Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun control language 'assaults' good sense
Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 23, 2013 | Ben Boychuk

Posted on 02/25/2013 3:46:25 PM PST by neverdem

California has some of the toughest – and arguably some of the most overbearing – gun laws in the nation. But you'd never know it to hear our legislators yammer.

Lawmakers give lip service to liberty, while concocting terrifying yet meaningless new terms to justify restrictions on lawful gun ownership.

When it comes to demagoguing guns, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is one of the finer practitioners working today. Announcing the Legislature's gun control agenda a couple of weeks ago, Steinberg peddled all of the usual clichés about "safety" and "common sense." He even genuflected ever so slightly in the direction of the Bill of Rights.

"We respect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to have guns...,"...

--snip--

California already bans the manufacture, sale and import of those much-discussed "high-capacity" magazines – another misleading term that apparently isn't terrifying enough. So lately we've heard the phrase "assault magazine" enter the discourse. Somebody must have poll-tested it, because House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a host of Congress members, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and the left-liberal think tank Think Progress all picked up the term recently. I'm sorry to report the phrase even crept into the editorial column of this exemplary newspaper.

Do you want to know what a real "assault magazine" is? A rolled up copy of Vanity Fair used to bonk an obtuse lawmaker on the top of his thick head. Otherwise, a magazine is a magazine. Some hold seven bullets, some hold 10, and some hold 20 or 30. By itself, however, a metal box with a spring can "assault" no one.

Closely related to the "assault magazine" is the "assault bullet." You're probably thinking: Aren't all bullets "assault bullets"? Given the right circumstances, an "assault bullet" could also be a "defense bullet."...

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: assaultbullet; assaultmagazine; banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/25/2013 3:46:29 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh, they are already talking about banning armor piercing bullets.

Any bullet that can penetrate a bullet proof vest like the cops wear.

Or basically every rifle bullet.

But they “respect” the 2nd Amendment.

If they keep pushing - they are going to really respect the 2nd Amendment.


2 posted on 02/25/2013 3:52:26 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I am surprised to see that the SacBee published that article.


3 posted on 02/25/2013 3:54:05 PM PST by Temujinshordes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Steve Van Doorn; Syncro; ProtectOurFreedom; Citizen James; abigail2; ...

Repeat these idiotic terms incredulously. Then have a good belly laughs at these fools, IMHO. Ridicule these fools mercilessly!


4 posted on 02/25/2013 3:54:21 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Seems to me that there’s a Tree of Liberty in California that’s overdue for watering.


5 posted on 02/25/2013 4:01:41 PM PST by MeganC (Liberals fool people by walking upright.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We should stop using the enemy’s language on these matters.

Their so-called “safety” and “common sense” attacks on liberty should labeled as what they are – extreme attacks on freedom.

Their attacks on guns that look scary should be labeled the “Assault Weapon” Scam or the “Assault Magazine” Scam because this is exactly what they are.

Ask a leftist to define what exactly is an “Assault Weapon” or “Assault Magazine” and then ask them how those definitions wouldn’t preclude every weapon know to man.


6 posted on 02/25/2013 4:10:27 PM PST by BerserkPatriot (Why is the Democratic National Socialist Committee waging a War on liberty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In reality, the senator was lamenting how well firearm manufacturers have complied with California's law, which banned certain cosmetic features on semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Perhaps if manufacturers painted certain long guns pink, added the "Gay" logo and attached Hello Kitty" decals all over it it would "look" less threatening?

This clown Steinberg is among the most egregiously arrogant, dogmatic and ignorant in the entire CA legislature.

7 posted on 02/25/2013 4:17:59 PM PST by publius911 (Look for the Unin label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Gun Crimes by State.

This is a very cool but table that is sortable by any of the metrics with but a single click. It's also frustrating because the metrics it chooses are not totaled into categories such as "all crimes."

8 posted on 02/25/2013 4:19:09 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be "protected" by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Closely related to the "assault magazine" is the "assault bullet." You're probably thinking: Aren't all bullets "assault bullets"? Given the right circumstances, an "assault bullet" could also be a "defense bullet."...

Don't forget also that we all have to deal with "assault hats," "assault shirts," "assault pants," "assault boots," "assault shoelaces," and "assault socks," all in addition to "assault imbeciles."

Oh deary me!

9 posted on 02/25/2013 4:22:06 PM PST by publius911 (Look for the Unin label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thanks for the link.


10 posted on 02/25/2013 4:39:09 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Temujinshordes

Even Pravda can get tired of darlin’ Darrel’s hubris.


11 posted on 02/25/2013 4:46:08 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: publius911

Don’t forget Assault Tongues!


12 posted on 02/25/2013 4:51:02 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I considered assault magazines to wimpy for me so I sold all I had to some
gang banger and bought a few dozen mass murder magazines for my rifle.
13 posted on 02/25/2013 5:16:12 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I was just in Cali last week and the houses all had bars on the windows and metal security doors. I felt much safer when I was serving in Afghanistan. The following day I was in Utah and felt completely safe, even though I was unarmed. The Brady Bunch rated Cali the number one state for gun control...82 points out of 100. By contrast, Utah was tied with Alaska and Arizona for dead last place...0 points. How’s that gun control working for you, California?


14 posted on 02/25/2013 5:17:31 PM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Progressives spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
After several sorts on the table, a few things stare out as prime factors in gun violence: restrictive gun laws, percentage of black population, and percentage of illegal immigrants.

Given that the data are available, it would be fascinating to normalize a similar table of composite gun crime data with the latter two of those three factors to see what the actual effect of restrictive gun laws really was. Needless to say, one would be blowing off the impact of gang violence, but if the inverse correlation with restrictive gun laws was good, the revelation would be compelling.

15 posted on 02/25/2013 5:17:37 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be "protected" by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I sent an email to one of the Senators from my state expressing my ah "distress" at the unconstitutional nature of the proposed "gun control" laws. I got back a form letter (big surprise) and of course it had the usual 'rat weasel language:

We must have a real discussion in this country about finding ways to stop these senseless shootings.

Good so far...

I believe a combination of improved access to mental health services, restrictions on certain weapons intended for warfare, and elimination of the gun show loophole are sensible steps that can protect our communities and particularly, our children.

Argh! Ya lost me there Senator. Mental health is an issue. The "weapons intended for warfare" is just lib-speak for so-called "assault weapons." NFW Senator. Re-read the Bill of Rights. It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. I don't have to be in warfare or prove some need for a weapon. I have the right to own it, period.

Senator, trotting out the nonexistent "gun show loophole" meme doesn't earn you any points outside your libtard circles.

If you were serious about protecting our children Senator, you'd introduce or back legislation to end the criminally idiotic and insane "gun free zones" which in fact are never really gun free.

...we want to keep the wrong weapons out the hands of the wrong people...

There are definitely people who should not be allowed to possess weapons. However, law abiding citizens such as myself are not on that list anywhere. Any attempt to trample my rights is unconstitutional.

I believe we can have a civil discussion that addresses these issues and as the recommendations by the President's task force are considered in Congress, we will ensure that xxxx's voices are heard.

My voice, Senator, says "HELL NO!" to any form of "gun control" that restricts my ability as a law abiding citizen to purchase firearms and firearms accessories. That means no "assault weapons" ban, no "high capacity" magazine bans. No restrictions on my giving/selling my firearms to my family members. No registration. No home inspections. That's my voice Senator, represent me or start looking for another job.

16 posted on 02/25/2013 5:44:07 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

The intention of the 2nd Amendment was specifically about safeguarding the People's right to keep and bear "weapons intended for warfare" thus the first clause.

17 posted on 02/25/2013 6:07:37 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
I felt much safer when I was serving in Afghanistan.

It seems you were also safer when you were in Afghanistan than you would have been in Chicago, another hell-hole leftist utopia featuring some of the strictest gun control on the planet.

Why is it that when the leftists claim that the reason for all the crime and violence in Chicago is that people can buy guns in the suburbs... The obvious question, which is NEVER asked, is why isn't the crime rate even HIGHER in those "gun infested" suburbs?

Mark

18 posted on 02/25/2013 9:34:18 PM PST by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I use my defense rifle and defense magazines defensively.

The Left gets it. Language and culture are united and words mean something. Isn't it time we retake our language?

19 posted on 02/26/2013 3:26:48 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I just read on the KCRA droid app that is on my phone that a California "poll" indicates voters favor gun and ammunition controls. This "poll", as reported, indicates that 61 percent of voters say it's more inportant to control guns and ammunitioun than it is to protect the rights of gun owners. This was based upon an alleged phone poll of 834 "registered" voters and was conducted between Feb 5-17. According to the article, the poll has a sampling error of +/- 5 points when a random subsample of 415 registered voters was used for some of the questions.

Anyone want to place bets this "poll" is bogus???

20 posted on 02/26/2013 8:07:53 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping.


21 posted on 02/26/2013 8:34:15 AM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson