Mass shooting - San Bernardino

[Dakine10 5,452]

So technically , not really a theory.

Hop fully u was Abel to undarstand

I do understand the difference between theory and speculation, yes.

The rest of what you typed, not so much.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Let's throw caution to the wind and forget about the constitution for a minute. I Just want your personal opinion on what I asked. Why is it so unreasonable to lose a few choices of the types of guns you can own?

Yes. I'm trying to think of another consumer product that would suddenly have whole models banned. I can't think of any.

By the way, I already live in state that limits what I can and cannot buy. I hate it. I despise it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sousuke

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yes. I'm trying to think of another consumer product that would suddenly have whole models banned. I can't think of any.

By the way, I already live in state that limits what I can and cannot buy. I hate it. I despise it.

That's understandable, most consumer products don't kill tens of thousands of people each year, if they did they would be off the market altogether. The only thing that comes to mind for me would be cigarettes or tobacco, but I still don't think that would be a true comparison.

Why do you despise being limited on your gun choices? Why do you want or need more? I'm trying to understand why people feel this way.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Yes. I'm trying to think of another consumer product that would suddenly have whole models banned. I can't think of any.

By the way, I already live in state that limits what I can and cannot buy. I hate it. I despise it.

Kinder surprise eggs?

I think they're back now though.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That's understandable, most consumer products don't kill tens of thousands of people each year, if they did they would be off the market altogether. The only thing that comes to mind for me would be cigarettes or tobacco, but I still don't think that would be a true comparison.

Why do you despise being limited on your gun choices? Why do you want or need more? I'm trying to understand why people feel this way.

If I'm collecting say a handgun type, in CA I can't buy anything newer than 1965 at the moment. I can't buy new firearms at all. So when a new technology comes out, I can't take advantage of it.

Now I admit I enjoy collecting primarily WW1 & WW2 firearms so my main interest is still available for now.

That's understandable, most consumer products don't kill tens of thousands of people each year, if they did they would be off the market altogether. The only thing that comes to mind for me would be cigarettes or tobacco, but I still don't think that would be a true comparison.

Why do you despise being limited on your gun choices? Why do you want or need more? I'm trying to understand why people feel this way.

There are lots of products that kill tens of thousands each year. Lets not go down this road though, we'll just get into the same old tired discussions.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sousuke

[Dakine10 5,452]

If I'm collecting say a handgun type, in CA I can't buy anything newer than 1965 at the moment.

What was the reasoning behind that law? Asking seriously this time. Seems like nonsense.

[Boiler 46,277]

By the way, I'm not interested in discussing taking any of my firearms away. Thats pretty much a discussion ender for the majority of gun owners.

Me too

But at least they were honest about it and not the usual bullshit.

Yes. I'm trying to think of another consumer product that would suddenly have whole models banned. I can't think of any.

By the way, I already live in state that limits what I can and cannot buy. I hate it. I despise it.

VW's?

I know there are some manufacturers who will not go through all the CA bullshit so new products are not available there.

[Teddy B 17,252]

If I'm collecting say a handgun type, in CA I can't buy anything newer than 1965 at the moment. I can't buy new firearms at all. So when a new technology comes out, I can't take advantage of it.

Now I admit I enjoy collecting primarily WW1 & WW2 firearms so my main interest is still available for now.

There are lots of products that kill tens of thousands each year.

Okay, I can understand that being an aggravation for you, and I don't really agree with that law. Why is it written so that you cannot purchase anything new as a collector? But my question is more geared to the average Joe gun owner, why is it unreasonable for average Joe to have limited gun choices?

What products would those be? Sure there are accidents with other products, but the product itself isn't meant for killing.

[Sousuke 1,214]

What was the reasoning behind that law? Asking seriously this time. Seems like nonsense.

In the early 2000s they made a handgun roster that required manufacturers to meet certain safety features that California wanted.

Originally, it was about drop tests and magazine disconnects. Then, a few years ago they required microstamping. No manufacturers have microstamping technology and don't want to retool for it because its expensive etc.

So whats happened is that the roster of legal handguns for sale has begun to dwindle. No new firearms can be added to the roster.

I mention 1965 earlier because there is an exemption for curio relics that are 50 years old.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sousuke

[Dakine10 5,452]

Okay, I can understand that being an aggravation for you, and I don't really agree with that law. Why is it written so that you cannot purchase anything new as a collector? But my question is more geared to the average Joe gun owner, why is it unreasonable for average Joe to have limited gun choices?

What products would those be? Sure there are accidents with other products, but the product itself isn't meant for killing.

I always thought if they limit the number of guns except for collectors, everyone who wants more guns will just become a collector.

I'm more concerned with limiting people who really shouldn't have access to guns in the first place.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Okay, I can understand that being an aggravation for you, and I don't really agree with that law. Why is it written so that you cannot purchase anything new as a collector? But my question is more geared to the average Joe gun owner, why is it unreasonable for average Joe to have limited gun choices?

What products would those be? Sure there are accidents with other products, but the product itself isn't meant for killing.

You are going down a road that has been argued again and again. We'll start arguing about products and what a product is developed for etc. I'm sorry but I've argued this alot on this forum and its going to go nowhere.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Me too

But at least they were honest about it and not the usual bullshit.

I've always been honest about what I think should be done for effective gun control. There are certain weapons i don't believe the general public should have access to.

You are going down a road that has been argued again and again. We'll start arguing about products and what a product is developed for etc. I'm sorry but I've argued this alot on this forum and its going to go nowhere.

Okay so lets drop that part and get back to the question I asked.

[Dakine10 5,452]

In the early 2000s they made a handgun roster that required manufacturers to meet certain safety features that California wanted.

Originally, it was about drop tests and magazine disconnects. Then, a few years ago they required microstamping. No manufacturers have microstamping technology and don't want to retool for it because its expensive etc.

So whats happened is that the roster of legal handguns for sale has begun to dewindle. No new firearms can be added to the roster.

I mention 1965 earlier because there is an exemption for curio relics that are 50 years old.

Thanks. I always think nonsense laws make people that much more hesitant to consider further discussion. When you can't trust your legislators to have a little common sense, its hard to consider enabling them further.

You guy's in California seem to have more than your fair share of those.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

Multiple sources including ABC News and the New York Post have reported that Syed Rizwan Farook had two online profiles on Muslim themed dating websites where he described himself as “very liberal” politically.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/12/04/narrative-annihilated-san-bernardino-terrorist-described-himself-as-very-liberal-280947