Antigun groups once again display ignorance

But certainly should.

 

These would be the firearms the U.S. military orders "that can emulate or simulate automatic fire"? Oh, I guess not...

 

Give us a synopsis. What is CA doing that you think they shouldn't.

If the wiki page is inaccurate as far as what existing gun laws are in CA...please...show us

 

Fine. Let's end that stupid argument and ban the sale of magazine fed semi-autos.

There.

Solved

 

I'm sorry -- you'll have to respond to something I actually said.

 

Why let an education get in the way of talking points?

 

Your absence of a meaningful, cogent response aside...
Hold your breath. Please.

 

You posted this. What are they doing to make sure that someone like the Texas mass killer can't evade back ground checks

 

Know what was banned for sale in California a few years ago? All Glock Gen4 handguns. They were banned with a law that began as a way to ban cheap, unsafe handguns.

But this is how leftists in the state have incrementally, over the years, used 'the law" to achieve their desire to rid California of guns. Glock declined to submit their newest line (at the time) for California's extensive and expensive safety testing process.

Good question, how does a handgun microstamp? Regardless, it is now the law in California that new guns must have this capability. Which, as I believe you are pointing out, does not exist with any existing technology.

California's law is currently being appealed, but I'm hoping this provides some insight to the gun politics here.

Sometimes you seem interested in debate, sometimes not. But there is a saying; 'As California goes, so goes the nation.' Well, there are not very many rational Democrats (which are far more leftwing than other Democrats in the U.S.) when it comes to firearms in the state.

So if Democrats across the nation go the way of Democrats in California when it comes to firearms, yeah, I'm worried.

 

So you think it's important for the public to have those semi auto magazine fed weapons?

Why would a revolver not do everything you want that gun to do?

Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology. Microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. After being fired, if the cases are recovered by police, the microscopic markings imprinted on the cartridges can then be examined by forensic ballistics experts to help trace the firearm to the last registered owner.[1] A California law requiring the use of microstamping technology in all new semiautomatic firearms sold in the state has attracted controversy

Why would you be opposed to that??

 

I have provided a synopsis, to both you and Mr. Kode.

And as I stated, the wiki page did not have any current info on the court challenges re microstamping.

Seriously, are you going to argue with me here based on information from a wikipedia page?

 

The question was not about court challenges but rather what is existing law and what do you take issue with.

 

Five or six rounds is inadequate for home defense, especially in the rural parts of California where the response time for law enforcement can reach a half hour.

And I'm glad you looked up microstamping. The problem? California requires all new guns sold in the state to possess this technology. But it doesn't exist, so the California law (which is being appealed) directly prevents the sale of new firearms in the state.

As a gun owner, does this bother you, just a bit?

 

Five or six rounds isn't enough for self defense?

What...you have a lot of gun battles? Is this the old West?

If you live out in the boonies get two revolvers and a pump shotgun. NO one is gonna battle it out with you

 

So my understanding of what you just said is that California has passed a law, or will plan to pass a law, requiring something for which technology doesn't exist. And you can't describe or define what "microstamping" is. Right?

 

It does exist but is patented.
That means that the law doesn't affect any guns until the patent runs out or a similar microstamping system is developed by another company.

 

You can't Prevent mass killings. Mass killings preexist firearms. It just took longer before fire arms. One of David's lieutenants killed 800 people with a sword, there are similar accounts in other ancient texts. Dude during the first World War killed over a hundred German soldiers with a bolt action rifle saving his company which had been pinned down by German Fire. Jimmy Stewart, I think it was, made a movie about him. They've found two or three mass graves in England dating to ancient times. Better back ground checks please. The government isn't paying notable amounts of attention to what we have now unless the perp in question starts shooting then it's a bit late don't you think?

 

Multiple accounts of perpetrators on PCP being shot multiple times before slowing down, some people miss occasionally, there are gangs that attack innocent people for various reasons where it is not 1-on-1, depending on the location and stopping power of the shot a couple rounds might not do it, there are multiple cases of people firing shots as a warning or through doors to stop a burglar, etc.

On top of that we still are not enforcing current law very well so why create more restrictions that we know only law abiding citizens will follow?

 

And your response is unrelated.

 

The constitution protects the right of the people to own and use them.

 

Oh gee. I just changed my firing pin and slide. So much for that.

 

My right to keep and bear arms is not limited by your subjective sense of need.

 

Said no rational, reasoned person, ever.

 

Here is an opinion piece from the LA Times that explains it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-microstamping-guns-nra-20161022-snap-story.html

Even though this piece is antigun, it explains why no new semi autos are available to purchase in California.

An appeal of this law is currently pending before the state supreme court.

 

I once heard an interesting take on what kind of firearms citizens should be 'allowed' to possess.

People simply want to arm themselves in a similar fashion to the neighborhood beat cop. Why? Because the local resident is victimized by the same thugs that the local cops face. Police mostly use deadly force in self defense, and community residents want to have the same tool their local police force employs to protect their officers.

And this has played out in a natural fashion. Prior to the late 1980s, the favored gun for a person to use as a home defense weapon was a revolver. Why? That's what the local cops carried. Then police officers began using semi autos for the greater round capacity, as studies showed they were at a disadvantage when confronting violent criminals. And when a neighbor asked his cop friend what he was carrying, the neighbor went out and bought one.

The reason local police officers carry Glocks with a 17 round mag is because revolvers were deemed to be inadequate, even when facing a lone individual attacking them with a knife.

Why do you have a problem with a citizen arming themselves in a similar fashion to the local police?