Here is an update:

Over the weekend, after the meeting I ran across these stories about people that used their guns to defend themselves. These are the stories that you will not read about in most papers and will not see on the local news:

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link



In researching these examples, I found that most of the stories are about women and older people using guns in self defense. Given the culture of violence that we have today where criminals will kill for less than $20, it seems to me that guns are a great equalizer that give women and older people at least a chance to protect themselves.

It happens more often that you think, but it's just not popular to report those cases because they don't fit the narrative to subject law abiding citizens to even more gun restrictions.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
http://electneal.org

Yesterday afternoon, 2 former customers tried to rob their alleged drug dealer in Hayward (East Bay). The drug dealer opened fire, killing one and seriously wounding the other. Just think what would have happened if the drug dealer did not have easy access to guns!

@Second Amendment -- It is already illegal to deal drugs on the streets and to possess a weapon while doing so. Criminals are called criminals because they do not obey the law. There are no amount of laws that can be passed that will prevent criminals from getting weapons they should not have.

There are hundreds of stories about criminals using weapons (like AK-47s) that are already banned. What more can be done in those cases?

I too, wish that people would not use guns to murder and rob other people, but wishing cannot make it so. Instead we need to address the underlying issues behind the violence such as mental health, poverty, and the almost complete collapse of the moral fabric of our society that makes some people think they are entitled to everything simply because they exist; and that they should hate people who have more.

By your arguments, should we place stricter controls on drugs just because some people sell them illegally on the streets? Should we ban drugs?

Guns and drugs both have positive and negative uses. Instead of blaming the tools, we need to hold responsible and accountable the people who misuse them.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
http://electneal.org

Although I did not attend, I heard reports from at least a half dozen pro-2A supporters that were there. The meeting was typical of MAIG's underhanded and deceptive approach to furthering gun control from the local level up. They quote their "reasonable" goals and tout there professor puppet with his figures that don't lie, but it clear that MAIG's ultimate goal is to eliminate personal firearms ownership. Even more deceptive on an immediate level, they rented council chambers for this sham of a "forum" to give the impression that it had support from the city. This lecture should have been held at a more appropriate venue such as the senior center.

Greg David

I wonder how many more kids will have to die before people wake up and demand reasonable regulation on gun ownership. It's silly that it's much harder to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun that can clean out a classroom full of kids in just a few minutes.

What is psychologically wrong with all the gun nuts that feel the need to have unrestricted and unregulated access to weapons of mass murder?

@More Regulation

Sounds like YOUR the psycho path nutjob

@more regulation -- Let me be clear. I have never said that I did not want any regulations for guns. What I am saying is that we already have sufficient regulations on the books that if enforced, will minimize the access that criminals have to guns through legitimate sources.

I note that instead of engaging in a reasoned debate, you choose instead to use emotional arguments and name calling.

As far as it being easier to get a gun than a driver's license, try it some time. It may be true on the street, but getting a gun through a legal gun dealer is an ordeal.

I have also noticed that many of the school shootings were in schools that were declared "Gun Free Zones". How much did that help?

What do you define as "reasonable restrictions"? California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US and many cities in other states that have very strict gun laws have some of the highest homicide rates in the US (i.e. Washington D.C. and Chicago).

I have outlined what I believe to be the underlying problems behind the violence and I believe that until those issues are addressed, the killings will continue. Preventing people from defending themselves will only exacerbate the problem.

The Boston Marathon was bombed! Aren't all bombs already illegal? Did that stop the terrorists from using them?



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim - if you want talk, I was holding the sign "Guns save lives, ask me how I know" at this event. majtom94@yahoo.com

Let's get this story straight...

I was there. I was positioned at the back right and repeatedly called for compliance with forums rules.

Not only was I there, I was also the person who provided Mrs. Lieber, her assistant with the brown jacket AND Mr. Spitaleri himself 5 separate opportunities to corral the forum within typical forum rules:


- No Political Signage or Campaigning by the Audience
- Speakers Speak Strictly On Topic - No Campaigning, Smearing or Attacks
- Questions Submitted After Speakers Are Done - No Statements


Mrs. Lieber was queried by me directly BEFORE the event started as to whether or not it was a forum or a debate - as she was collecting question AND comment cards before the event had even started.

Her response was that it was a forum in line with the format used by the League of Women Voters.

No sooner did she get the event started - the speakers immediately went into attack mode against guns, gun owners, the 2nd Amendment and so on.


I then proceeded to challenge her assistant in the brown jacket - informing him that if the speakers and their supporters in the audience did not conform to typical forum rules - that would be license for us 2nd Amendment supporters to:

1. Display signage
2. Comment openly
3. Challenge speakers and hostile audience members directly.

His response was to accuse me of "splitting hairs".


It was at this junction that us 2nd Amendment supporters pulled out our signs and other printed material for display. And of course we proceeded to openly comment and challenge speakers and hostile audience members from that point onward.

WE WERE OPENLY ATTACKED BY THE SPEAKERS FROM THE GET GO!!!


Only a short time after this, the lawyer lady following Mr. Donohue's presentation took the podium and literally in a methodical manner spelled out her exact plan of action for the following:

1. Outright banning of firearms businesses.
2. Outright banning of home firearms businesses.
3. Subjugation of firearms owners to registration, harassment and papers.
4. Outright banning of the only form of carry left - concealed carry.
5. Run-around of three areas specifically qualifying for state preemption.
6. n++; The "destruction of the enemy" list was almost endless.

This lady made specifically clear her intentions to destroy 2nd Amendment rights, the business and logistical avenues for the practice thereof, and the conversion into a "suspect class" - like with the Jews of Berlin 1936 - law abiding gun owners via local ordinances and further state level legislation.


Any pretense of discussing how to address violence had been dispensed with by this lady alone...


We did not allow this person to go unchallenged - and it was shortly after this that Mr. Spitaleri stepped in:


1. He accused US of being uninvited.
2. He accused US of being the party disturbing the forum.


And of course, anyone who has a complete video of the event knows exactly who I am.

Yes I am the one who challenged him directly:


"ENFORCE FORUM RULES AND I WILL PUT MY SIGNS BACK ON THE FLOOR, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!"


Of course, if you have the video - you already know I had his undivided attention and you know his response. Utter disgust while walking away back to the side of the room.


Once again, we as individuals arrived prepared to respect a properly run forum - listen to speakers - and ask questions when they were done. This is how we typically behave - from a default position of common courtesy and respect.


Sadly, a forum it was not from the get go. That is the simple truth of the matter.


I challenge anyone reading this article to watch the full unedited video - wherever is may be available. Ask yourself at the remaining 20 minute point the following:


1. Why did Mr. Wolf as formal speaker in this "forum" refuse 3 times to answer whether or not he was a credentialed teacher with the State of California?

2. Why did Mrs. Lieber remove the exact same question in written form (question/comment card) from the pile and hand it off to someone else (Mr. Spitaleri?) before proceeding to read off the remaining questions to conclude the event?


Does someone have something to hide?


At least one curious mind want to know...

=8-)

I was at the meeting and I would say 60-40 ratio is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. There must have been only around 20 individuals attending that belong to the camp of hoplophobia. The massive amount of individuals remaining were all familiar faces and firearm enthusiasts like myself.

As for the measures the hoplophobes were promoting, they were absolutely moronic. Banning home FFLs? In no way would that reduce crime, make the public safer, or get the guns that criminals use off the streets. Banning home FFL's from the city would only put a neighbor out of business. Requiring I give my fingerprints when buying ammo? That does absolutely nothing, it would serve no purpose except to create a larger burden on licensed firearms dealers. Besides, I reload! That's right, I don't buy ammo from stores. I make my own ammo at home! No firearms permits? Last I checked, criminals weren't getting permits so they can carry a firearm. They just carry anyway! Another do nothing, feel good, illogical idea. Banning the possession of STANDARD capacity magazines? Ex post facto problem anyone? The list goes on and on...

Anyways, I am not going to sit by and watch these cowardly close minded individuals push these kinds of measures down the throats of members of my home town. Any free time I have now will be devoted to fighting any anti-2nd Amendment agenda happening here in Mountain View.

Anyways, I am not going to sit by and watch these cowardly close minded individuals push these kinds of measures down the throats of members of my home town. Any free time I have now will be devoted to fighting any anti-2nd Amendment agenda happening here in Mountain View.

^THIS

Several Palo Altans and I stand with you in solidarity. These Anti's are sorely mistaken if they think Gun owners are a minority in this state.

@Hutch 7.62 Thanks! Your support is greatly appreciated!

I also really appreciate all the other comments here on this important issue. We need to keep the dialog going and get the facts out there, not just the emotion.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@Jim Neal

yes Facts are more important than emotions. Using emotions to get you're point across or to make the other side look bad is very evil and cheap shot none the less.

CNN report about white people and guns. "Shooter saw black, thought threat". Web Link

@dunnce - Um in case you haven't noticed, I am black and I have no fear of white people or any other race of people having legal access to guns as long as they are not felons. Race baiting and saying that it has to be done "for the children" are always the first arguments of those who cannot argue based on facts.

Even if the story is true, there will always be people that do stupid things for stupid reasons and banning the object they choose to use in exhibiting their stupidity makes no sense. For example, someone uses a car to run over people and the answer is to ban all cars or place so many regulations on them that they are almost impossible to get?

Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
http://electneal.org
info@electneal.org

@dunnce -- Here's a link for my example:

Web Link

Jim Neal

Jim Neal,

If you want reasoned debate, then you’ve got it.

You said:

"What I am saying is that we already have sufficient regulations on the books that if enforced, will minimize the access that criminals have to guns through legitimate sources”.

With respect, I’ve heard this argument before, but unfortunately it is simply a rehash of the fallacy that simply making something illegal (felons in possession of guns for example), is not sufficient in itself to make it *enforceable*. Besides the willingness for prosecutors and police to enforce the laws (which is what your statement is implying), the laws as they are written today make them difficult to enforce. In fact, the NRA gun lobby has directed a ton of money in writing laws that have prevented law enforcement from doing their job.

Now, that is my understanding of the situation regarding the “sufficient regulation” argument. Do you have some specific reasoning you would like to share?

Jim, 

Here’s some more reasoned debate: "As far as it being easier to get a gun than a driver's license, try it some time. It may be true on the street, but getting a gun through a legal gun dealer is an ordeal.”

Steps for a newbie getting a car(no knowledge or experience with driving a car):
1. Enroll in a drivers education school or self-study online to pass the written test. ($0-$100)
2. Once passing the written test, you will receive a learner’s permit to allow you to practice driving. 
3. Find someone to loan you a car.  Or pay someone for lessons in theirs.
4. Spend many hours practicing to drive.  DMV driving test requires some precision: parallel parking, backing around corner, etc… that make it very challenging to pass in the first try.
5. Enroll in a school or find someone to teach you the mechanics of driving.
6. Make appointment, pay the fee and hopefully pass the surprisingly challenging DMV driving test.
7. Once you are licensed, buy a car and register it.
8. Buy and maintain mandatory insurance for it.
9. Maintain registration, smog & licenses for it.
10. Periodically, renew your drivers license.  If the license is revoked or suspended, then your car is useless.

Steps for a newbie (no knowledge or experience with firearms) getting a shotgun from a “legal gun dealer”:
1. Go to store and pick out gun.
2. Fill out background check form and pay a $25 application fee.
3. Wait 10 days.
4. Take a test to show you understand how to own and use one safely—HAHA JUST KIDDING!  THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT!!!!
5. Come back in and pick up your gun.  Don’t forget ammo! Bang Bang!


So, I don’t understand what the “ordeal” is, especially comparing it to getting your first car.  Please elaborate?

@More Regulation

I would like you to explain why we need more Laws, if the Laws that are on the books are not being enforced. Wouldn't creating more laws be worthless when we already know Criminals in the State of California could care less about the Laws.

Oakland for example has currently had no luck in curbing any gun violence too date. They can't even control the use of illegal fireworks.

Hutch: "Wouldn't creating more laws be worthless when we already know Criminals in the State of California could care less about the Laws. "

That's true. I guess since "Criminals" could care less about the "Laws", then we should just have no "Laws" at all, right? No speed limit signs. No laws against murder or assault. Because only "Criminals" disobey "Laws", so why burden all the law abiding citizens?

Sigh...

It's not sufficient to pass a law that says: "Felons can't have guns." There need to be laws that will support law enforcement's job in regulating the ownership of guns. California is getting better, but it's simply ridiculous that automobile ownership is tracked so much intensely, while tools of killing are not. Of course, I'm sure the NRA will (if they have not already) file appeals to any law that might reduce the profitability of the gun manufacturers, so let's see how long California can hold out.

Regarding Oakland...It's silly to to think that city-specific gun laws can have a major effect without having similar laws in neighboring areas. It's just too easy to drive half an hour away, load up, come back and fire away. Hopefully California will continue to push for more regulations, which will help, but with Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, it will only slow the pointless killings, not stop it altogether.

IMHO at least...

Moreregulation,

Here are a few more things, you have conveniently missed from the gun buying process (obviously, you haven't bought a gun recently).
- if you EVER had a collision with the law, you are probably banned from executing your Constitutional right for 10 years or for life, but not from the privilege to drive

- if you ever had something more that infraction, it may take over a month for CADOJ to come back with the background check results. You don't have to wait a second if when you buy your car.

- You have to have a CADOJ approved lock safe or lock in order to pick up your gun from the store. You don't need to have your garage certified by CADOJ. You will not be arrested for not locking your car in the public place.

zzzzzz...wake up!

"- if you EVER had a collision with the law, you are probably banned from executing your Constitutional right for 10 years or for life, but not from the privilege to drive"

Oh no! A collision with the law? Kind of vague, but I suppose convicted murderers not being able to legally buy a gun is troubling to some... !!!???

"- if you ever had something more that infraction, it may take over a month for CADOJ to come back with the background check results. You don't have to wait a second if when you buy your car."

Oh no! You mean that if you are a convicted criminal, then you *might* have to wait a whole month?! Darn. I guess you'll just have to meet a craigslist seller to buy that gun so you can hold up a liquor store and pay your back rent. How terrible!!

"- You have to have a CADOJ approved lock safe or lock in order to pick up your gun from the store. You don't need to have your garage certified by CADOJ. You will not be arrested for not locking your car in the public place.

You need to show that you own a gun lock (or safe) to pick up your gun?? How burdensome!!! Here's one for $8 on Amazon: Web Link I can see how $8 would be a MAJOR hassle.

It's really too bad that the rifle or shotgun buyer has to show the gun dealer that they have a basic understanding of firearm safety before taking the gun out of the store. Oh, right... They don't have to.

Wow. It really is just oh, so burdensome to buy a gun in California... :)

^Mouth meet foot.

You really don't get IT, do you.

Moreregulations,

You don't have to be a felon to lose your right. A simple restraining order will do that for you. Do you want to get your license suspended and car towed away due to the restraining order?
Again, you can drop your "convince murder" and "criminal" sloppy language. Simply educate yourself on the subject matter.

Speaking of the lock requirement. You have to have a recent receipt (less than 30 day old) when you pick up your gun. You miss one day and you have to buy a new one. Do you have to brink a car lock to the dealership?

Here is the revised list of the car buying process

1. Go online and read the Driver Handbook.
2. Go to DMV and pass the written test. Get your temporary driver's license immediately
3. Grab a licensed friend, buy a car, sign here, here and here, get your friend to drive the car home. Buy insurance
4. Go online, google any free book on how to drive a car. Read it
5. Learn to drive in your car.
6. Schedule a road test at DMV. Pass it. Even a teenager can do it. If you find the DMV road test difficult, you may opt to never leave your house. The world is a way more challenging. You won't survive even ten minutes in a city.

zzzzz...are you sure you are not anti-gun? I'm not anti-gun--I'm for better regulating them... but you are really making a case for outright bans!

"You don't have to be a felon to lose your right. A simple restraining order will do that for you."

So, if a wife takes out a restraining order against their husband due to domestic abuse, you would like the husband to be able to go out, buy a shotgun and shoot their family without allowing law enforcement time to investigate. Wow. That must be so inconvenient. You seem VERY concerned about slowing down access to guns for people who break laws....something you need to confess?

"Speaking of the lock requirement. You have to have a recent receipt (less than 30 day old) when you pick up your gun. You miss one day and you have to buy a new one."

Oh no! Really? How BURDENSOME! Not only do you have to first remember to buy a $10 lock, but then you have to remember to bring it with you to the gun dealer! Or even worse...you might actually have to buy one FROM the gun dealer. Yep! News Flash! Gun dealers carry gun locks!!!

"Do you have to brink a car lock to the dealership?"

What is "brink"? I guess that GED is still a long way off...

"Here is the revised list of the car buying process..blah,blah,blah"

So, your point is what? That buying a gun for the first time is STILL a lot easier than becoming a driver?! Oh, I see in your steps, you neglected to get a learners permit and are driving illegally. Be careful, if you get arrested, it might *slow* down your ability to buy an arsenal of man-killing weapons.

@Moreregulation

You don't own a gun. You know how I know? Your outline of the steps to get one is missing the written safety test. Yes you have to take a written test. Then you can answer some basic questions like "Are you a felon, are you a drug addict, do you have any restraining orders etc. If you lie and the background checks for state and/or federal fail you get a felony. Then the hands on test. You know, so you know how to check if it is loaded. Then a verbal test on different types of malfunctions and how to clear them. Then you need two forms of valid and current resident ID. Pay for it and all the other crap like the safety cert, dros fees, taxes and then wait 10 days to pick it up.

Even though it is an absolutly stupid comparison of a right to a privilege I will tell you now that the hands on drivers test no longer requires parallel parking and they don't ask you to back around a corner. Backing around a corner is pretty dangerous and if something bad happened because of it you can bet 20 ambulance chasing lawyers would be right there to help you sue the hell out of the DMV and the state.

So here is a suggestion, before you go blurting out a bunch of nonsensical drivel on any subject, LEAR SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Otherwise you make yourself out to look like an ignorant tool.

No?

Wow Testor. Maybe you can study with zzzzzz and pass the test to get your GED someday.

This is what I wrote:

"Steps for a newbie (no knowledge or experience with firearms) getting a shotgun from a "legal gun dealer":
1. Go to store and pick out gun.
2. Fill out background check form and pay a $25 application fee.
3. Wait 10 days.
4. Take a test to show you understand how to own and use one safely—HAHA JUST KIDDING! THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT!!!!
5. Come back in and pick up your gun. Don't forget ammo! Bang Bang!"

The test that you insist is needed for guns is only required for HANDGUNS! I can't believe you don't know that. Wow! Next year a safety test will be required, but for now, you don't need one to buy a shotgun or rifle.

Maybe before you defend "gun rights", you should actually learn the difference between handguns and long guns? Wow...Unbelievable!

we need more effective laws to keep our civilization safer from the proliferation of guns. california laws are getting better and stronger. i hope that the supreme court changes under obama so the nra can stop improperly interpreting the constitution for us.

bring, not brink. It was on obvious typo, you could have figured it out.
You again, trying to misrepresent the facts. Here is a simple explanation with very little possibility for you to misinterpret it.

If someone beats somebody, that would be grounds for felony, and the guy would be arrested. A simple restraining order can be granted on a simple request to the court in a divorce procedure. You don't need to commit any crime for that. So, once again, if you are a law-abiding citizen ,who has committed no crime, but have a restraining order, why is your basic right can be revoked?

Speaking of your immature statement. You should educate yourself with the the laws in California. If you buy a gun and never carry it outside your house (open carry is prohibited, concealed carry is only if you have a permit, which you will never get in SF), it's pretty much as you buy a car an never drive it on the public street. In this case you don't need a driver's license, insurance, and registration. Read the California Vehicle Code. Educate yourself first.

cuestadave,

California laws are not making the communities safe. Instead, those laws violate the Constitution, as ruled by 9th circuit recently.

In addition to testor's post.
The gun safety test is valid only for five years. So, let's say you want to go and buy a new car, but the last time you took DMV written and road tests six years ago? :) Right, go to DMV and re-take all the tests first. Only then you can go to a dealership. Exciting, isn't it?

moreregulation,

I certainly would recommend you to educate yourself on the law, before you show your illiteracy to the public. Read the Penal Code sec. 26840(a)
In case you have difficulty with very basic English, I'll translate it for you:

Firearm safety certificate is required if you buy ANY gun in California

Moreregulation has a way of dodging truth, dragging on a losing argument, posting false data, and flat out lying so I will respond without debate.

Moreregulation-you are good at deceiving through text, but why were you not more vocal in a public forum? Is it that you must spend copious amounts of time crafting a fine lie in order to get your "point," across? Your argument of getting a restraining order and "going out and buying a shotgun" to kill her family WITHOUT chance to investigate is a joke. He will have waited 10 days, provided his fingerprint and all pertinent info, and would be charged with premed 1st degree murder. That is the ONLY argument you've made that even pertains to the proposed "laws" you support, and it isn't even relevant when inspected. I'm sorry, sir, but you are fighting a losing battle due to the fact that you are on the illogical side of the debate. I strongly suggest you stop hiding behind your computer, afraid of an inanimate object, and venture into the forum next time. You and your friends seemed very flustered by the fact that someone asked them to prove themselves. If you can't prove yourself, are you and your arguments even valid? I think not.

Ben, first, the "militia" mentioned included all able bodied males of military age, so, technically, you are the militia, as are all of us. Second, that was a pre-amble, not the subject of the sentence, as has been noted by the supreme court innumerable times. All the rights are the rights of the people. Always have been, always will. Any twisting of the wording to attempt to paint this as applying the government's right to not force itself to disarm (which is beyond ludicrous) is the height of vaccuous psuedo-intellectual pablum. An even more pedantic argument is attempting to apply this to military arms of the day, ignoring the stance of the government in the 1934 Miller vs. US case, where the US government argued that the case against Miller was valid BECAUSE his weapon was not one in common military use of the day.

Now when you begin mentioning this as a natural right or god given or the flying spaghetti monster, it is inherent that every living being has a right to self defense of one's life, and will exercise that right when threatened. If you don't believe me, feel free to go out and test that theory against a mountain lion, then get back with us if it decides to hand over it's wallet without your liver becoming an appetizer.

Now, if you'd bothered to actually READ the constitution and Bill of Rights, it specifically mentions that not ALL rights were included, and a lack of inclusion did not mean it was prohibited, or less deserving of the freedom to exercise said right. Concealed carrying of a firearm, while not being included, is also not excluded.

And for moreregulation: One thing that helps in having a cogent position when discussing things of this nature not getting ones' knowledge of the US constitution and history of 2nd Amendment litigation, along with ones' knowledge of firearms from comic books.

i really like this posting process, many other places require an email and phone number. i thank you town square for that.


moreregulation, if you(or anyone) have(has) a problem passing the DMV test, please get rid of your license and any vehicle you may own. i have known people who have gone in on their 18th birthday and got their license(never having a permit. also, they are downright horrible drivers and i will never get in a car with them.

also you do not need a license to buy a car, just to drive it off the lot. and you live in california i assume, so i am positive you know of the major problem of uninsured and nolicense problem.

and why do i want to carry?
mara salvatrucha
fresno bulldogs
nortenos
surenos
etc etc

zzzzz, I wrote that: "The test that you insist is needed for guns is only required for HANDGUNS! I can't believe you don't know that. Wow! Next year a safety test will be required, but for now, you don't need one to buy a shotgun or rifle."

and you once again proved to be another gun nut ignoramus by compounding your error by writing:

"I certainly would recommend you to educate yourself on the law, before you show your illiteracy to the public. Read the Penal Code sec. 26840(a). In case you have difficulty with very basic English, I'll translate it for you: Firearm safety certificate is required if you buy ANY gun in California”


OK zzzzz, let’s look up the code you cited and see if indeed you currently actually have to pass a test before buying a shotgun or rifle in California:

Go to the code section here:
Web Link

and read:
26840. (a) A dealer shall not deliver a firearm unless the person
receiving the firearm presents to the dealer a valid firearm safety
certificate, or, in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun
safety certificate. The firearms dealer shall retain a photocopy of
the firearm safety certificate as proof of compliance with this
requirement.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2015.

See (b)? Do you understand that this law is not in force for almost a whole year?

Unbelievable! Now who is illiterate?

And I can't believe that you are balking about having to pass a simple test showing you understand basic firearm safety and some laws around their use. Is this really just so difficult for you?

I guess it is....

Gee Pro2A, you said: "Moreregulation has a way of dodging truth, dragging on a losing argument, posting false data, and flat out lying so I will respond without debate."

You will respond "without debate"? What does that mean? Why don't you point out my false data and lies? Oh, that's right.. you can't, because everything I have said is true. "Without debate"... please!

Here is a summary of the intelligent points brought up by the gun nuts in this thread:

1) To get a rifle in California it is a lot more burdensome than a first time automobile driver getting a license. (When presented with contrary evidence, there was a lot of frustrated spluttering and name calling.)

2) You need to pass a written test to buy a rifle or shotgun in California. (When pointed out that the law requiring a test for long guns was not active yet, I was called illiterate.) Then, when I showed them the exact reference in the penal code stating the law truly WASN'T in effect until 2015, xxxxx realized how foolish he/she was and is drafting an apology...ha, right.

3) Apparently, requesting that gun ownership have some regulations that help keep the community safe apparently flies in the face of the Constitution. The gun nuts here want anyone and everyone to be able to buy any gun they wish and carry it anywhere. They believe that the Constitution allows ANYONE (criminals, mentally disabled, etc..) to go into a gun dealer and anonymously buy as many guns and ammunition as they have money for.

It's a sad fact that the gun manufacturers are manipulating the stupid in this country to help them preserve and grow their profiting on violence.

@moreregulation, you are just another MAIG minion.Wonder how much you got pay to spread their hate?.You are soo out of touch with reality, is sad.

^THIS