Freedom of speech?

[4AMNTN]

Thanks for the info Dan. It’s easy for us outsiders to ROLL OUR EYES at some of the liberal BS coming out of CA. I just don’t understand sanctuary cities & some of the things CA wants to do & pass. This still is the US of A right?
Ok I’ll stop there[emoji631]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan M.]

Dan can you elaborate on the CA secession ?? help please? Is it mostly coastal counties? And what of sanctuary cities? Your opinion, please.

There's a city (Los Alamitos) here in Orange County that has voted to NOT be a part of the CA sanctuary state status implemented by our governor, Jerry Brown. There are a number of different movements seeking to gain ground here. There are several groups lobbying to divide the state in two along varying lines depending on the group. There are a number of cities that have declared themselves sanctuary cities that will not cooperate with some federal immigration and deportation requirements. Recently ICE (federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement) conducted a series of raids in Oakland, CA (yeah, the Raiders, that Oakland) to round up gang members who were here illegally and the mayor of Oakland sent out tweets and other social media communications that warned the immigrant communities of the raids taking place. Hundreds of people who were being targeted in the raids were able to make themselves scarce. I'm sure there were people on the list that didn't belong there, and it would've been a likely slow process to get that all sorted out if they were detained, but there were also people on the list who were violent illegal immigrant criminal gang members from gangs like MS-13, and Then you have Governor Brown declaring the whole state a sanctuary state, which makes me wonder (it's confusing to us CAnians too) why we have sanctuary cities if the whole state is a sanctuary state?

The areas that are the most sanctuary-prone are the areas with high immigrant populations, and yes, most of them are densely populated coastal regions like the San Francisco bay area, and the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. There are some inland areas too, but they aren't as large as those other three.

My opinion is CA has pretty much passed a point of no return in reversing the situation.

[4AMNTN]

Dan can you elaborate on the CA secession ?? help please? Is it mostly coastal counties? And what of sanctuary cities? Your opinion, please.

[Dan M.]

I completely agree it needs be impossible for mentally disturbed people to possess or have access to firearms of any kind. Short of a national mandatory order to turn in all semi-automatic firearms, I don't see how it would be possible to ensure that no person who is legally barred from obtaining such a weapon from getting one. If such a national mandate was ordered, there would literally be a civil war. Not as big as THE Civil War, but it would happen. If you recall what happened in Waco, TX a while back with David Koresh and his followers, multiply that scenario by a couple hundred. There enough people, not crazy people either, who are determined to keep their guns, to make that happen. I would not be among them.

As far as the benefit of semi-automatic function, the main benefit is a faster next shot, whether you're shooting game (yes semi-autos, including AR-15s and a number of popular semi-auto shotguns) are used for hunting all the time, especially in the western US where the landscape tends to be less forested) or people. Obviously that's a perfect application for warfare and SWAT purposes, but interestingly enough, the AR-15 hasn't been used for war, at least not by the United States military. It's a civilian variant of the M16 and M4 rifles, which ARE capable of automatic fire. It may be used in guerilla warfare in other countries, but military requirements being what they are, infantry soldiers need automatic rifles, so it's not used.

Regarding semi-autos only being used by police and military, if they ever end up being banned for civilian use, I think that semi-auto pistols should be looked at very carefully in regard to use by the police. As it stands, there should be some retraining, IMO, of use of firearms by police departments. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat. That means continue shooting until the threat is immobilized. That's why you see reports of dozens, maybe hundreds of rounds, being fired in police shootings.

[4AMNTN]

If it helps just one ... so totally agree! I also agree there is no reason for a gun with a massive firing capability. I do know there a people that like to collect guns - that would never use a gun for a crazy purpose -. As there are people out there that want a car that has 1000hp. A car that goes 0-60 in 2 sec. We sell those, hell even have SHOWS for them... they shouldn't exist.
I do agree with having an armed person in the schools. WE'VE let it come to this, how that's possible -that's the question: what happened to get us here. It didn't start in the last 13 months.

[Style]

FWIW, the rifle used in the FL shooting wasn't an automatic rifle. Those have been very strictly regulated since the 1930s. The AR-15 fires one shot per one trigger squeeze, just like a revolver. The magazine capacity is obviously way larger than a six shot revolver and that's at least one thing that might come of this--a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds, although we have that ban here in CA and the terrorist couple that committed the San Bernardino shooting weren't noticeably slowed by it.

Dan - Technically, you are correct (forgive my ignorance as it relates to guns). The AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun with which the user needs to pull the trigger to fire each shot (as you mentioned). "The AR was designed for speedy reloading in combat situations, and it can fire dozens of rounds in seconds."

I should have stated that semi-automatic and automatic guns should not be available to anyone other than the military and police.

An honest question -- can someone tell me if there is another purpose for an automatic or semi-automatic gun other than killing mass amounts of people? If not, get them the f*ck off the market...

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I disagree with the "bad guys will always get what they want" argument. Some of those guys certainly will get what they want, but if it stops just one, it would be more than worth it.

[YB]

Thanks, Dan

Proper facts from the man on the spot. I get my info from the media and they, believe it or not, sometimes embellish the truth to suit their own agenda!

Whilst not disagreeing Fours, as I understand it many of the shootings are not committed by the "bad guys" but by someone who is disturbed. The "bad guys", those intent on criminal pursuits (or terrorists) will always know how to get hold of weapons but the temporary disturbed (often teen or early 20's) won't have those kind of contacts and so less guns around would perhaps make it more difficult for them.

No easy answer though

[4AMNTN]

That’s the thing. You can regulate & ban all u want. The bad guys will ALWAYS have what they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan M.]

FWIW, the rifle used in the FL shooting wasn't an automatic rifle. Those have been very strictly regulated since the 1930s. The AR-15 fires one shot per one trigger squeeze, just like a revolver. The magazine capacity is obviously way larger than a six shot revolver and that's at least one thing that might come of this--a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds, although we have that ban here in CA and the terrorist couple that committed the San Bernardino shooting weren't noticeably slowed by it.

[YB]

I think I'm with Style on this one. When the US constitution was drawn up some 220+ years ago if anyone had a gun it would be a single shot or six-shooter at best. The type of weapon that can fire dozens of rounds per minute had not been invented then.

The US constitution has been amended numerous times (more than 20) since its inception and maybe its time for another amendment outlawing automatic weapons. The most people you can kill or injure with a six-shooter is six, the weapons available now are much more deadly. I accept that even a change in the laws would not make it impossible for the more unscrupulous ones to obtain an automatic weapon but surely it would be more difficult for them?

[Style]

Mo - For what it's worth, I agree with your initial post 100%. The recent shooting was very close to the area in which we live here in South Florida. While registered with "No party affiliation", I lean Democrat for most things though not all (have voted both ways). Not sure I see the purpose of guns other than to kill, especially automatic weapons. Countries with much much stricter gun laws have way less incidents than the US. The 18 incidents in the initial 1 1/2 months in the US equals the 18 incidents in the rest of the world during those months! IMO, automatic guns should be available to military and police only.

On another note, I'm don't see the sport in hunting so guns in general don't float my boat...

[Dan M.]

Didn't take it that way Dan, just that I get emotional when I know parents have lost children, its agonizing!

It is indeed.

[momckee]

Didn't take it that way Dan, just that I get emotional when I know parents have lost children, its agonizing!

[Dan M.]

Thanks Dan, for your input, better I should just be an observer and try to stay calm!

Mo, by all means, please speak your mind. I'm not trying to come against your concerns at all. Sorry if it came off that way.

[4AMNTN]

Yes. Ur right Dan. There are ?30k violent gun deaths a year & ?20k of those are suicides.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk