Gunman opens fire inside Los Angeles International Airport Terminal

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

[Bump]

Mark it down: TSA agents will wind up getting guns after this...and, it will be a giant cluster****.

[jerryforeverrice80]

cali has guns who would have thought.

[Demonpenz]

ban assault weapons.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

ban assault weapons.

While you're likely NOT serious the reality is that weapon as pictured was already banned in California. Since banning it 10X won't prevents incidents like this what do you do now?

The motivation of CA politicians has NEVER been about fighting crime when it comes to guns. It has always been about pushing a moral agenda. The fight that California is making isn't about reducing crime it's about criminalizing being a gun owner because they don't morally approve of ANYONE owning guns.

Case in point, certain cities in California, led by San Francisco, are pushing to make it a misdemeanor for anyone(including retired LEOs) to own a magazine capacity > 10 rounds. They claim this is about crime and it will be a 'deterrent'.

NYTimes did a survey recently of criminal shootings, they found that >90% of all the people prosecuted had extensive criminal history. It's safe to say for 85+% of those people it would have been a felony to even possess ANY gun regardless of the capacity of a magazine.

If it's already a felony to posses a firearm by most criminals involved in shooting and it STILL doesn't deter them, how will adding a misdemeanor based on the capacity of the magazine deter them further? Simply put it won't, adding a misdemeanor to a crime that's already a FELONY will have no added deterrence.

So if it's not about deterring crime then what it is about? Frankly who's going to be affected more by said regulation, criminals(which it won't deter) or a much larger number of otherwise legal gun owners?

In all cases these laws could be narrowly written to directly target crime. They aren't because crime isn't the target, gun owners are. So they make these laws as broad as possible so the vast majority of people affected by them are otherwise lawful citizens.

This isn't a left or right issue, this a power and politicians issue. On the left they morally object to ANYONE owning guns so they make it a crime to do so. On the right they object to anyone getting an abortion and so they make it a crime to do so.

At some point we have to tell both sides to stop making it a crime to disagree with your moral point of view.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

While you're likely NOT serious the reality is that weapon as pictured was already banned in California. Since banning it 10X won't prevents incidents like this what do you do now?

The motivation of CA politicians has NEVER been about fighting crime when it comes to guns. It has always been about pushing a moral agenda. The fight that California is making isn't about reducing crime it's about criminalizing being a gun owner because they don't morally approve of ANYONE owning guns.

Case in point, certain cities in California, led by San Francisco, are pushing to make it a misdemeanor for anyone(including retired LEOs) to own a magazine capacity > 10 rounds. They claim this is about crime and it will be a 'deterrent'.

NYTimes did a survey recently of criminal shootings, they found that >90% of all the people prosecuted had extensive criminal history. It's safe to say for 85+% of those people it would have been a felony to even possess ANY gun regardless of the capacity of a magazine.

If it's already a felony to posses a firearm by most criminals involved in shooting and it STILL doesn't deter them, how will adding a misdemeanor based on the capacity of the magazine deter them further? Simply put it won't, adding a misdemeanor to a crime that's already a FELONY will have no added deterrence.

So if it's not about deterring crime then what it is about? Frankly who's going to be affected more by said regulation, criminals(which it won't deter) or a much larger number of otherwise legal gun owners?

In all cases these laws could be narrowly written to directly target crime. They aren't because crime isn't the target, gun owners are. So they make these laws as broad as possible so the vast majority of people affected by them are otherwise lawful citizens.

This isn't a left or right issue, this a power and politicians issue. On the left they morally object to ANYONE owning guns so they make it a crime to do so. On the right they object to anyone getting an abortion and so they make it a crime to do so.

At some point we have to tell both sides to stop making it a crime to disagree with your moral point of view.

First off I agree with your post. I have not seen a picture of the gun and have no knowledge of what the gun was that he used. But I would like to know why you think it was already an illegal firearm in Calif? Because you can own an AR-15 in the State. All be it with a huge amount of Caveats.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

First off I agree with your post. I have not seen a picture of the gun and have no knowledge of what the gun was that he used. But I would like to know why you think it was already an illegal firearm in Calif? Because you can own an AR-15 in the State. All be it with a huge amount of Caveats.

The picture showed an AR platform with collapsible stock, pistol grip and next to it what looked like a standard capacity magazine. It's highly likely that either A the AR didn't have a 'fixed' magazine or B the magazine was > 10(if not both). Either would make the firearm a felony in CA(double combined that he was 23 and born in NJ).

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The picture showed an AR platform with collapsible stock, pistol grip and next to it what looked like a standard capacity magazine. It's highly likely that either A the AR didn't have a 'fixed' magazine or B the magazine was > 10(if not both). Either would make the firearm a felony in CA(double combined that he was 23 and born in NJ).

But if he had a bullet button to release the magazine it would be considered a fixed magazine. There are also many magazines available that appear to be a standard magazine but in fact only hold 10 rounds. The fact that he was born in NJ and 23 would not disqualify him from owning.

If you would like a good laugh or cry try following the Flow Chart in the link.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

[notorious]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The picture showed an AR platform with collapsible stock, pistol grip and next to it what looked like a standard capacity magazine. It's highly likely that either A the AR didn't have a 'fixed' magazine or B the magazine was > 10(if not both). Either would make the firearm a felony in CA(double combined that he was 23 and born in NJ).

Your information can't be correct.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

ban assault weapons.

No, ban a salt weapon.

[Kaepernick]

Originally Posted by loochy

No, ban a salt weapon.

They have them, you know.

[lewdog]

How is Salt weapon not in the red yet??

CP, I am disappointed.

[Chief Roundup]

This is probably heading to DC forum.

[lcarus]

Lots of shit for the media to talk about with this. TSA, guns, crazy people, TSA, guns, guns, "assault rifles", celebrities who were present, guns. Rachel Maddow's cock is probably hard as diamond. Anderson Cooper's vagina is probably dripping wet. Poor Chris Matthews wishes he had genitalia of any kind right now, the weird muppet.

[notorious]