Gov. Jerry Brown Bans Open Carry of Long Guns in California

oh wow only 14th! their gun laws MUST be working. i heard they were top 5, but whatever, either way they sure as shit arent anything special.

 
Hats off to you for posting a source that is six years old. Let me guess, you're little liberal brain probably doesn't think that there is massive gang problem going on in Oakland right now? Am I right?
 
14/50 doesn't even put it in the highest quartile. Clearly not "highest" rate as you stated.

2006 was the latest year that FBI had the data sorted by rate. The latest full data is here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls

if you would like to go through it and report back on how California changed in the ranking.

Oakland clearly has a gang problem. As do Stockton and parts of Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Diego.

Equating these limited areas with all of California is simply false. Don't forget areas such as Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, and Malibu with very low crime rates and Irvine which has consistently ranked as one of the safest large cities in the state.

And once again, no is forcing anyone to live in California, I would never leave in Texas or Arizona but that's my choice. If you despise California's laws so much, don't live there.
 
because they're a bunch of fucking gun nerds that don't think about the collateral damage a high powered long gun can cause in a public area.
 
images
 
because gangs are going to stop killing people because guns are illegal? well im pretty sure the punishment for murder is worse than illegal carry of a firearm, yet that doesnt stop them from murdering anyone. hats off to you for calling all liberals little brained and acting like Oakland is the only place in the US that matters. gangs dont follow laws
 
You know why the right to bare arms was implented in the second amandement?

Because guys like Jefferson, Madison and Paine were afraid of too strong an executive federal government. That's why they passed the bill of rights, to make sure that *if* the federal government got too oppressive and would turn into an aristocracy or monarchy, the states would have the means to come up for themselves and retaliate.

All the modern-day bullshit about 'being able to protect yourselves' (from what in the first place? Burglars? Let them take your fucking TV and stereo. It's not worth it killing someone over that), is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when writing the constitution/BoR.

And besides, contemporary rifles took a minute to reload, were inacurate and not nearly as powerful as guns are nowadays. It's such fucking bullshit that people need to carry guns in the first place, but *IF* a right to bare arms is implemented, it sure as hell shouldn't allow people to carry fucking SMG's, huge guns (0.45 etc.) and semi-automatic hand guns.

I know it's implemented in the American culture, and, sure, go ahead and let people own guns, but not fucking war machine's. A 0.22 I can imagine (to an extent), but calling Caliofrnia Nazifornia (do you even know what a Nazi is?) is stupid.

Also, next time you make a thread. Fucking think and be more eloquent. Tool.
 
But wait, we do need war machines! because the Mexicans, North Koreans, Russians, Chinese, French, and Iranians are totally going to invade us soon, and we will need a full scale Red Dawn civillian guerrilla force to stop it.

Duh.
 
whats going on here

cat-falls-into-bathtub.gif


NO I DONT WANT SOME OF THIS

1PY2k.gif


TIME TO PANIC

panda-at-the-disco.gif


GUNHUGGERS, I GOT A QUESTION:

AND SORRY TO BREAK IT TO YOU, BUT:

funny-gif-dog-slap-guys-face.gif


I HOPE THEY MAKE IT MANDATORY TO OWN 5 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, A BAZOOKA, A TANK AND A SPORK. CANT WAIT TO SEE THE "GOOD" BLOW EACH OTHER UP OVER A SPILLED COFFEE.

FEIHLINATION OUT

 
Also, if that stupid "the government turns tyrannical" situation occurs, how the fuck are a bunch of civilians with guns going to defend themselves against the National guard, Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy.
 
If a burglar doesn't stop what they're doing when they hear the sound of a shotgun being loaded, then they deserve to die. A couple of burglars dead is not a great loss to society.
 
also, i dont have time to do the specific research right now as im leaving for class, but last year i did a presentation on gun control. I believe it was Sweden or a country around there, where each male was from what i remember required to own an assault rifle and had some of the least controlling gun control laws in the world. well guess what, they also have the least crime. Guns dont kill people, people who are stupid and dont follow laws kill people. If someone would like to look it up, or prove me wrong, go for it. i dont have the time to look it up at the moment.
 
Well in the late 1800's, early 1900's, there was barely a US Navy to be spoken of... and there was downright no such thing as an Air Force... unless you're talking about carrier pigeons with bad indigestion... So that obviously wasn't thought of.

...That said, guerrilla warfare would ensue in a situation of a national civil war... and a few F15's aren't going to be able to do very much against that... Air superiority only defends against certain conventions. If the USA turned into Vietnam, then the military really wouldn't be able to do fuck all against a fully armed national populace.

...but that would never happen if the government even moderately adhered to the constitution anyways. reforming the 2nd amendment wouldn't really make a huge difference in the long term.
 
Well, 230 years ago, the difference between civilian owned rifles and army-owned rifles was very small. Not to mention the standing army didn't even reach 10.000 men back then. But nowadays it's a whole different story.
 
Please don't be so shortsighted man. Nobody deserves to die over a TV. Eighth Amandement: No cruel or unjust punishment. The above is both.

And why the fuck does it have to be a shotgun? Besides, maybe the burglars have guns too...

Bottom line: don't own guns and the worst thing that can happen is that your TV gets stolen, which insurance will cover anyway.
 
What do you want, a sniper? A glock? A pistol?

I'm pretty sure shotguns are the weapon of choice if a burglar is in your house because of the spray. And IMO easier to reload. But you might damage the interior of your house a little...
 
Yes parts of california have a gigantic gang problem. thats the cause of most the firearm related deaths in california. and yes, there are some very safe parts of california, particularly where there is not a gang problem. and guess what? the gun laws are the same for them as they are for the shitty areas like oakland. doesnt seem like the strict laws are doing shit to stop the gangs from killing each other. its just making it a pain in the ass for the rest of law abiding california citizens to own and use guns.

this is the biggest thing that people do not get. criminals will acquire guns regardless of laws. and california is just one of many examples of gangs and dangerous areas giving the rest of the state/country a bad rep. so when some idiot says "but but, like, finland only has 10 firearm related deaths per year!" its a completely illegitimate comparison. how many east st. louis and oaklands does finland have?

the gun violence is purely a result of the culture in that area. its like saying somalia is dangerous because of guns. its such bullshit.

my town is fucking gun crazy. you go to one of the many ranges around here and everyones got crazy assult rifles and stuff. its abnormal to not own a gun, and i dont think we've had a gun related crime in the last 20 years or so. but we should have stricter gun laws because some shit fucking city 1000 miles away has a gang/crime problem. i dont see where the logic is in that, i dont think the logic exists actually.

not really arguing with you, mostly everyone in this thread who's too narrow minded to think past their simplistic idea of gun=crime.
 
seriously doubt that. i know you will bring your leerockwell "facts" and whatnot, but unless i see an original source to back it up, i dont believe that
 
Well, go to Russia, Stalin.

Any comment like that is clearly ignorant, and if you had any fucking idea what Russia was like as the USSR, you would take back that ignorant statement. Go fuck yourself, communism is a joke and the right to revolt is our first ammendment right and a right of a free country.
 
Sure, I guess. If people are going to use it for that purpose, and that purpose only.

The thing with the second amendement is, that it legitimizes shooting someone if it's in 'self defense' (which was decided only two or three years back I think). The problem now, is that supreme court is NEVER (or at least not in this century) going to overturn that decision. Ergo: the situation is fucked, because you can shoot someone if he steals your TV (which is absurd).
 
Do you not remember when the Vietnamese rebelled and the US army tried to stop them? Or maybe when the Soviets tried to invade and tyrannize Afghanistan? Or maybe the ongoing conflict in Syria?

If you don't remember those, I don't know what to tell you. Otherwise, it should be pretty obvious that armed revolution is not only possible but also occasionally successful.
 
can you be sure he is just gonna steal your tv? im sorry but if someone is going to break and enter into my house regardless of what he wanted, led will fly.
 
ya except for the fact, minus syria, (because we still have yet to see how it will conclude) that those armies had a physical country to return back to.

the military, in the event of an american civil war, does not.
 
Why exactly is that absurd? So when somebody breaks into your house what are you supposed to do? you could hide and let him do whatever the fuck he wants, you could call the cops, you could confront him in a non threatening way, you could hold a gun to his head and tell him to GTFO, you could shoot him to wound, or you could shoot him to kill. all those are legit options, but really the options that do not involve a gun seem the most risky to yourself. you never now what someone breaking into your house is trying to do, it sounds fucking retarded to just assume that he only wants your TV and wont harm you, thats a pretty risky assumption. If someone breaks into my house, and threatens my safety, i only care 100% about my own life, why the hell would i be thinking "gee this guy could kill me, but i really dont want to harm him, so ill just sit here and hope he wont"

depending on the situation the safest option may be to point the gun at him and tell him to get out, it may be to kill him, you might have 10 guys with weapons, in that case the safest thing to do might be to run, either way, your focus will and should be 100% on your own life, and having a gun/using your gun gives you many more options and much better odds.
 
You know there are alot of stories of people with concealed carry permits saving people's lives by drawing their semi-automatic pistols. In SLC this guy went on a stabbing spree in a grocery store and a guy with a pistol stopped him and a couple of months ago this old guy in Florida stopped an armed robbery in an internet cafe with his pistol.

If someone is breaking into your house you dont know if he just wants to grab your TV or wants to kill your family or rape your wife. A real man knows that it sucks to have to end someone's life but that is the responsibility you carry if you care about the people around you. I am sick of the liberal ideology of allowing yourself to be a victim because its mean to defend yourself from an attacker because he is "misunderstood" or crap like that.

As far as defending from the government if they go too far with tyranny, what you say is not true at all. The US with all its high tech toys cant even occupy Afghanistan effectively without major issues and attacks. Shit, just last week we lost a whole squad of Marine helicopters to a couple of guys with AK-47s. Imagine trying to control a population of 100 million armed citizens with a military that is defecting and joining the side of liberty at every turn. Its not going to happen man.

Just because you happen to live in a safe bubble in which violence has not affected your life doesnt mean you have the right to patronize people that live in the real world where bad stuff happens. Besides, if the idiots at the Federal Reserve keep printing money indefinitely we could all be in deep economic shit and then you wish you knew how to handle a gun when crime begins to skyrocket. There is a very real possibility of this kind of thing happening, read about what happened to Argenina in 2001 and what happened to people who were not armed. Make sure you soak up all the horrific details of some of the home invasions for extra effect.

So here is some points for you to think about yourself, and I would contend they were made a hell of a lot more eloquently than the immature smear post you threw together.
 
i didnt knew the US compare themselves to one of these shithead latin states where all these goddamn immigrants come from.

but you make an exception if you can pull a pro-gun argument out of it.

its fucking 2012 dude. if you think that the safest society is one where everyone is armed, fuck yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

the US have a higher gun-crime death rate than the shitholes (just using rightwing terminology) costa rica and uruguay (ordered by the "homicide" column) with 4.14 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants & year.

"functioning" countries in this regard, canada, australia, germany, france, switzerland, sweden, finland and austria have a between 4 and 20 times lower rate.

please tell me more how guns protect people. and one single quote from shithead.rockwell.com and you disqualify yourself on the spot.

i would assume, superficially (not like shithead rockwell who draws definite results out of a sketchy graph), that there is a STRONG negative correlation between amount of gun regulation and firearm related deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top