With the recent news of California senate passing sweeping changes to the gun laws of this state I have seriously begun to question the future of this state. I almost see a future where guns need to be smuggled out of the state like they are escaping Nazi Germany. Then there is this issue where we are supposed to maintain tracking on ammunition purchases, which begs the question how many times a year will folks be making a run to Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.
What I am beginning to see is a gun underground railroad combined with firearms tourism. I see some sort of high security rental storage location in a gun supportive state holding our guns for us, should we not want to risk confiscation for owning a Ruger 10/22. They would need to function something like the old speak easy places so that makes the mob probably the best folks to run them, Vegas is local too.
I have a confession in truth I have no guns that would be effected by these laws, I'm into airsoft. But that will still have my dad registering and putting my grandfathers Sears and Robuck 22 and my great grandfathers 1903 at risk. These are guns that have come down through the family and are the only heirlooms we have, they have been passed down through inheritance. Putting either of those at risk puts a bad task in my mouth. If either was put into harms way i would get them out of state and into the hands of family members that would protect them, even if that meant breaking the law. I understand the laws do not currently challenge those two models. But laws change and I may not just be speaking for myself here but others in similar situations.
Generally speaking I do not even understand the current national firearms debate right now. Whats with all this hate for magazines with over ten shot capacity. If you look at a 1911 it holds 7, why because that was how big it was. The Glock 21 holds 13 because that is how many fit in it as its double stacked unlike the 1911. These are not high capacity they are just what fits in the gun. The FN 5.7 holds 20, why small bullets so it fits more. Limiting just seems arbitrary and desires to drive us back 100 years of mechanical innovation.
Rifle pistol grips confound me too. I have done some fencing so here check this out, its an orthopedic grip for when your hand is messed up. Its pretty much what Christopher Lee used in Star Wars, because your wrist goes with fencing, its like our tennis elbow. You need something better designed for your hands natural grip, viola the pistol err orthopedic grip. It makes holding the thing much easier. Same for a rifle, I am old and have drawn too much over my life i need an orthopedic rifle grip or something.
If we want to have a real debate on the issue, lets. Will limiting guns have an effect on violence in this country? No, not unless you are talking the wholesale disarmament of our nation. If your argument is correct that guns available to the public is correct we have to assume that if any firearm are available to the public there will be a path into the hands of criminals and psychopaths. It only stands that a 90% or higher reduction in firearms will be required to cull gun violence to desirable numbers. But should this be attempted there would be insurrection at the hands of certain gun owners. If you are really going to push for one you are effectively calling for the other to occur. This I don't get.
What I am beginning to see is a gun underground railroad combined with firearms tourism. I see some sort of high security rental storage location in a gun supportive state holding our guns for us, should we not want to risk confiscation for owning a Ruger 10/22. They would need to function something like the old speak easy places so that makes the mob probably the best folks to run them, Vegas is local too.
I have a confession in truth I have no guns that would be effected by these laws, I'm into airsoft. But that will still have my dad registering and putting my grandfathers Sears and Robuck 22 and my great grandfathers 1903 at risk. These are guns that have come down through the family and are the only heirlooms we have, they have been passed down through inheritance. Putting either of those at risk puts a bad task in my mouth. If either was put into harms way i would get them out of state and into the hands of family members that would protect them, even if that meant breaking the law. I understand the laws do not currently challenge those two models. But laws change and I may not just be speaking for myself here but others in similar situations.
Rifle pistol grips confound me too. I have done some fencing so here check this out, its an orthopedic grip for when your hand is messed up. Its pretty much what Christopher Lee used in Star Wars, because your wrist goes with fencing, its like our tennis elbow. You need something better designed for your hands natural grip, viola the pistol err orthopedic grip. It makes holding the thing much easier. Same for a rifle, I am old and have drawn too much over my life i need an orthopedic rifle grip or something.
If we want to have a real debate on the issue, lets. Will limiting guns have an effect on violence in this country? No, not unless you are talking the wholesale disarmament of our nation. If your argument is correct that guns available to the public is correct we have to assume that if any firearm are available to the public there will be a path into the hands of criminals and psychopaths. It only stands that a 90% or higher reduction in firearms will be required to cull gun violence to desirable numbers. But should this be attempted there would be insurrection at the hands of certain gun owners. If you are really going to push for one you are effectively calling for the other to occur. This I don't get.
No comments:
Post a Comment