New process to buy ammo in California vs the rest of us

[Nodakplowboy]

Find time to type a meaningful response with useful information.

He did.

 

[W54/XM-388]

And that's why we can't have nice things.
There is going to be some regulation and since you're stuck at zero you leave it up to someone else to come up with them.
Where do you draw the line? Tanks? Armed fighter jets? Military hardware? Nukes? Anybody can have anything? Street gangs would love you.
Curious, What is your interpretation of "A well regulated militia"?

"A well regulated militia" has nothing to do with individual rights. That is a smoke screen used by those that hate the idea of free armed citizens to dupe idiots who no longer understand how to read English.
You see when the constitution and bill of rights were made, people fancied themselves well educated, well read, well spoken and having a good command of languages, including how to say things in the shortest clearest way possible was an art form..

Now add in 100 years of dumbing down America and nobody understands that a , can define the difference in a statement.

So for the idiot classes, what it actually says basically means, We understand the states' right to run their own militia (think national guard before the idea came about). However you may not infringe upon the individual citizens rights to keep, own and carry weapons.

Now as far as the other stupid argument "what about nukes"....
The simple answer is the more massive, expensive, complex and exotic the weapons system is, the less likely it is to be used by a non-state actor.
You really should be worried about what the governments will do with tanks, fighters and nukes. Because the biggest threat is actually your government using them on the local citizens as proven time and time again everytime communists take over or some tinpot dictator seizes power. (Or when your local friendly CIA types give a bunch of arms to ISIS etc.)

Do you have a clue how expensive it is to keep a tank running? The costs for keeping them running and fed is crazy, which precludes just about anyone except very well to do folks from having them outside state actors... and guess what? Private people do own fully armed tanks, you can go down to a ranch in South Texas and drive around and fire a whole bunch of WWII classic tanks. It is NOT something your crazed criminal is going to be able to afford, or even if they could steal, get very far with.

Fighter Jets.... Guess what some rich folks already have them for fun (missiles removed), but again the cost to just keep one of them flying would bankrupt all but the richest of folks, and that's not to mention the time it takes to keep up training so you can fly the thing and not just play lawn darts with it. Again... not something your crazed criminal is going to be using, due to costs it's going to be state actors or the occasional eccentric billionaire. Even if you were to try to steal one..... Got your own crew to fuel it up and start the engines for you? Give someone a fighter jet without any support contracts and well see how far they get.

Nukes? That is just about as stupid as everybody saying "just like Hitler" about everything trump does.
The costs to actually make a nuclear weapon that is of any significant result (not like stealing some low grade medical waste and wrapping it in explosives), is insanely expensive, Expensive enough that most countries can't afford to even keep them secure and operational, much less build them. then guess what... you have to regularly overhaul them or eventually they stop working. There are plenty of research reactors in labs and universities and nobody bothers trying to make a nuclear bomb because again what's the point. They tend to only be used by state actors or if a less scrupulous state actor decides to give one to a 3rd party group to use (which almost nobody will ever risk, since it's easy to finger the source of a specific substance.)


The whole point however is moot for intelligent discussion. If the good people and their agents are all well armed and all ready to do what needs to be done, any threat will be dealt with quickly and while there may be some casualties, there is anyways from much more mundane things like raghead renting an truck and driving everyone over.

It's a simple matter of leveling the playing field, the criminals will ALWAYS get whatever they want, usually cheaper than citizens anyways. So level the playing field. But the hype is NOT there to protect the public, the hype is there because the elites couldn't care less about the criminals attacking the hoi poi with guns, what they don't want is the hoi poi having good effective weapons that can match their own private "just following orders" armed groups when they decide to put the boots to the local populace.

 

[kenny1773]

I believe the gun laws we already have on the books in the free states are enough and they work. Take my home state of Alabama gun laws to equal good enough. In the not free states like California the laws are already over the edge (add Maryland and few other not free states to the list)

The only reason one would ever need a new gun law is to cover some newly invented gun or gun attachment that had not been invented before. New product MIGHT POTENTIALLY need a new law. Otherwise, the laws are good. They already keep guns out of the hands of criminals

Where is my proof? Well first off, you have to accept the fact that we live in a flawed and imperfect world. Screws fall out, trains crash, planes fall out of the sky, and people do stupid things. Agree?

If you are still reading, you agree

There are over 350 million guns on the books that we can confirm 100% exist loose in the united states. 350 million, that is a cubic ass ton of guns no matter how you look at it.

Yet 99.999% walk down the street everyday perfectly safe (and we could argue some of those guns keep them safe BUT I AM NOT GOING TO GO THERE)

Imperfect world + current gun laws + 350 million guns on the books = crime really isn't that high, crime with guns isn't that high

More people buy illegal drugs everyday than get shot by a gun, which set of laws aren't working well?

The gun laws we have already ARE GOOD and are working in my book.

Now realize that the 350 million guns number is guns on the books, that is not including any 80% pieces of metal that people made on their own into guns or the AK 47s that people are making out of Home Depot Shovels (those D handle shovels make for nice stocks)

How many more guns is that? I hope no one ever figures out how many it is, that is how many

Yes the streets in non gang owned territories across the US are pretty damn safe. I don't worry when I go out in public anyway. I know that area of North Birmingham that someone like me shouldn't visit, so I don't

 

[deersniper]

And that's why we can't have nice things.

There is going to be some regulation and since you're stuck at zero you leave it up to someone else to come up with them.

Where do you draw the line? Tanks? Armed fighter jets? Military hardware? Nukes? Anybody can have anything? Street gangs would love you.

Curious, What is your interpretation of "A well regulated militia"?

I think you're a commie troll


Commies are the only ones who ask questions like that. GTFO and GFYS

 

[deersniper]

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

I think you're a commie troll


Commies are the only ones who ask questions like that. GTFO and GFYS

Lmfao, that's a first.

Devils advocate... sure

Commie... far from it.

You sound triggered. If this discussion is too much for you to bear maybe you should simply excuse yourself from it.

 

[Rthur]

Lmfao, that's a first.

Devils advocate... sure

Commie... far from it.

You sound triggered. If this discussion is too much for you to bear maybe you should simply excuse yourself from it.

The bottom line is we already have laws against/for the lawless.
The above is only a feel good measure to appease the plebs.
Otherwise, if I understand you, you don't believe those laws are stopping them from getting
guns and thus think that regulating ammo will hinder them from violence.

R

 

[Nik H]

These threads give me a headache to a degree that makes me sad

1. 2A gives you no rights to own any weapon. It doesn’t talk about weapon ownership.
2. Your right to protect yourself, your family and your property are natural, God given, motherfucking rights. Stop giving them away.
3. 2A clearly states that the Government can do nothing to infringe on your natural, God Given, Motherfucking rights to protect yourself.
4. Militias were citizens that banded together to fight the oppression that was the British. There was no standing Army prior to the War. This is a rathole to avoid in discussions with the enemy

The more our side fucks the meaning up, the worse we are. NFA laws are a perfect fucking example of this. We fucked ourselves on this because our side failed to show up to fight a stupidly worded case. Government won without any opposition....look up the case for yourself.

Rant done. Getting on a plane back home

Good night and God Bless

 

[Racer88]

And that's why we can't have nice things.

There is going to be some regulation and since you're stuck at zero you leave it up to someone else to come up with them.

Where do you draw the line? Tanks? Armed fighter jets? Military hardware? Nukes? Anybody can have anything? Street gangs would love you.

Curious, What is your interpretation of "A well regulated militia"?

^^^ Reductio ad absurdum ^^^ (classic progressive move, BTW)