Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(58,838 posts)
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:37 PM Dec 2015

Ok, gun nuts. Answer me this.

By all accounts, the weapon used in San Bernardino were legally obtained. But since you have a talent for finding excused to no additional gun control measures, can you please point me to whatever obscure paragraph of subsection whatever to Penal Code X was violated. Because, by golly, if THAT was enforced, the killers would not have been able to buy those guns and the assload of ammunition along with it.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ok, gun nuts. Answer me this. (Original Post) RandySF Dec 2015 OP
Don't hold your breath mikeysnot Dec 2015 #1
There is no existing law that would have prevented this.nt hack89 Dec 2015 #2
...and you don't see that as a problem? Chan790 Dec 2015 #3
Short of our right banning and confiscation hack89 Dec 2015 #5
gun nuts malcolmboeing Dec 2015 #4
And they are not. RandySF Dec 2015 #6
Hello. bigwillq Dec 2015 #12
No laws were broken so no way to have prevented it. And this from a State with some of the Waldorf Dec 2015 #7
Exactly my point. Thank you, RandySF Dec 2015 #8
If you look at California's laws what can be added? Mental health backgrounds added to the FBI Waldorf Dec 2015 #9
Ok TeddyR Dec 2015 #10
Thank you! LP2K12 Dec 2015 #13
California has some of the most burdensome gun control laws in the country. Kang Colby Dec 2015 #11
America has failed at Responsible Gun Ownership 101. baldguy Dec 2015 #14
Turn them all in mwrguy Dec 2015 #15

hack89

(39,171 posts)
5. Short of our right banning and confiscation
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:51 PM
Dec 2015

there is no law that will prevent this. And that will never happen. Even Diane Feinstein's proposed AWB post Sandy Hook was not retroactive and would not have removed a single rifle from circulation.

Waldorf

(654 posts)
7. No laws were broken so no way to have prevented it. And this from a State with some of the
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:53 PM
Dec 2015

strictest gun control laws in the Country.

Waldorf

(654 posts)
9. If you look at California's laws what can be added? Mental health backgrounds added to the FBI
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:01 PM
Dec 2015

background check? Even the ACLU is against this.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
10. Ok
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:12 PM
Dec 2015

I'll reply, even though we'd probably make more progress without referring to people as "gun nuts" (I believe the 2A supports an individual right and own 1 gun myself - does that mean I'm a "gun nut"?). I haven't seen anyone on this website who completely opposes "additional gun control measures." Yeah, I oppose a gun ban, and also oppose AWB. But I support a number of other measures -- background checks, mandatory training, no firearms for domestic abusers, etc. All that said, you aren't going to keep firearms out of the hands of every person who wants to misuse them. If I could magic away all of the guns in the hands of criminals right now I'd do it, and then I might support a ban on the private ownership of firearms. But I'm not a magician.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
11. California has some of the most burdensome gun control laws in the country.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:56 PM
Dec 2015

This horrible incident just helps prove gun control doesn't work. In fact, California's "may issue" carry laws are probably partly responsible for the overall death toll. It could have been stopped sooner. See below.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83337910/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ok, gun nuts. Answer me t...