Irony in California

Last week in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 821, which bans the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the condor range, because the claim was that condors were suffering from lead poisoning. This was based purely on animal rights extremist, anti-hunting rhetoric rather than actual science.

Currently there's a raging wildfire in California, and the reports indicate that the fires are threatening the condor population and coule wipe them out.

Personally I find this ironic. California has banned lead ammunition for hunting because some people said it was threatening the condors with extinction. In less than a week's time they've now got a forest fire which might do just that. Basically they traded a non-threat for a genuine threat.

The Fool's Gold State just can't seem to win. Anytime they pass a ban, nature hits them hard within a very short amount of time afterwards.

It's a dark day in California

Well I'm sure you've all seen the news. Today California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed two very controversial gun control bills despite the overwhelming argument against them. He signed Assembly Bill 1471, a firearms micro-stamping bill, and Assembly Bill 821 a lead ammunition ban bill.

If you're wondering what these do, hold on while I explain them.

First the simple one, the ban on lead ammunition. This bans the use of lead-based ammunition in the condor range in California. The claim is that condors are dropping dead from lead poisoning, but the scientific information doesn't support this. Currently the only alternative available is copper ammunition, which is going to be prohitively expensive for hunters to use. Furthermore, copper is a hard metal, and it's going to have sharp edges. If a condor eats one of these their insides are going to be sliced apart and the condors are going to bleed to death on the inside.

The firearms microstamping bill is much more complex, but to make a long story short it's another attempt at ballistic imaging to "try and stop crime". Trouble is this concept is severely flawed. The microstamping technology is unfounded, it doesn't even exist today but it was still passed and has to be implimented by 2010 if any new semi-automatic handguns can be sold in California.

The problem with enforcing technology that doesn't currently exist is that it might never exist. This could easily be the ground for banning all semi-automatic handgun sales in the state of California, since those in charge of developing technology could just stop one day and decide not to do it.

Even worse, even if the technology can be implimented in a practical manner, it can be easily defeated. The firing pin, which is engraved under this bill, is easily the most fragile part of the firearm and is prone to breaking and needing replacement. Under the microstamping bill you'd have to special order a new firing pin with the serial number of your gun on it, and use of any other firing pin would be a crime.

Also, defacing any identifying mark on a firearm is a serious felony. And since the firing pin becomes an identifying mark, even shooting your gun could become a felony since it's going to become defaced.

And if that doesn't irk you, then this certainly will: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

"Mom" and "dad" along with "husband" and "wife" have been banned from all schools in California. Even worse girls will be FORCED to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with boys.

My advice to you is to write governor Schwarzenegger and vocally (but politely) voice your opposition and disappointment in his decision to declare war on the law-abiding gun owners, hunters and parents in California. Also remind him that you'll remember this when it comes time for reelection.

Vigilante justice in Tennesee? I don't think so!

Alright this isn't a Second Amendment related story, but it's a story that's really pissing me off so I've decided to comment on it.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/14/962818-tenn-men-accused-of-vigilante-justice

This is called vigilante justice, but that's just plain wrong. This isn't vigiliantism, this is more like a lynch mob! The kind of people who don't have the patience for courts and judges and sentencing, that's what these individuals were.

This is not vigilante justice! An example of vigilante justice would be a neighborhood watch organization, patroling the neighborhood because the police budget has been slashed drastically and the number of police officers has been reduced from 25 to 5.

An example of vigilante justice is a bystander intervening with a mugging and possibly saving somebody's life.

An example of vigilante justice is a homeowner apprehending a criminal that's breaking into his home or his neighbor's home, and detaining him until the police get there to actually arrest him.

An example of what ISN'T vigilante justice is two dumbasses deciding to burn down a man's home and killing his wife and child! This is an example of domestic terrorism!

Vigilantes are people that uphold the law and do the right thing, especially when the police aren't around, what vigilante's don't do is burn people's homes down for no good reason at all!

The Columbine Kid in Pennsylvania

By now I'm sure you've all been hearing about the 14 year old in Pennsylvania was planning a Columbine-esque attack on a local highschool, right? Probably a lot of irate people thinking that this is a prime example of needing more gun control in America, right? Well they're wrong! Let's look at it logically.

First, this kid was 14 years old, by law he couldn't own anything that he had in which weapons cache. The rifles, the swords, knives, airguns, nothing. You have to be a minimum of 16 to buy a knife and 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, this kid was only 14. By law he was banned from buying any kind of weapon, so you can't get more restrictive than that.

There's the issue about the kid's mother buying him the 9mm rifle at a gun show. Again, not a case for more gun control. By Pennsylvania state law, each and every gun sale is required to involve a federally licensed firearms dealer; there's no such thing as a private sale in that state. So the mother's guilty of comitting a straw purchase, that's a Federal offense and will get you 10 years in prison.

Also Pennsylvania has gun registration, done in the form of police keeping records about all firearms transactions, so they know who bought what.

Pennsylvania also has laws against juvenile possession of firearms. They also have laws mandating that trigger locks come with every gun sold.

Second, along with all these weapons the kid also had a hand painted nazi flag, tapes about the Columbine massacre, and functioning hand grenades, which he was making by himself. It seems that he fully intended to do damage no matter what, so it's not as simple as saying "if guns were banned this never would've happened", because this kid would've still had knives and bombs. He could've done like the Columbine killers and rigged up propane tank explosives. But that's beside the point.

The mother is currently facing at least six criminal charges, (unlawful transfer of a fiream, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment) which can get her in a lot of trouble and earn her a lot of prison time of the prosecutors follow through with the law rather than just plea bargaining away the charges like they never even existed.

All kinds of law were not just broken, but grossly violated here with complete disregard. Does anybody think that another law or two might've done any good?

First post - disgusted with misinformation

I'm sure that it's been mentioned many times at many places, this news brief about police forces having to upgrade their arsenals to deal with criminals armed with "assault weapons", and I know this gets tossed around like a volleyball at the beach, but I'm bringing my own take to the table.

First, I reccomend that you visit this link to get the gist of what's being talked about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/01/eveningnews/main3316672.shtml

Second, I reccomend that you watch the video because it's very informative about the misinformation that's being treated as the truth.

Alright, the police are making various claims about semi-automatic rifles, among them being that AK-47s are flooding the streets and putting them in jeapordy and that's why that they need to be banned; to keep the officers safe.

That's all well and good, if you want to take things at face value and believe everything that's told to you and you want to drink the purple koolaid, but in the real world that just doesn't fly.

In the video they have this scene pictured clearly:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/admiralahab/gunlies.jpg

Now in this picture I'm seeing a ton of handguns, several semi-automatic rifles, a pump-action shotgun, one muzzle loading firearm, and not a single AK-47 to be seen. There are two SKS rifles and one AR-15, but not a single AK-47 anywhere.

Wouldn't you think that if the AK-47 was flooding the streets, they'd at least have one pictured here amongst the confiscated firearms?

Next, the video also shows fully-automatic weapons being fired. What's the problem with this? Semi-automatic firearms can't fire like that no matter what you try; you can't even convert one to automatic firing capabilities because the internal components are made entirely different and they're not compatible.

Besides, automatic weapons fall under an entirely different jurisdiction and are controlled in a very strict manner. To this date there's only been one murder with a legally owned machinegun, and that was carried out by a police officer.

Then you've got the claim about these weapons being powerful enough to penetrate police body armor. While that's true it's because of physics. Standard police body armor is nothing more than several layers of a kevlar weave fiber formed into a vest, designed specifically for handgun rounds that travel at a much slower velocity. They were never designed to work against rifle rounds of any caliber, from any firearm.

There's also the claim that AK-47s are being sold on the street for as little as $200 a piece. While it's true that the black market does illegally sell guns for low prices, I've yet to see any evidence to support this claim about the price.

Then there's also the statement about the UZI being able to fire 600 rounds with just a flick of the trigger...I don't even want to touch that one, otherwise I'm going to have to go into the details of how long it would take to change the magazines to actually fire those 600 rounds, and how for each new magazine you'd have to pull the trigger again, and how this UZI owner is already violating Federal law with no concern for anything.

And then there's the most obvious fact that nobody seems to want to address; at least nobody who's in office right now. Since when did a law banning something do anything to impede criminals one bit? Did Prohibition stop the bootleggers? No. Did bans on crack cocaine stop the criminals and their drug wars in the late 80s and early to mid 90s? No. Did the "assault weapons ban" and various trade embargos stop the two gunmen responsible for the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout? No.

Even more, they've admitted that the black market is selling guns illegally, so they've basically shot themselves in the foot when they claim that they need to ban lawful ownership of these weapons.