6 New Gun Control Laws Pass in California

[2aguy]

The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.

Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.

The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

And the court costs and lawyers fees to address that 21 day holding period and get her right back if she was wrongly denied the exercise of that Right....who pays for that?

 

[Freewill]

Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.

The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

And the court costs and lawyers fees to address that 21 day holding period and get her right back if she was wrongly denied the exercise of that Right....who pays for that?

It's her right to pay for it...............

 

[2aguy]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

You forget Mexico and Russia.......absolute gun control and higher gun murder rates.....

 

[2aguy]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

And again....compare our inner city crime rate to theirs...and the thug culture created by democrats....that is the issue...not guns.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.

The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.

Ah! So those who have shown to be a threat to themselves and others should be allowed to own guns. Omar Mateen loved assholes like you. You made it EASY for him.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

And again....compare our inner city crime rate to theirs...and the thug culture created by democrats....that is the issue...not guns.

Thanks for just the facts, Jack.

 

[boedicca]

The March towards Total Fascism in CA continues unabated.

 

[2aguy]

Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.

Ah! So those who have shown to be a threat to themselves and others should be allowed to own guns. Omar Mateen loved assholes like you. You made it EASY for him.

Hey asshole.....he had the best background check tax dollars could pay for.....3 interviews with FBI agents, a 10 month surveillance and they threw an under cover agent at him...as well as a full document and social media check.........he loved your gun control...it failed completely......but John Q. Citizen in California can't have 15 rounds in his pistol.....

you guys are fucking morons.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

You forget Mexico and Russia.......absolute gun control and higher gun murder rates.....

Mexico's rate is high because of the drug cartel, idiot. Not because of people like Adam Lanza or radical Islamists.
Russia won't release data for their gun deaths, so maybe you can since you seem to be all over this with nothing but drive-by postings.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.

Ah! So those who have shown to be a threat to themselves and others should be allowed to own guns. Omar Mateen loved assholes like you. You made it EASY for him.

Hey asshole.....he had the best background check tax dollars could pay for.....3 interviews with FBI agents, a 10 month surveillance and they threw an under cover agent at him...as well as a full document and social media check.........he loved your gun control...it failed completely......but John Q. Citizen in California can't have 15 rounds in his pistol.....

you guys are fucking morons.

He used the laws that you covet and protect and the NRA pays to keep in place, asshole.

 

[jasonnfree]

Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.

These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.

Careful, the gun grabbers will say it was a typo and the 2nd amendment intent was the right to arm bears.

 

[2aguy]

Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242

Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.

Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.

Ah! So those who have shown to be a threat to themselves and others should be allowed to own guns. Omar Mateen loved assholes like you. You made it EASY for him.

Hey asshole.....he had the best background check tax dollars could pay for.....3 interviews with FBI agents, a 10 month surveillance and they threw an under cover agent at him...as well as a full document and social media check.........he loved your gun control...it failed completely......but John Q. Citizen in California can't have 15 rounds in his pistol.....

you guys are fucking morons.

He used the laws that you covet and protect and the NRA pays to keep in place, asshole.

Asswipe......he had the full monty of background checks....asshole....and he still murdered 49 people......they did every single thing you morons want done and he still passed your background check......3 background checks in fact.....and they didn't put him on the no fly list even with that.....but Mrs. Smith...who takes a photo on the airplane will get put on the no fly list because the Air Marshals have to meet a monthly quota of names on that list...

you guys are fucking morons....

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.

These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.

Careful, the gun grabbers will say it was a typo and the 2nd amendment intent was the right to arm bears.

they would if they could

 

[2aguy]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

You forget Mexico and Russia.......absolute gun control and higher gun murder rates.....

Mexico's rate is high because of the drug cartel, idiot. Not because of people like Adam Lanza or radical Islamists.
Russia won't release data for their gun deaths, so maybe you can since you seem to be all over this with nothing but drive-by postings.

No....Mexico's rate is high because their people are unarmed and the police and military are the only ones who can own rifles and pistols legally..........the drug cartels don't give a rat's ass about the laws....

And the police and military with rifles......are murdering unarmed Mexican's every single day...

 

[jon_berzerk]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

You forget Mexico and Russia.......absolute gun control and higher gun murder rates.....

Mexico's rate is high because of the drug cartel, idiot. Not because of people like Adam Lanza or radical Islamists.
Russia won't release data for their gun deaths, so maybe you can since you seem to be all over this with nothing but drive-by postings.

No....Mexico's rate is high because their people are unarmed and the police and military are the only ones who can own rifles and pistols legally..........the drug cartels don't give a rat's ass about the laws....

And the police and military with rifles......are murdering unarmed Mexican's every single day...

Mexico's rate is high because their people are unarmed and the police and military are the only ones who can own rifles and pistols legally.

that and only friends who the corrupt police and military say can have them

just the way the leftards like it

 

[2aguy]

And of course the military owns the only gun store in the country........

 

[jon_berzerk]

And of course the military owns the only gun store in the country........

exactly

i love it when the leftards say there are gun stores in Mexico

--LOL

 

[2aguy]

If more guns makes us safer, why do more of us die by guns than other developed countries?

Your chances of getting shot in the U.S. as opposed to other countries.

View attachment 80245

You forget Mexico and Russia.......absolute gun control and higher gun murder rates.....

Mexico's rate is high because of the drug cartel, idiot. Not because of people like Adam Lanza or radical Islamists.
Russia won't release data for their gun deaths, so maybe you can since you seem to be all over this with nothing but drive-by postings.

yes...the Sandy Hook shooter......and those like him....murdered 37 people in 2015......

There are 8,000,000 rifles in this country...and over 37 people you want the owners of 8,000,000 turned into felons if they don't turn in those rifles.........

33,000 people were killed in cars last year....

1,567 were murdered with knives....

you guys are fucking morons.

 

[Rustic]

New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures
Legislation allows temporary confiscation of guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others

"""....

California, which already has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the nation, this week moved forward with a sweeping new package of gun control laws that underscores the power of the Democratically controlled state to carve its own path on the issue. On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown signed six gun-control bills into law, including an expansion of the 1989 law known as the assault weapons ban.

Under the confiscation law, which went into effect in January, California residents can lose their weapons without being convicted of a crime, or being institutionalized. Police or immediate family members must persuade a judge to sign off on what is called a gun violence restraining order, which lasts up to 21 days, but can be extended. (O/P's note: Fantastic!)

The law has so far been used to seize guns in 33 cases, in some instances from mentally unstable people who had made threats or were suicidal, according to data through mid-June provided to The Wall Street Journal by the California attorney general and law-enforcement agencies."""

New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures

 

[Rustic]

Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.

These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.

Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.

The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.

That is not a reasonable explanation.

Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?

Just admit it you're a control freak...