California Gun Proposals to Make California the Most Evil Kingdom in the United States

Posted on February 22, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Police State, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , |

Never wanting to be left behind in having the most restrictive gun control laws, the State of California has unveiled a package of ten, count ’em, ten gun control proposals. (Thanks to my friend Ken, who brought this to my attention) It’s almost become like a competition among the States to see who can become the most draconian State in the Union.

These proposals include:

  • a ban on the sale of any semiautomatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine, meaning only single round, bolt action rifles would be legal.
  • They want to make some prohibitions apply to current firearms owners, not just future ones.
  • A background check would be required to purchase ammunition, in addition to the background check required for purchasing a firearm, and charge the purchaser a fee for that background check.
  • Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be banned, even those that are already owned would be outlawed.
  • All weapons would have to be registered. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that mandatory registration violates the Fifth Amendment. (Haynes v. United States)

According to, the proposals also include:

  • Making possession of hollow point bullets and similar “assault bullets” a felony.
  • Requiring the registration and reporting of all ammo purchases. Limits the number of rounds anyone can have at one time to 500 rounds.
  • Prohibiting anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept
  • Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from gun possession.

I have not been able to verify the list above, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Of course, there is very little coverage from the mainstream media, and that includes Fox News.

During the press conference, Democrat Senator Darrell Steinberg (President pro Tem), asked that if we register our cars, why not register our firearms. As I discussed with a reader at one time, it is because driving is a privilege, not a right.

“Critics will say that closing loopholes and gun regulations and circulation won’t stop gun violence in our neighborhoods, and they may have a small point, but it certainly isn’t a point that carries the day,” Steinberg said.

“We can save lives by getting guns out of the hands of those that should not have them.”

“We respect the Second Amendment, but even Justice Scalia, I can’t believe I am citing Justice Scalia, said in his opinion of upholding the right of gun ownership in Washington DC that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons, the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and here’s the key phrase, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sales of arms.”

“We respect the Second Amendment, but…” is becoming the new “I’m not a racist, but…”

So, I love how he cites a single opinion from Justice Scalia from a single case, and uses it as a blanket justification for these laws.

A pair of press releases from Darrell Steinberg. Senate Bill 140, and gun control proposals.

Here is the Senator’s press conference:

Look at all the cops in the background. The claim is that they are not only are they trying to save the lives of law enforcement officials, they are trying to save the lives of children (oh, Lord, here we go again. It’s for the children!). The beneficial side effect for the State is that it disarms the people, and limits them to single shot, bolt action rifles. The people will no longer be a threat to the government.

There are those, like New York Representative Jerrold Nadler who believe that only the government has the right to use violence: “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.  And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

One of the most repeated phrases in Steinberg’s press conference is “we have to guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them”. He doesn’t define who shouldn’t have them, however.

As you listen to the press conference, you can hear Steingberg take snarky shots at Justice Scalia, the NRA and firearms manufacturers.

Why is this receiving no coverage in the media? Why is the top story about a double amputee Olympic athlete who murdered his girlfriend in South Africa? Why is that news here? Who gives a fuck! Aren’t there more pressing issues? Even Fox News is beginning to get into line with all the other media outlets, and starting to slide more towards the left.

Lawmakers don’t give a damn about an individual’s rights, and invoke the “public safety” in order to move their government control agenda forward. Spock once said in a movie “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”. As much as I like that movie, I always thought that was such a bullshit line. The needs of the one (or the few) always takes precedence over the needs of the many because sooner or later, you will become one of the few who has to be sacrificed. Look at the Jews, the American Indian, the blacks back before 1964 (and to this day in many cases). Today, as I said once before, we voluntarily divide and sectionalize ourselves, making it easier for us to become “The Few”.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,728 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: