Uncooperative Californicators

[Pertinacious Tom]

Uncooperative Californicators

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.
The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?
Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Even the staunchest pro-gun sheriffs, including Bosenko, the Shasta County sheriff, say they’ll be more than happy to tack a magazine-possession charge on to a drug dealer’s or a gang member’s rap sheet should deputies catch them with a high-capacity magazine.

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

[BeSafe]

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

This is usually what seems to happen. I've felt for a long time that the 'possession' laws are really just a quick bypass to lock people up when they - the police - don't really have evidence to prosecute the crime they were ACTUALLY arrested for.  It's cheaper and faster.  

 

[Raz'r]

Meh

 

[jocal505]

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

(Post 65), Tom Ray asks Woofsey) Does Billy have a right to his rifle, including the standard capacity magazine, Mike?

 

[jocal505]

This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. Check out how Tom presented the major development to our community, after three years of Tom's polemic. (His disinformation evolved into the idea that this court decision was a victory against seven round limits. Such is whimpering.)



Tom got pounded off Billy's Stoopid Law thread not long ago, in Dec, 2016.  Kolbe vs Kogan removed constitutional protection from AW's three months later. Let's discuss weapons "in lawful use at the time", shall we?

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

 

[jocal505]

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

 

[jocal505]

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

An ad hominem. Hmmm. No example of semantics. hmmm.

If you have better research, you sure haven't presented any. You are not prepared for this discussion. I have presented a variety of unimopeachable sources, in a body of work with a consistent conclusion.

You are made of air and bondo, Guy Where is any source supporting your claim that the U.S. has an abnormal violence index? We don't. We have guns everywhere, and logic which justifies their use when disagreements occur. We have a lethally violent outcome, but our kids don't scuffle 19.5 times more than other leading nations.

 

[jocal505]

 Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?

Not much. It means that sailing sheep on Political Anarchy will follow Tom Ray's misrepresentations.

It's a useless fabrication, and tellingly, no effort to improve it was undertaken. Tom Ray is another intellectual heavyweight around here

Your turn. What does this chart mean to you?

Picture on page "Tom's eyebleach stats"

 

[jocal505]

Jocal, do you believe in civil disobedience ?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/the-black-students-who-wouldnt-leave-the-lunch-counter/282986/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Please dont tell me that you stand firm with slavery and Jim Crow

I read everything Gandhi wrote at age 13. I had a bicycle and a library card, didn't I?

 

[jocal505]

Sorry Jo, that doesnt answer the question

Read SAILING ANARCHY.  My candid, non-gamey posts have dwelt upon your question on PA for six years.

 

[Rockdog]

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

 

[jocal505]

Crickets.....

Pathetic........

If you have to ask whether I grasp nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience, you haven't taken my pulse, or the pulse of MLK. So I have nothing to discuss with you on the subject.

All yes or no questions should be referred to Jeffie, they are his forte. Good luck, the Cuntfinder has been AWOL for one week, but you can leave a message with Pee Wee. Want to see Pee Wee?

 

[jocal505]

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

 

[V. Green]

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

 

[jocal505]

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

 

[Rockdog]

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

All over. All the time.

you are small minded.  Not a big picture person. 

The most obvious is areas of high rates of violent crime.  Why does it continue to occur there and and not other places?  think about it from a modern perspective.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hey Tom,

I am still waiting for an explanation of what your favourite table means, I asked ages ago.

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.