Jump to content

Uncooperative Californicators


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, silent bob said:

Feexed!  I have no problem with Criminals being locked up shooting innocents!  

see, take this simpleton, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 523
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.  

Same for me, Tom.

You want your money back for the exotic battle guns, that's nice. The ones which are now un-protected by the Second?   

Posted Images

19 hours ago, badlatitude said:

California city approves 1st US insurance law for gun owners

Source: AP

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — A California city voted Tuesday night to require gun owners to carry liability insurance in what’s believed to be the first measure of its kind in the United States. 

The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue. 

The Silicon Valley city of about 1 million followed a trend of other Democratic-led cities that have sought to rein in violence through stricter rules. But while similar laws have been proposed, San Jose is the first city to pass one, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit that advocates against gun violence. 

Council members, including several who had lost friends to gun violence, said it was a step toward dealing with gun violence that Councilman Sergio Jimenez called “a scourge on our society.” 

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/business-violence-california-united-states-gun-politics-998aa2507f995acb5a0c3e3661805a4a 


 

I see that Olsonist likes this. He has some funny ideas about liability.

  

On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

And you liked that post, so I guess you guys share funny ideas about liability.

I just can't quite figure out what the point of this post was. What were you and Olsonist trying to say about the liability of gun and car owners for the actions of criminals?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And that "Lamar" point was racist.  

Oh goody, a racism detector. Tell me, professor, is there anything at all racist about this?

In New York, for example, the same cops who stop and frisk blacks are empowered to judge whether a black man has sufficient moral character to exercise the right of gun ownership. If ANY other words followed "exercise the right" in that sentence, you would have heard a lot about it from people other than me. Well, and the people who defend them in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I see that Olsonist likes this. He has some funny ideas about liability.

  

And you liked that post, so I guess you guys share funny ideas about liability.

I just can't quite figure out what the point of this post was. What were you and Olsonist trying to say about the liability of gun and car owners for the actions of criminals?

 

The point of the post is that it is a newsworthy article affecting the gun community. I also suggest the City of San Jose understands the law involved, and knows what it is doing when rattling the cage of gun owners. Here is a quote about the city attorney. “Whenever anyone is suing the city, it presents issues of great consequence…or it may cost the taxpayers a lot of money. You want to have a pro at the helm. That’s what Nora brings. Somebody who really understands litigation and has handled litigation at a very high level,” Liccardo said. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-joses-new-city-attorney-fought-for-women-to-have-a-voice/

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, badlatitude said:
22 hours ago, Ventucky Red said:
  ... Lastly, the statement "Democratic-led cities that have sought to rein in violence through stricter rules" how is that working for you in Chicago?   ...

 

This is a beginning and as such, we will see if this law is successful or not. The city has indicated it is prepared for a fight to the Supreme Court, so it should be entertaining to watch. Should they prevail, expect the law to move like wildfire across the country.

Yeah, but how well is it working in Chicago, this new law which Chicago has not proposed or voted in?

Neener neener, you libtards!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

but how well is it working in Chicago,

, that would be 34, so far just since the first of the year.

, after 797 in 2021.

, already some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

 

Chicago homicide victims in 2022: Compared with previous years - Chicago Tribune

Way to help making my point, thanks.

Ignorant and unaware RWNJs have just one knee-jerk reaction

So here's the question you skipped over in your haste to prove me right, again: Does Chicago have the same kind of insurance law that SanFran just passed?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

, that would be 34, so far just since the first of the year.

, after 797 in 2021.

, already some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

 

Chicago homicide victims in 2022: Compared with previous years - Chicago Tribune

 

Such a dangerous, highly armed population, in your country. 

Too bad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

Oh goody, a racism detector.

I have no idea what you are on about, nor do I have any intention or interest in finding out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, badlatitude said:
21 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I see that Olsonist likes this. He has some funny ideas about liability.

  

And you liked that post, so I guess you guys share funny ideas about liability.

I just can't quite figure out what the point of this post was. What were you and Olsonist trying to say about the liability of gun and car owners for the actions of criminals?

 

Expand  

The point of the post is that it is a newsworthy article affecting the gun community.

Um, that can't be true. I was asking about the point of this post:

  

On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

That's not a newsworthy article. It's just a stupid opinion that reflects no understanding of liability law.

And yet, you liked it! What did you like about it? What was the point about the responsibility of gun and car owners for the actions of criminals?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2022 at 7:23 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, but how well is it working in Chicago, this new law which Chicago has not proposed or voted in?

Neener neener, you libtards!

- DSK

 

Tell ya what, go to Shitcago, ask all the legal gun owners to surrender their weapons for one month, and let's see if the murder goes down.

I am pretty sure Vegas wouldn't take any action on that bet.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

 

Tell ya what, go to Shitcago, ask all the legal gun owners to surrender their weapons for one month, and let's see if the murder goes down.

I am pretty sure Vegas wouldn't take any action on that bet.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Vegas isn't taking any bets on Chicago being in California, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I'm pretty sure Vegas isn't taking any bets on Chicago being in California, either.

Is it "reductio ad absurdum" if you started out with a childish spiteful rant in the first place?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is it "reductio ad absurdum" if you started out with a childish spiteful rant in the first place?

- DSK

Non carborundum excrementis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2022 at 1:01 PM, AJ Oliver said:

I have no idea what you are on about, nor do I have any intention or interest in finding out. 

I provided a link to explain. You used to like sources. Now you don't? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

I provided a link to explain. You used to like sources. Now you don't? Why?

. . . because I care not a fraction of a whit about your stupid gunz. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

[... I am commenting on this to tell you how strongly I don't care about it. ...]

(My paraphrase, not AJ's actual words.  But pretty close.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

. . . because I care not a fraction of a whit about your stupid gunz. 

Ah, so racism matters but gungrabbiness matters more. Seems to be a pretty common sentiment. Gooooo TEAM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposed California bill bans firearm sales on state property
 

Quote

 

...

“County fairgrounds are supposed to be family-friendly venues and have long been associated with events like county fairs, 4-H events, rodeos and music festivals. However, they have become most well-known for gun shows,” Min said in a statement announcing the bill. “This needs to change, and this bill will finally get California out of the business of government-sponsored gun shows. While the Second Amendment allows for the well-regulated sales and purchase of firearms, the Constitution does not require that taxpayer-owned properties be used to facilitate those transactions.” SB 915 is a follow-up to a bill that passed last year, Senate Bill 264, which banned the sale of firearms at the Orange County Fair and Event Center.

 

...

Min acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a strong position on the Second Amendment, but said “that doesn’t mean the state of California has to actively profit off of the sale of those guns.”

...

 

That last argument should be easy to implement with broad support. Just end all the taxes on guns and ammo and all that terrible state profit goes away!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

  

10 hours ago, badlatitude said:
11 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Ok, fair enough. That's a good start.  

What CA gun rules do you agree with?  

California has 107 laws on the books, too many to comment on.

It's also a ridiculous question. Which gun laws or gungrabby proposals does a grabber agree with? Any and all, of course.

The trick is finding one with which they disagree. Good luck. I have never seen it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

  

It's also a ridiculous question. Which gun laws or gungrabby proposals does a grabber agree with? Any and all, of course.

The trick is finding one with which they disagree. Good luck. I have never seen it.

This is true, it's like expecting a gun nut to know 'Stand Your Ground' has left us with a 11% greater rise in gunfire homicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...