I applaud Governor Newsom on this. I hope he’s successful!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/us/calif ... index.html

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

To be honest, I am surprised it took this long for the democrats to use the loophole the republicans exploited.

It's not a good development for the rule of law, but you can't blame the democrats for playing the republican game.

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Yeah I don't see this working out very well....for starters even Democrats have backed away from gun control as it is not a winning issue for them. Also, the SCOTUS is more likely to strike down attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment than they are to strike down attempts to circumvent abortion, which is not addressed directly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like firearm ownership is.

Please provide a link to your source when stating facts or make it clear you are stating your opinion, if not your post will be removed for violating forum rules.

TriJets wrote:

Yeah I don't see this working out very well....for starters even Democrats have backed away from gun control as it is not a winning issue for them. Also, the SCOTUS is more likely to strike down attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment than they are to strike down attempts to circumvent abortion, which is not addressed directly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like firearm ownership is.

But if what I heard is correct, there is no attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. People will still be able to bear arms in California. Heck, they will still technically be able to purchase war-grade offensive weaponry. This proposed law would simply allow private citizens to sue the manufacturers and retailers of such deadly weaponry.

Again, I would love to see a serious study one day clearly showing a positive relationship between Assault Weapons and crimes or deaths deterred or avoided by them, vs regular firearms.

The Supreme Court has moved hard right, seemingly supporting establishing better rights for conservative Christians that for other religions, but especially standing against the increasing number of people who are avowed secularists. There are very conservative interpretations of the Christian tradition which want to dominate the behavior of other Americans. Abortion, gun rights, Stand your Ground, anti-gay and transgender are some of the issues. American First in the 1930s, John Birch Society in the 50s and 60s (?), Opus Dei (international), People of Praise are increasingly coming to the fore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... efs-420863

The Texas law on abortion was deliberately written to take away the ability of women in Texas to get an abortion, by turning the process over to private individuals. It is a big step toward a weird kind of vigilantism. and anarchy. I do not personally like what Newsom is proposing but it may serve the purpose of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider what it did with the Texas law.

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

But these are state politics, they don't need to be concerned about what people in the Midwest or the Gulf Coast think of this. Unless Newsom has national aspirations, but even then, I don't think he would lose many voters as he already would be hardly a candidate that would woo in independents.

CometII wrote:

But these are state politics, they don't need to be concerned about what people in the Midwest or the Gulf Coast think of this. Unless Newsom has national aspirations, but even then, I don't think he would lose many voters as he already would be hardly a candidate that would woo in independents.

I believe Newsom has decided to run for President and don't forget you have to win the Primary before the General and this gun control thing is red meat for the people that turn to vote in the primary.

CometII wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Yeah I don't see this working out very well....for starters even Democrats have backed away from gun control as it is not a winning issue for them. Also, the SCOTUS is more likely to strike down attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment than they are to strike down attempts to circumvent abortion, which is not addressed directly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like firearm ownership is.

But if what I heard is correct, there is no attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. People will still be able to bear arms in California. Heck, they will still technically be able to purchase war-grade offensive weaponry. This proposed law would simply allow private citizens to sue the manufacturers and retailers of such deadly weaponry.

Again, I would love to see a serious study one day clearly showing a positive relationship between Assault Weapons and crimes or deaths deterred or avoided by them, vs regular firearms.

California had an "Assault Weapons Ban" that was already struck down by a federal court and declared unconstitutional earlier this year-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... n-blocked/

This is just an effort to get around that. Moreover, "Assault Weapons" are already very difficult to acquire in the United States unless you have a lot of money and special licenses approved by the ATF. What California and others want to ban are normal rifles and handguns that just look similar but are functionally different than those carried by soldiers.

As I said before, I don't see this going well for Newsom. Gun control is a losing issue and the Democrats are moving away from it. After riots, skyrocketing violent crime, and an ongoing pandemic, more people than ever are buying guns in order to protect themselves and their families-

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/29/us/g ... demic.html

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The Texas law on abortion was deliberately written to take away the ability of women in Texas to get an abortion, by turning the process over to private individuals. It is a big step toward a weird kind of vigilantism. and anarchy. I do not personally like what Newsom is proposing but it may serve the purpose of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider what it did with the Texas law.

That's what I'm thinking Newsom is doing with the gun control law. It's not designed for absolute gun control; rather, the method used to get there is setting up a legal challenge with the Supreme Court. If that method gets struck down, the SCOTUS will have no choice but to review the Texas case again.

Newsom isn't "the Democrats", he's the democratic governor of a very democratic state. If anything he will lose support if he DOESN'T do this. Well correct me if I'm wrong but it's not even up to him (aside from signing the bill) but to the legislature. The dems have 75% of the seats in both chambers...

NIKV69 wrote:

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

Given the crime rate, maternal and infant mortality rate, number of uninsured in Texas the people of Texas would have been better served.......

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

Just pointing out that even the NY Post acknowledges the retail crime spree has been orchestrated via organized crime, not random bands of teenagers.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/califo ... o/38489876

Aaron747 wrote:

Just pointing out that even the NY Post acknowledges the retail crime spree has been orchestrated via organized crime, not random bands of teenagers.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/califo ... o/38489876

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

Same people defending “the sanctity of life” in Texas are advocating that Californians need more guns to protect their high end shops.

Either way, I think this is a pretty funny move. The whole point isn’t to pass the law. It’s to make abundantly clear that either the court needs to review the nonsense in Texas…or lose all validity in the grand scheme of government

FGITD wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Just pointing out that even the NY Post acknowledges the retail crime spree has been orchestrated via organized crime, not random bands of teenagers.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/califo ... o/38489876

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

Same people defending “the sanctity of life” in Texas are advocating that Californians need more guns to protect their high end shops.

Either way, I think this is a pretty funny move. The whole point isn’t to pass the law. It’s to make abundantly clear that either the court needs to review the nonsense in Texas…or lose all validity in the grand scheme of government

I’m sure Californians prefer high end shops get hit over their homes. Six of the top ten states for home break-ins are in the south, while CA is middle of the pack:

https://www.safehome.org/resources/stat ... break-ins/

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand. To make light of it because it's "designer shoes" isn't really the answer and will only make this degenerate into anarchy.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... story.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11 ... and-grabs/

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand. To make light of it because it's "designer shoes" isn't really the answer and will only make this degenerate into anarchy.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... story.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11 ... and-grabs/

Oh my goodness. Why didn’t you say so? What absolutely sick, twisted, criminal mastermind would steal laundry detergent?! Compared to sending a teenage girl to court over an abortion, the great detergent caper of 2021 might as well be held in the same regard as any major terrorist attack. If I had a gun, 3 bullets, and was in the same room as Hitler, Stalin, and a detergent thief-I’d shoot the detergent thief thrice.

And here I was thinking no one deserved death over designer products. The folly of my ways!

NIKV69 wrote:

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand.

Because they will move onto linens.

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand. To make light of it because it's "designer shoes" isn't really the answer and will only make this degenerate into anarchy.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... story.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11 ... and-grabs/

Again, this is not how organized crime works. They need for the items to retain value or its useless to flip them afterward. Fomenting anarchy would be completely against their business model. They are in this to make $$$, remember?

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

You are dealing with semantics. Much of the same that the Texas abortion law does. It doesn't care about how it was done or why. associated parties can be sued.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

Does that mean the First Amendment only applies to letters written with an ink quill, since that was all that was available at the time?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

You are dealing with semantics. Much of the same that the Texas abortion law does. It doesn't care about how it was done or why. associated parties can be sued.

It’s not semantics, it’s exactly what Newsom proposed—assault weapons used in murders. If he wants all firearms, he should have said that.

Here’s the Governor’s announcement,

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/12/11/gover ... -decision/

It is what he proposed, but the law isn't written by him, and based on the Supreme Court's handling of abortion. Anything other than a pre 1800 rifle could be up for legislation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

Lots of settled law has been overturned, there was no right to abortion prior to Roe, pretty much made up. Dried Scott was overturned by Board of Education. 2A doesn’t pose any limits on types of arms unless you want the 1A to be overturned because we now have the Internet that wasn’t covered by the 1A.

Would you approve of a law allowing suits against auto manufacturers when there’s a fatal accident and the car wasn’t unsafely designed?

This is why auto manufacturers issue recalls. Has nothing to do with weapons that can take out 20+ people in less than 3 minutes. We need to end private sales period and enforce other laws on the books like ending straw purchases, like what happened in Michigan.

IIRC, the right keeps whining about "stop trying to overturn settled law" any time there is a challenge to any gun law. Brown v. Board is settled law. Roe v. Wade is settled law. Voting Rights Act of 1965 was settled law. If Republicans can overturn settled law to get their way, why not challenge settled law to keep large numbers of people from being killed?

2A has zero to do with 1A in any way.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How do you propose the end private sales? Person A has a gun that isn’t recorded anywhere and sells it to Person B, how can force A to go thru an FFL, if his intention is to avoid the law. Many states already require background checks for private sales and can’t enforce it. I don’t have an issue requiring checks on private sales, I do it myself, just trying to be realistic.

As to straw purchases, also hard to enforce when prosecutors won’t indict because the criminal is a sympathetic girlfriend, grandmother, etc. Chicago AUSA won’t indict often times. The Chicago DA won’t indict shooters as she termed it “mutual combat”.

Lots of settled law has been overturned or repealed, so that’s a thin reed to hang ono. Heck, Prohibition and Marijuana was settled law.

"BUT CHICAGO!!!!"

Gov. Newsom and Gov. Abbot made that very clear how we can end these things. Offer a bounty from the government! We all know how much the right loves big government getting involved in anything! /sarcasm

Alcohol and marijuana and hemp were all legal until people in the 20th Century decided they were bad for everyone. I guess we need to roll back the clocks. Back to the "good ole days" when alcohol sales were legal for whoever and marijuana was legal for whoever and people owned people and there was cocaine and heroin in over-the-counter medications and firearms were not made for taking out 20-50 people at a time...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

Unfortunately we are were we are now due to the fact that we have a Supreme Court full of misinformed people that tend to allow Originalism to cloud their common sense judgement about equality under the law.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Disagreeing with your position does not a misinformed Justice make. Millions disagree with the Roe decision doesn’t make the Burger court misinformed.

No, The Burger court had a semi ethical bipartisan push. The current court is misinformed due to unethical senators ,such as McConnell ,combined with powerful donors pushing lists of "politically" groomed judges for positions.

This court is politically misinformed, and is biased due to political considerations of litmus test cases. That should not happen. Removing Roe or weakining it, will only mean that this current Court has no place in history. They will be no better than a corrupt cop. Every decision will be subject to being overturned.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

But, but settled law. The Court shouldn’t be a legislative body, but it has become one, unfortunately. Misinformed, I’d submit isn’t the correct term, maybe politically opposed.

They are misinformed. They are the third branch of Government, Where the constitution is silent, they have to infer what other pieces of the Constitution apply, or whether State law is more applicable That is real work, but one that judges have to do everyday.

Judges in the Supreme Court have to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake under the constitution. Sitting around on the Texas Ban, makes no sense, as it is common sense that the law is looking to deny access to a Constitutional right currently recognized on many court cases. This means the court is misinformed about their responsibilities, and their position in US Government.

So on a related note, you wonder why people have issues with guns. Example A:
https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/j ... K3PFAGWME/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

So one shooting in once city justifies..... what, exactly? This us why "BUT CHICAGO!!!" falls flat and is a completely invalid argument. Private sales and straw purchases happen all over the country. As do abortions. Roe v. Wade covers ALL Americans. Straw purchases and private sales cover ALL Americans. As we saw at Sandy Hook. And UVA. And Las Vegas. And Columbine. And Aurora. And January 6. And Louisville. And San Bernardino. And......

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

So one shooting in once city justifies..... what, exactly? This us why "BUT CHICAGO!!!" falls flat and is a completely invalid argument. Private sales and straw purchases happen all over the country. As do abortions. Roe v. Wade covers ALL Americans. Straw purchases and private sales cover ALL Americans. As we saw at Sandy Hook. And UVA. And Las Vegas. And Columbine. And Aurora. And January 6. And Louisville. And San Bernardino. And......

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. You bring up private sales and straw purchases (valid), but then list a bunch of incidents that involved neither to support your claim. Las Vegas didn't involve straw purchases. Neither did Aurora. Or San Bernadino. Not sure what you are referring to with Louisville. And January 6th? The only person shot during that event was an unarmed woman who was (justifiably, IMO) shot by a police officer. What are we supposed to gather from these examples?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

Can you expound upon your earlier argument that January 6th and Louisville somehow tie into this?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

No legal, law-abiding firearms owner are “defending” these mass killers or mass shooters. They are, plain and simple, criminals who should face swift, sure punishment, including executions. They are the scourge of the human race. You focus on the relatively few mass murders and never focus on the real big numbers of killers, where the majority of gun deaths occur—inner cities and suburban suicides. Those likely aren’t amenable to simple solutions, either.

Why is the 2A narrative "good guys with guns will take out bad guys with guns"? In both Las Vegas and Aurora, everyone said they could not tell where the shooter was, just that someone was shooting.

I agree that incels and domestic violence and depression play a major role in gun violence. But so does access to high capacity, military grade weapons. These mass shootings do not happen in Chicago. Typically, they are disputes between neighbors or drug dealers. Not people who are depressed or feel they are victimized. We still had murder by gun back in the day. That was typically people who knew each other. Whether it was gang related or domestic violence. Now, in addition to that, people have access to high powered weapons and can just fire at will.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s plenty of mass shootings with usually many more wounded than killed in Chicago. Shooter enters a social event, starts shooting at a rival and winds up wounding multiples of the one or two dead. Big difference between “mass murders with guns” and mass shootings. Chicago tops the list for mass shootings.

http://mass-shootings.info/statistics.php?year=2020

Semi-auto rifles for civilians have been available since the Remington Model 8 in 1905 in more powerful chamberings than .223.

And, still, anyone can get ahold of WMDs like in Las Vegas or Orlando or Stoneman or UVA or Aurora. I wonder how many of the Chicago shootings are private purchases (which are not regulated). Why are you so against 2A for just Chicago, anyway? Don't people have the right to defend themselves from tyranny? Or just the thought of someone they don't like? Like what happened in Kenosha?