvers, deer rifles and waterfowl shotguns. I don't hear any lawmakers making such proposals, in fact they usually exempt the Police from the Draconian Laws they propose.

@Ken_Volok,

You got that right. Neo-Conservative or Neo-Liberal, the same Freedom and Liberty hating Monster, I fear them both.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I too, as often admitted in these comments, abhor and fear both extremes. Both are driven by ideology and fervent myopia. hgwmv gave a very literate and objective analysis of the facts as they have evolved from the FF's. Folks may not like these facts but they are what they are.
The constant militarization of the police, sometimes driven by emotion, scares the hell out of me as well.
And no, I am no "gun nut" but of course that term is used to describe anyone who advocates for the referent amendments. So in spite of the fact that I do not sleep with my guns, do not belong to the NRA, and believe that in concept legal regulation of firearms has a place in all civilized societies, I am not losing sleep over law abiding citizens being armed according to our Constitution. Simply because I support the 2nd and 3rd a whole bunch of you will create an ad hominum basis for your view and call me a gun nut anyway.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley:

Regarding your final paragraph above: Ken's comment was directed at me, yet was perplexing, as it didn't appear to reference anything I wrote or even implied, so I didn't respond.

So since you've clarified it: I'm in agreement with you, and will answer both of Ken's questions:

"In other words, you're saying the neolioberals are the same as the neoconservatives?"
Regarding both my points from the comment you are responding to, (1) immoral and illegal wars of aggression against countries who have not attacked us and pose no threat to us, and (2) domestic tyranny (PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc) there's virtually no difference between the blue party and the red party, and has not been for at least 60 years. Regarding (1), in terms of international law, all USA presidents at least since Eisenhower have been war criminals, some (Kennedy, Carter) having committed far fewer war crimes than others (Bush, Obama).

"If W. had an additional four years you think we'd be on a different course?"
No; we'd be on the exact same course, but being taken there by a war criminal / domestic tyrant with a less-engaging smile.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And so it turns out that none of us are the monsters we imagined, go figure.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

Though your comment above directly follows mine, it's not clear to me whether it's directed at me, and if so, in reference to which comment.

If it is directed to me, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT.

But (and just for clarification, if needed, and not because I want to reopen this): if your comment above is referring to my comment at 10:44 p.m. yesterday, note that, while I won't disagree that my 10:44 p.m. comment could have been more diplomatic, that comment was primarily prompted by your ad hominem attack directed at me at 9:22 p.m.:

"What about those who don't agree with you? Are they to be shot too?"

And incidentally, I found the word 'too' above perplexing, as I had neither written nor implied that anyone should be shot. ;-)

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to keep a time log Tieber. Your points are very well put, and I would like someone form an equal rebuttal if there is one.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks AZ2SB, but though I feel it's important to fully resolve an issue with someone that got personal, I hesitated — three times — to post my 1:16 pm comment, as I am not unaware that that sub-topic is likely of little interest to most readers (so I'm not actually in favor of others chiming in on this, but only because it's a sub-topic not relevant to the discussion).

So apologizes to anyone who feels inconvenienced by the subtopic, but things seem to finally be winding down on this discussion, which has had a very nice three-day run, so I suspect few have been bothered.

Regarding things winding down here, at Noozhawk, Craig Allen just posted the article I've linked at bottom. Those sufficiently knowledgeable about the constitution to understand that the whole point of it is to delineate rights we already have that political hacks aren't permitted to take away, rather than rights that we must beg their permission to exercise, will likely enjoy his article.

It only has ten comments as of this writing, but I've already introduced my good friends Dianne Feinstein and Hannah-Beth Jackson and, for a coming attraction should the discussion grow sufficiently to accommodate it, since Craig mentions baseball bats in his post, I have, on deck, a short 'humor break' comment that includes a link to an image of an assault bat and what Dianne Feinstein would likely do about it, assuming Hannah-Beth Jackson doesn't beat her to it.

(Sorry, Santa Barbara Independent, for a link off-site to a similar discussion, which I would never consider doing were this discussion not three days old; but post any future articles about local political hacks and their unconstitutional self-serving stunts and I'll likely participate.)

'Craig Allen: Gun Control Is Really About Freedom'
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/craig...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do hypothetical questions need to be directed at one person in general?
To satisfy egos?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you mean like Carol Ruiz?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, we question her directly, since none of us here own Chick Fill-A restaurants nor is it exactly a burning issue on the national psyche.
In addition, I advise all newcomers not to take anyone's online comments here personally EVER or you're gonna have a LOT of bummer days.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken wrote:

"Why do hypothetical questions need to be directed at one person in general?"

Your question above is most perplexing. If your ad hominem attack at 9:22 p.m. yesterday...

"What about those who don't agree with you? Are they to be shot too?"

...directly below two of mine, was directed neither to me nor to any specific person, then it would have to have been directed at everyone who reads it.

That would be nonsensical for at least two reasons: the pointless remark, including the word 'you', yet referencing neither a particular person nor a particular comment (1) would be directed even to those who had not yet appeared in the discussion, and (2) would be directed against both those who agree with you and those who don't.
______________________

Ken wrote:

"I advise all newcomers not to take anyone's online comments here personally EVER or you're gonna have a LOT of bummer days."

This also makes little sense; many of us clearly direct comments to specific individuals, to clarify, not just for the individual asking a question, but in consideration to other readers, what the comment is in reference to. In these cases, of which there are many, "you're gonna have a LOT of bummer days" has no relevance.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't bother making sense of anything I say Mr. Tieber.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@JohnTieber,

Just a small correction, SCOTUS ruled in 2008 for Heller and 2010 for MacDonald not 2004 and 2008. It was MacDonald that used the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the States as an individual right, Heller was only for individuals in the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories.

“It’s an incredibly dangerous and deadly weapon that serves no purpose to sport or hunting,” said Jackson."

This tyrant wannabe doesn't even give lip service to the right to self-defense. Perhaps those in public service should be required to pass a test on the constitution, or at least an IQ test.

Regarding the Second Amendment, in addition to the initial clause regarding a "well-regulated militia" that many like to argue about (even though the US Supreme Court has ruled twice — in 2004 and 2008 — that the Second Amendment applies to individuals), there's also "being necessary to the security of a free State" that clearly suggests protection against government tyrants — both foreign and domestic — especially to anyone familiar with numerous remarks of the founders regarding the reasoning behind this amendment.

Perhaps Jackson is gunning for the job of the hypocrite Diane Feinstein, with her concealed carry permit and surrounded by armed guards everywhere she goes, who clearly stated in an interview that she would introduce national legislation banning all weapons if she thought it could get 51 votes (only applicable to us serfs, of course, not government thugs protected by armed guards)."

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley:

Thanks, I had only one source for that and didn't confirm it. I'll update my template so it will be accurate, should I ever want to use that phrase elsewhere.

And even better, as these dates are more recent.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Tieber, you accuse me of being an astroturfer but you've got a "template" of responses or "phrases"?

:)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

I've never written or implied anything about "astroturfing," either in regards to you or anyone else.

I also don't understand why you believe 'astroturfing' and 'template' are somehow connected.

(Assuming it's a sincere question): in answer to your confusion regarding the term 'template': I compose longer comments offline before posting, which therefore results in a document labelled and organized in such a way that I can very quickly access it on my hard drive.

So, for example, if a month from now, I'm writing an email to a friend about the 2nd Amendment, rather than waste time re-composing a passage I've already composed, I'll simply access that passage with a few clicks, and copy and paste it, usually in less than ten seconds.

I hope that's OK with you. ;-)

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“It’s an incredibly dangerous and deadly weapon that serves no purpose to sport or hunting,” said Jackson.

Next thing I know someone will say "the only purpose guns serve is to injure and kill" in order to justify banning them. The only problem is, criminals still get guns, and small unarmed women are no match for sexual predators.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We don't even have a big gun violence problem in California, the LAPD has shot more people than anyone!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

Good point. Though I certainly can't condone his killing of three people, I'm finding it difficult not to root for Christopher Dorner against the LAPD, even though he's in favor of stricter gun laws ;-) . According to this article (link at bottom) I'm not alone.

Excerpt (article title and link at bottom):

"Dorner is attacking the system that created him, proving its senseless violence by embodying that senseless violence and turning it back upon its creators:

"The culture of LAPD versus the community and honest/good officers needs to and will change. I am here to correct and calibrate your morale compasses to true north.

"Dorner’s manifesto has been dismissed as “rambling” and “incoherent” by most major news outlets, who ignore the fact that it’s actually an articulate and thorough denunciation of police brutality, written by a whistle blower with a demand for stricter gun laws."

'LAPD Chickens Come Home to Roost'
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/1...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before this whole Dorner case broke out I was reminiscing about one of Spielberg's best films "The Sugarland Express". Public reaction somewhat reminds me of the reaction of the public in the film's story; though the details vary greatly.
I especially think the decision to use drones to kill a US citizen on US soil buys him a lot of support from people who might otherwise completely disavow him.
I'm less concerned about handguns and more unhappy about the de facto death penalty being enacted upon US citizens on US soil without benefit of a trial. (really anybody anywhere if they can be apprehended and there is legit reason to do so.)
I personally would have preferred bin Laden had been put on trial. The Israelis didn't execute Eichmann without a trial. That's just my perspective.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HUMOR BREAK FOR LAPD NON-FANS...

...just posted at ZeroHedge (truthful geopolitical and macro-financial news rife with anti-establishment snark)

Click the link at bottom to view an actual photo from the Los Angeles area. The two females appear to be skeptical of the gentleman's 'Not Chris Dorner...' message directed at the trigger-happy LAPD.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. my previous comment:

Don't forget to scroll down for the comments.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 11, 2013 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just when I thought KV and this anal-retentive JT were about to go their separate ways they have apparently French smootched and made up.
Unfortunately hgwmv, too few politicians would do well on an I.Q. test. Will you simply stop confusing us with your facts as some of our Left leaning Progressive types with brains are going to get uneasy with their hypocrisy...wait...no they won't since that is where they have to live everyday...proceed!
And for the record, I am: for the environment and I love Mother Earth; not for not clubbing puppies OR seals; not for intentionally starving children, for letting women out of the kitchen(O.K. maybe I lied on this one); for not having humans freeze on the streets; not for having every citizen with a .50 BMG and 10,000 rounds of ammo...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One of Hannah-Beth Jackson's statements from the article which I don't believe has been specifically remarked on here: “As gun technology evolves, our laws need to keep pace with them.”

This gun-phobic ignoramus thinks that she serves the public by piling unconstitutional laws upon unconstitutional laws; I wonder how much staff time she consumed finding some obscure firearm that wasn't already on the hypocrite Dianne Feinstein's ban list.

These tyrant-wannable clowns in Sacramento and Washington would better serve the public by studying the constitution and repealing the unconstitutional nonsense that's been passed than by adding more to their stinking piles of crappy laws.

Regarding firearms and political hacks who think it's their job to ban whichever particular models they decide are most scary, I think fabarber stated it best above at February 10, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.:

"Since we are a government of the people, any weapon outlawed by the government, MUST be outlawed FOR the government. There CANNOT be a double standard.

"Furthermore, any lawmaker that votes to pass ANY law restricting guns for any American, must give up ANY armed security that they have or be accused and charged with theft in office."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pictures say a 1000 words,

Here is a Circuit Judge, it is a reproduction of an 1855 Remington Arms revolving rifle - to me it is ugly but not anymore lethal than a 1866 Winchester Yellow Boy.

http://www.rossiusa.com/product-list....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47380491...

Notice the Circuit Judge has a revolving cylinder, the Yellow Boy has a tube feed, the Yellow Boy holds more rounds. Both are not easy reloaded.

The Circuit Judge in .410 is a perfect jack rabbit or ground squirrel gun, not everyone in California lives on the Coast.

The article claims new technology, really 1855 is new technology?

The Strict Scrutiny of the 2nd Amendment revolves around "Sport and Hunting" gee I did not read that in Heller or MacDonald.

Propaganda Comrade - just Propaganda with no Legal Basis at all.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley wrote:

"...to me it is ugly..."

Well, perhaps that's enough for our state senator; ugly = scary.

Click on the imagine below of a modern assault baseball bat; paint it completely black, name it something scary, and send it to Hannah-Beth Jackson to add to the ban list she's developing, as she guns for Dianne Feinstein's job:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Has any comment yet mentioned Hitler?
After 75 comments that is inevitable to arise under some rule of repeated observations.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John_Adams:

You could have answered your own question in much less time than it took to post your comment simply by doing a page search (command-F).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@John_Adams,

The technology of the 1855 Remington Arms Revolving Rifle was eclipsed by the Winchester Lever Action Repeating Rifle more than 150 years ago, the Winchester technology proved superior.

A 5 shot .410 revolving rifle is no different from a Remington 870 Wingmaster Pump Action Shotgun in .410 and the Remington 870 is easier to reload.

She should stick to Family Law, this proposal is a GrandStanding JOKE.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a link to "Cowboy Action Shooting" it is a National Sport.

http://sassnet.com

They use old cowboy arms and reproductions in their SPORT. Reproduction 1800's arms like the Circuit Judge, Yellow Boy and others are enjoyed by thousands each and very weekend.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreenwasmyvalley:

Thanks again for taking the time to correct my Supreme Court ruling dates.

I've already made use of your corrected dates locally here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SBProgC...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a .56cal Colt Revolving Rifle from 1855, new and modern technology my foot, oh and these relics start at $10K+ and keep going up, that is why reproductions are so popular.

.56 cal larger than the .45 cal .410 bore shotgun loads that the Circuit Judge can fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...

As Bobby Dylan says " Some people try to hide what they don't know to begin with"

@JT,

You are welcome.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Has any comment yet mentioned Hitler?
After 75 comments that is inevitable to arise under some rule of repeated observations."

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.

You just said it! You just said it! (This thread is now null and void)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought it'd never end.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen wrote:
"This thread is now null and void."

For anyone suffering withdrawal, I just did a search for 'Hannah-Beth gun grab'. ;-)

Three relevant items, none current.

This one, though…

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013...

…has 427 comments to read... ;-) (though a search of the page for 'Hannah-Beth' returns only one item).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And here's an article from 7 February:

http://www.keyt.com/news/Hannah-Beth-...

Excerpt:
"...The bill would ban certain assault shotguns..."

Not presented as a quote from our esteemed state senator; nevertheless, I enjoyed it, as it's the first I've encountered the term 'assault shotgun.' What's next, 'assault revolver'?

Only eight comments at the article above; here's my favorite:

Hannah-Beth-Is-Stupid • a day ago −
Hannah, I'm going to say this with the utmost respect: You are not only incompetent but you are so very stupid.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[AS THIS POST NO LONGER DISPLAYS ON THE HOME PAGE, FEW WILL LIKELY SEE THIS AND THE NEXT COMMENT, BUT I COMPILED THIS MATERIAL OUT OF PERSONAL INTEREST, AND WILL LIKELY FIND IT USEFUL ELSEWHERE.]

For anyone interested, from the 427-comment post I link to at 10:41 p.m above, for what it's worth I've selected some SCENARIOS from those comments, assuming the clowns in Sacramento get their way, which is probably a good bet and, in the next comment below, LEGAL REMEDIES?.

Regarding the former, I'm simply passing those comments on without evaluating them; regarding the latter, I'm currently not sufficiently knowledgeable to determine the merit of the legal issues; perhaps howgreenwasmyvalley or fabarber might want to comment, should either see this and feel it's worthwhile to comment here at this late date (I'll definitely see that comment or comments, but perhaps no one else will).
_________________________

SCENARIOS

JAS says:
February 7, 2013 at 18:31

1) If you take all of those laws together it becomes obvious that they want law abiding citizens to be armed with 19th century technology. All 20th and 21st advances in firearms are banned.

2) Their fatal mistake is that criminals don’t give a hoot in hell about such laws and will continue to use the latest and the greatest. Advanced firearms will flow into the state like fuel through the Apollo rockets.

3) The law will pass, then it will go to the SCOTUS, In the meantime, the criminals in California will make Detroit look like Disneyland...

Leo338 says:
February 7, 2013 at 18:52
If this passes, and chances are it will, I imagine it will open up a whole new black market in CA. California citizens actually may have more options available to them when purchasing a firearm. The democrats refusal to protect our border or enforce immigration laws just may come back to bite them in the ass. The irony in that would be oh so sweet.

Publius says:
February 7, 2013 at 18:48
If this passes into law, there will be an interval between passage and Supreme Court strike-down. During that interval, I would not live in (or even visit) California for any reason whatever. Too risky.

The criminals will be fully armed, but law-abiding people not. And as we see unfolding today, the police are not, shall we say, totally on top of the criminals.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LEGAL REMEDIES?

Brian says:
February 7, 2013 at 17:40

The good news: Much of this is unconstitutional under Heller.
The bad news: by the time it gets that far Heller may not matter because of a change in the Court.


These state-by-state restrictions are a serious threat to the health of the 2A movement. Good luck to the folks in CA, if you can’t pry some of the moderate Dems off of this your only hope is either federal preemption or the Court. Or moving.


Sammy says:

February 7, 2013 at 17:47

Would this come under the jurisdiction of the infamous 9th Circus?


Brian says:

February 7, 2013 at 17:50


It would indeed. And with the exception of Kozinski and a couple of others it is unlikely the 9th’s judges would greet the proposal or the legislature’s “findings of fact” with the proper amount of skepticism.



Brian says:
February 7, 2013 at 17:54

I hope you are right about the lawsuit, of course the Court (because it would likely get to SCOTUS) would have to find for the 2A in a big way. A mixed decision where some of the stuff is struck down (like the hollow points) but other stuff upheld (detachable mags, 6 round limit etc.) would be REALLY bad and set bad binding precedent.
.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)


"I thought it'd never end."

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 12, 2013 at 9:19 p.m.

But from the ashes of the old thread a new one has been reborn.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 3:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen:

;-)

I'm not particularly hopeful, as I indicated at the top of my 12:24 a.m. comment, especially considering this post no longer links from the main page, and even though I promoted this discussion to a local online political group that I believe should be interested in the topic, and within which many people know me personally....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SBProgC...

Though it might be fun to get to 100 total comments just for the heck of it, and even better, were that able to be done by expanding the discussion to future scenarios and potential legal and/or political remedies.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@JT,

I think I debunked the fraudulent Jackson claims. I understand you are upset at what is going on in Sacramento but these Flunkouts from the 1960’s, that somehow missed the message, are going to do what they do what they do with their Super Majority and quest for a (UNS) Utopian Nanny State. Boy did they miss the 60’s message.

Miller already has already defined “Customary and Usual”, nothing to do with “Sporting or Hunting”, the UNS has that "Stare Decisis" problem. Heller and MacDonald defined an Individual Right and now KACHALSKY is before the Court asking for a “Writ Of Certiorari” hopefully before the end of April 2013.
This case will have meaning to Citizens of Santa Barbara County, as our Sheriff doesn’t believe in our Rights of Self Defense outside the Home.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kach...

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-cont...

If Cert is granted and the 2nd is expanded outside the Home with “Shall Issue”, It will be one more nail in the Coffin of the UNS.

UNS is not going to win but you need patience and a watchful eye, the War is before SCOTUS and we cannot do much except fund the costs.

When the Press or Politicians print fraudulent claims or dishonest truths we respond with the Truth, but keep in mind the big picture.

The more way-out and draconian the UNS goes, such as what NY did and CA is about to do, the better for us it the long run.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hgwmv, what the heck do you mean with "The more way-out and draconian the UNS goes, such as what NY did and CA is about to do, the better for us it the long run."?
let's keep it simple, CA and NY are leading the nation in restricting access to certain over-the-top weaponry, you want to make it some sort of armageddon. Get real.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Illinois in general and Chicago in specific have led the way to limiting legal gun ownership and increasing the use of guns by criminals with a subsequent murder record now under the tutelage of the awesome Progressive Rahm Emanuel. Remember when he appealed to gang bangers to just have a heart and stop killing people with guns? I'm just sayin...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan wrote:

"...Over-the-top weaponry..."

What a hoot. Yes, these scare-mongering, constitution-hating, tyrant-wannabe clowns are going after "over-the-top weaponry", however that's defined; I guess it's just "common sense" — as they define it, of course; who needs the constitution?

howgreenwasmyvalley has repeatedly debunked your rubbish about "over-the-top-weaponry"; do a page search (command-F) for 1:22 and 9:08, for starters (one of the two results for each will be to this comment, of course).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, I believe I trademarked the term "over the top weaponry".

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken:

;-)

I wasn't certain you were joking, so I just did a page search (both with and without the dashes); DrDan's use above is the first.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2013 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Dan PhD,

Lets start from the beginning. Prior to the 1960's you had the WASP's (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) socially engineered Society. 1960's was a rebellion against the WASP establishment. Civil Rights became important and a rebirth of personal Liberty and Freedom. A desire to "live out on the land and get your soul free". To give the Man the Finger and live with diminished Government.

Now we have the UNS socially engineering society. You know here is the new boss, same as the old boss.

The WASP's were Fascist just like the UNS.

You are them and they are you. So the current Establishment of People that got an "F" for failing the lessons of the 60's are proposing Draconian Laws, no different than the WASP's Draconian Laws just different subject matter.

I realize the UNS hates the Constitution but it is that Constitution that will stop the Draconian overreach.

The Supreme Court reversed the Establishment in the 1960's and will again in 2013+.

It's funny how the Establishment always thinks they hold the moral high ground.

Dan you are the Establishment Now, more laws than the WASPs ever had, more signs, more rules, more restrictions on personal liberty and freedom, more foreign military bases, american citizens murdered by drones without due process, more violations of the Fourth Amendment and on and on.

The Supreme Court brought and end to the Wasp Establishment and will straighten out the UNS Establishment.

Its not armageddon Dan, it is called a Republic, you cannot pick and choose the Rights you like, its all or nothing.

"The 60's was about Individual Freedom, Liberty, Civil Rights - not a Utopian Nanny State enforced by the Jack Boot of Government.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Santa Barbara Fair & Expo

Santa Barbara Fair and Expo celebrates “25 Years of Magic”, ... Read More