• California Senate Approves Very Harsh Gun Legislation
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40834548]I hope military members are exempt.[/QUOTE] nobody should be exempt
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40840563]I... I don't want those? Why would I? EDIT: hell, asking me whether I want machine guns is as sensible as asking me whether I'd like to store a bazooka in my garage. I mean, sure, I guess I wouldn't mind, but what's the fucking point?[/QUOTE] I keep mine next to my bed. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vGhOpGUl.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;40840508]don't forget this one[/QUOTE] Only if it's done strictly on a case-by-case basis, which the US tends to be shit at. [QUOTE=ultra_bright;40839831]What about machine guns and sub machine guns? You good?[/QUOTE] Leaving those to the military and police special forces. [editline]30th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;40841061]I keep mine next to my bed. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vGhOpGUl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Fucken' huge nerf ball launcher
California legislation: "If a law doesn't work, make more laws about it!"
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40839831]What about machine guns and sub machine guns? You good?[/QUOTE] We don't need them. Wars are a rarity in Europe these days.
Safety Class and background checks are fine, and should be standard procedure the rest is bull
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40841268]We don't need them. Wars are a rarity in Europe these days.[/QUOTE] Besides, watercannons works wonders on violent protesters.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;40836030]Can't imagine living in California. Shit car laws, shit gun laws, bleh.[/QUOTE] California doesn't have strict car laws. They have emission regulations, which is pretty necessary considering how bad the smog was in California 50 years ago.
[QUOTE=The golden;40841331]You never know when you might be going at the French again[/QUOTE] But what if we are the French
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40841344]But what if we are the French[/QUOTE] The French also go after the French.
[QUOTE=The golden;40841331]You never know when you might be going at the French again[/QUOTE] Then Britain might finally have a use for the EDL.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40839831]What about machine guns and sub machine guns? You good?[/QUOTE] I'm good. Maybe I'd invest in an air gun sometime, but I really don't feel like I'd need anything more powerful.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;40840563]I... I don't want those? Why would I? EDIT: hell, asking me whether I want machine guns is as sensible as asking me whether I'd like to store a bazooka in my garage. I mean, sure, I guess I wouldn't mind, but what's the fucking point?[/QUOTE] So you can look like a bad ass that's why.
683 is the only one that makes any sense. THE ONLY ONE. Also basically the coolest rifle you can own in the state of california now is anything from or before WW2, since basically anything made after then has a detatchable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Unless of course it's a hunting rifle.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40841497]So you can look like a bad ass that's why.[/QUOTE] If you need a gun to look like a badass, then you're quite the sissy.
[QUOTE]SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Van-man;40834539]These are great news. The rest varies from [I]"eh"[/I] to fully retarded[/QUOTE] These are not great. Background checks (if they're anything like background checks for a gun) means paying $25 and waiting a few days everytime I want to buy a box of .22's at Walmart. That's not going to keep bullets out of the hands of criminals. Require all gun buyers to take a safety class, is that for every gun I buy? How much is said class? $100, more? Is a safety class going to prevent the use of the gun in crime? What if they have already have taken safety classes before?
[QUOTE=defy;40841559]These are not great. Background checks (if they're anything like background checks for a gun) means paying $25 and waiting a few days everytime I want to buy a box of .22's at Walmart. That's not going to keep bullets out of the hands of criminals. Require all gun buyers to take a safety class, is that for every gun I buy? How much is said class? $100, more? Is a safety class going to prevent the use of the gun in crime? What if they have already have taken safety classes before?[/QUOTE] [I]"HERP DERP DEY BE TAKING MY GUNZ"[/I]
[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;40841519]683 is the only one that makes any sense. THE ONLY ONE. Also basically the coolest rifle you can own in the state of california now is anything from or before WW2, since basically anything made after then has a detatchable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Unless of course it's a hunting rifle.[/QUOTE] Most WW2 rifles would be illegal as well, since they have a bayonet lug.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40841653][I]"HERP DERP DEY BE TAKING MY GUNZ"[/I][/QUOTE] You can't think of a proper rebuttal so you insult him? Herp derp indeed.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40841653][I]"HERP DERP DEY BE TAKING MY GUNZ"[/I][/QUOTE] Wow way to sum up that post. That said nothing about taking guns away. Just adding additional costs and measures that are not going to prevent crime.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40839831]What about machine guns and sub machine guns? You good?[/QUOTE] We already have them assault babykilling semiautos here, I say it's nice enough. Not sure if I'd trust the general population with full-autos.
[QUOTE=Aman;40836186]this shit is so stupid it's laughable. Let's make up random laws for technology that doesn't even exist![/QUOTE] Where did you see this? Did you make it up, because I can't find anything like that. Even looked up the bill number, and it has nothing to do with firearms as far as I can tell.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40843638]Where did you see this? Did you make it up, because I can't find anything like that. Even looked up the bill number, and it has nothing to do with firearms as far as I can tell.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_293_bill_20130524_amended_sen_v98.htm[/url] 31(c) In addition to complying with the provisions of subdivisions 32(a) and (b), as applicable, owner-authorized handguns shall comply 33with the followingbegin insert minimumend insert performance standards: 34(1) The firearm shall not fail to recognize the authorized user, 35and shall not falsely recognize an unauthorized user, more than 36one time per thousand recognition attempts. 37(2) The time from first contact to use recognition and firearm 38enablement shall be no more thanbegin delete 0.5end deletebegin insert 0.3end insert seconds. 39(3) The time from loss of contact with the authorized user to 40firearm disablement shall be no more thanbegin delete 0.5end deletebegin insert 0.3end insert seconds. P5 1(4) When the firearm is enabled, the “ready” condition shall be 2indicated by a visible indicator. 3(5) If the recognition technology on the firearm is battery 4operated, the firearm shall be equipped with a low power indicator 5that emits an audible signal. 6(6) If the user is not recognized, or if the power supply fails, 7the firearm shall be inoperable.
I'll just leave this here [quote=Second Amendment] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [b][u]shall not be infringed[/u][/b]. [/quote]
[QUOTE=kenshin6;40843749]I'll just leave this here[/QUOTE] [quote]Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.[/quote]
Right, like Pablo with his Mexican-cartel, full auto AK47 will care about detachable magazines [QUOTE=gamefreek76;40841339]California doesn't have strict car laws. They have emission regulations, which is pretty necessary considering how bad the smog was in California 50 years ago.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding? A small turbo 4-cylinder is illegal while giant Cummins diesels with smoke stacks, V8 header rat rods and illegal exhaust Harley bikes are readily go to smog up the place?
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;40834640]From what I've heard, hardly. Their laws are already pretty strict over there.[/QUOTE] As a californian I can vouch for that.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40841061]I keep mine next to my bed. [/QUOTE] When his house was broken in to by a gang of T-54 tanks, Ridge was prepared. Are you?
[QUOTE=Ridge;40841792]Most WW2 rifles would be illegal as well, since they have a bayonet lug.[/QUOTE] I find it fucking hilarious how a weapon would be banned for having a 2cm notch of steel under the barrel :v:
"SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun" Those are completely uninsane, the rest are a bit more insane .
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.