Bad Ideas that Sound Good | The Observer | Roz Rogoff | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

The Observer

By Roz Rogoff

E-mail Roz Rogoff

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and...  (More)

View all posts from Roz Rogoff

Bad Ideas that Sound Good

Uploaded: Aug 8, 2016

With Presidential politics heating up, Candidates are making the usual promises for "improvements." I have my doubts about how beneficial some of these plans are. So I'll take my shots at a couple of the better sounding ones.

Background checks on gun sales

President Obama has been trying to pass legislation that would require all gun dealers to conduct background checks on purchasers of guns. Sounds good, right? Don't we want to keep criminals or terrorists from purchasing guns? The FBI is even speeding up the checking process. "The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun."

But how well does this work? Adam Lanza, a clearly disturbed young man who killed many children and brave teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School didn't purchase the guns he used. His mother, who by all reports was a stellar citizen, bought the guns. Mr. Lanza broke into his mother's gun safe, killed her while she was sleeping, and used her guns for his shooting rampage at the elementary school.

Some people were very critical of Mrs. Lanza for having guns around her son and even taking him to a shooting range. I used to target shoot. It isn't a violent sport. It is in fact a very precise and calming sport. If you watch the Olympic shooting events you can see that target shooting isn't the fictional shoot-um-up you see in the movies.

Most guns used in crimes are not purchased. They are stolen. I had two riffles and a shotgun stolen from my house many years ago. I don't know if they were used in any crimes. They could have be resold on the black market many times and used for whatever purposes the person who stole or bought them wanted. This is more an issue of better policing and tracking down stolen guns than asking the burglars for a background check before they can steal them.

Raising the minimum wage

Income inequality was one of Bernie Sanders' major issues. He's right. There are the very, very rich, the not so rich middle class, and many hard working people at the bottom of the economic ladder. Wouldn't it be great to raise the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 or more?

The minimum wage in California is $10, but it is $13 in San Francisco and Gov. Brown just signed a bill increasing the state's minimum wage to $15/hr. over a six year period. New York also has a high minimum wage and Gov. Cuomo is increasing that too.

So now every hourly worker would be able to move into a nicer apartment or even buy a house. Nice thought but not likely.

We all know what happens when wages artificially go up. The cost of living in that region also goes up. So it really doesn't help as much as it sounds like it would. Not only that, a pay raise is often used as an incentive for good workers.

Joe makes the minimum wage of $10. Sally is paid $13 because she's a better, more valuable employee. If the minimum wage is raised to $13, Joe and Sally are making the same amount. Sally has been putting in extra time and effort, and now Joe is making the same amount without putting in any extra effort. Raising the minimum wage is a disincentive to work harder when everyone is getting the same pay.

Comments

 +   5 people like this
Posted by SHale99, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 8, 2016 at 11:29 am

SHale99 is a registered user.

oh boy the NRA won't be happy.....

I'll see this, about that. No 'normal' person needs a fully automatic assault rifle. If they think they have a need, should be via license only.

And if a nit wit believes that spray and pray is a rule, then they ARE a nit wit.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 8, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Billie is a registered user.

"Most guns used in crimes are not purchased. They are stolen."

Roz, I thought you might be interested in the following articles:
"More than 80% of guns used in mass shootings obtained legally." Web Link
"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes" Web Link

Adam Lanza shot "154 times in 5 minutes . . .killing 20 children and six adults with a Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle. The bushmaster was loaded with a 30-round capacity magazine." He had several other guns and high capacity magazines with him. We'll never know why his mother had so many guns and more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition in her house. They sure didn't do her a whole lot of good if it was for self-protection from all the criminals, drug cartel thugs, and rapists from Mexico when it turns out it was her son who was a terrorist.

High capacity magazines and assault type weapons aren't for hunting. They aren't for target practice. The only purpose for these weapons is to kill as many people in the shortest period of time possible. I would like us to proceed with not only registration and background checks on *all* gun sales, but also limit the sale and use of assault type weapons to our military and specialized police forces like SWAT. If these actions were to keep just one mass shooting like Sandy Hook from happening, wouldn't it be worth it?

"154 shots in 5 minutes: Sandy Hook warrants released" Web Link


 +   2 people like this
Posted by rosalindr, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 8, 2016 at 4:49 pm

rosalindr is a registered user.

Billie,

Than you for filling in the gaps I left with your thorough research. I also agree with SHale99 that nobody needs assault weapons unless they are in the military.

The NRA has changed since I was a member 40 years ago. Then it was truly an organizations for shooters and hunters, as described in Wikipedia. "Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." I've never been a hunter and I don't endorse it, but hunting as a means of controlling animal overpopulation has its place.

The article in Wikipedia states the politicization of the NRA began in 1975. I didn't realize it was that long ago, but it has become even more powerful and politically influential now, which I do not support.

Roz


 +   8 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 8, 2016 at 8:46 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Oh that pesky 2nd amendment...

I will say this though, I think the gun show loop-hole is insane. The way I see it, if you have to go through rigorous background checks at a licensed gun dealer, then you should have to do that in ANY venue. And if you're a private citizen who sells your collection, I think that too should be subject to background certification.

It just seems silly not to do that.

And Roz you are 100% correct re/ minimum wage. I've been to a few sit-down restaurants - chillis comes to mind - that now allow you to choose between having your server take your order, or use a notebook-like device. Fast food restaurants are next, I suppose, and that's a good thing.

I wouldn't attribute it all to minimum wages, because I think they would have been going in that direction anyway just due to technology advances.

And btw I noticed that Chilis no longer uses busboys...wonder why?

Dan


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 9, 2016 at 7:43 am

Billie is a registered user.

Roz,
It's truly a shame the NRA has such a stranglehold on Congress with their ginned up nonsense about having to protect against the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Just as ridiculous as Wayne LaPierre's mantra “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” We'd have to ask the cops in Dallas, San Diego, Baton Rouge, etc. to see how well that's working. Or, on the other hand, the problem with the "good guy[s] with gun[s]" reacting badly and killing unnecessarily. Contrary to the politics of the NRA, arming every man, woman and child is not the answer.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Herman Glates is a registered user.

Strict gun laws didn’t stop the mass shootings in France.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

All governments fail. It’s just a matter of time. When our government slides into tyranny, and eventually it will, you will need an assault rifle. Lots of them. When that happens, I don’t want the government to have a list of lawful gun owners so it can target those people.

This country has beaten the odds and survived for over 240 years, in part because the government had reason to fear its armed citizens. The government must be kept on its toes.

Listen up Commie liberals. You think Hillary will appoint judges that will take away my 2nd amendment rights? You can bite me. The 2nd Amendment didn’t give me my gun rights. God did. So why don’t you go move to Russia or some other crummy place. And take Hillary, Bill, and all his floozies with you.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by SHale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 10, 2016 at 5:22 pm

SHale is a registered user.

.....A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....

I don't buy the argument the above grants anybody the right to have any type of gun. Certainly not a fully automatic weapon ie spray and pray you hit something. God forbid you have to AIM and fire ONE AT A TIME!

Regular Americans are NOT a militia; regulated or not. sheesh


 +   9 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 10, 2016 at 5:37 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

SHale,

",the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...." (emphasis mine)

I guess this sentence just completely mystifies you.

Heh!


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Roz , a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 10, 2016 at 9:00 pm

Roz is a registered user.

Dan,

The wording of the 2nd Amendment mystifies a lot of people. I've written about the Bill of Rights before. These were primarily not for citizens, but for Colonies. The purpose was to protect the rights of the Colonies against a too-powerful Federal Government, so all of the Colonies existing at the time of the Revolution from England would sign on to the newly "United States."

The battle between State's Rights and the Federal Government has continued ever since, with a Civil War to determine which side won. Well we know which side won, although the Confederate States are still arguing the issue.

Herman, I didn't know God was in the weapons business. Does Allah bestow the same privileges on his followers? Many of them appear to agree with you on that.

SHale, The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, which included the 2nd Amendment, was adopted in 1791. The weapons used by most militias and hunters at that time were muskets, which took about 2 minutes to load. So the possibility that a single shooter could fire multiple shots all at once would have been science-fiction in 1791, and yet "the right to bare arms," has kept up with modern weapons as if that's what James Madison envisioned all along.

Roz



 +   4 people like this
Posted by SHale99, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 6:40 am

SHale99 is a registered user.

Dan: .........A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State......

I guess that sentence you sorta skipped over and didn't read?

kerplop


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 6:45 am

Herman Glates is a registered user.

I got a right to defend myself, lady. No law gave me that right. And no law can take it away. It’s universal and inalienable.

It today’s world, a musket ain’t sufficient to protect yourself. In the not too distant future, a handgun might not cut it either.

So why don’t you take your snarky comments about Allah and James Madison and take a walk.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 7:00 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Roz,

Actually Roz, it doesn't mystify the courts, or the right side of the isle. It only mystifies those on the left who refuse to understand that I have the natural right of self-preservation by any means at my disposal. This includes firearms with 30 round magazines or knives or clubs or whatever is lawful.


SHale99,

Actually no, did you notice the comma in the middle of that full sentence?

The founders were clearly referring to a militia AND individuals ("People") and this has been upheld by NUMEROUS supreme court cases.

How obtuse can one be? (rhetorical)

Dan


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 10:45 am

Billie is a registered user.

Great post, Roz! I especially liked your line "I didn't know God was in the weapons business . . "

The history on how the NRA has progressed from a hunter's organization to an organization that has a political and monetary stranglehold on Congress and Congressional, as well as Presidential, races is laid out pretty thoroughly in this article from Politico. Web Link

Interesting to note that "[f]rom 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun." In 1990, conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger "described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun as a "fraud on the American public.”" That fraud began, as you noted up-thread, in the late 1970s when the NRA ginned up their campaign to revise history with a flood of NRA-funded pseudo intellectual law reviews and essays.

There were really only *two* SCOTUS opinions that stated "an individual [has a] right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense." The first was in 2008, with the SCOTUS decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller' which applied to D.C., and the second the 2010 "McDonald v. City of Chicago" decision ruling that 2nd Amendment "rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Web Link

The 2008 decision majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, also stated that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." That "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." It further stated that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or *laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms*." [emphasis mine] Web Link


 +   5 people like this
Posted by SHale99, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 11:09 am

SHale99 is a registered user.

Dan: U do like to pick and chose, aye? The simple fact is 'regular' Joe/Jane Americans are not a militia; and no way you can sway me (or anybody) the language meant to say anybody can have any type of gun. Please, READ it again. You know, like from the beginning, not just the part you like.

Agree to disagree.

bottom line nobody needs a fully automatic weapon and/or an assault rifle. Nobody can justify having either type. and if that drives the NRA folks, bananas, so-be-it.
'nuff said and good reading


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 12:17 pm

Herman Glates is a registered user.

No one said nothing about rights being unlimited. Stop putting words in people’s mouths, son.

Scalia’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fine. But you start packing courts with Commies, there’s going to be a problem.

Plenty of people like assault rifles, bud. They’re here to stay, at least in the free parts of this country.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 1:25 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

SHale99

I don't need to read it again. The fact that it says "militia" and "people" is self explanatory and is SETTLED LAW, no matter if you "agree to disagree". The courts have simply ruled on this time and time again.

And I didn't say anyone needs a fully automatic weapon, or a nuclear bomb for that matter. LOL! I swear if you guys weren't so tone deaf you'd be dangerous.

Truly comical.




 +   4 people like this
Posted by SHale99, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 1:47 pm

SHale99 is a registered user.

Dan: Sorry, but you failed to sway me to your opinion. The authors only intended for a militia to be armed; not every breathing soul.

Certainly, today, the law says anybody can have a gun and occasionally there are even background checks.

BUT there should be no NRA outrage of outlawing fully automatic 'spray and pray' assault type weapons.

If one is so inept that they can't aim, pull trigger, shoot ONE bullet and hit something, well said 'person' shouldn't have a weapon.

Amazing.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

SHale99,

Once AGAIN you are mistaken. You're not the one I'm trying to sway.

Any lurker on this thread can look up case law and the actual words themselves and come to their own conclusion.

Dan


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Glates,

Jefferson never said that. Why do people need to keep repeating all these phony baloney quotes?

Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Roz , a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 12, 2016 at 9:56 pm

Roz is a registered user.

It's ironic that the gun rights people are using the 14th Amendment to oppose state and regional control over gun ownership rights. The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to oppose Jim Crow laws Web Link . The 14th Amendment requires that all US Citizens receive equal protection under the law Web Link . Jim Crow laws in many states discriminated against Black citizens and other minorities.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 9:01 am

Herman Glates is a registered user.

Ok, so Jefferson didn’t say it. So what.

It’s still a good reason.

Using the 14th Amendment to protect personal rights ain’t ironic.

What? Do you think only racists support gun rights?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 9:09 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

BobB

But he did say: ""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements" : Web Link
Safe link from Monticello.org.

So what's your point?





 +   3 people like this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 1:56 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@DKHSK,

Because it says something different. Glates' quote gives a reason when Jefferson gave none. What is the point of attributing a quote to a person when that person never said it. Glates' quote says nothing about "tyranny in government". Jefferson doesn't give a reason. Self defense against criminals? Defense against a corrupt government? Hunting? All of the above? Could be. He doesn't say.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 1:57 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Above should read "Jefferson's quote says nothing about "tyranny in government"


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 3:24 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

BobB,

It doesn't matter. Self defense against a tyrannical government is no different than self defense from a home invader.

Unless you think that the Redcoats were actually the good guys, Glates quote, while not attributed correctly, is valid nonetheless.

If you don't like firearms its simple, don't own them. Otherwise, they're legal and there isn't a darned thing you guys can do about it.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 4:12 pm

BobB is a registered user.

"... while not attributed correctly, is valid nonetheless."

Okay fine, then leave it unattributed. What is the point of a false attribution? Maybe Jefferson didn't mean it that way. We don't know.

Imagine if Glates had said:

Carl Marx said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Reads a little differently that way.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

BobB,

So Jefferson says something that is very similar in tone and meaning to what HG says and now you're arguing semantics?

Talk about moving goal posts.

Fact: Guns are legal. 30-round mags are legal.

Oh...and CONSTITUTIONAL too.

Dan


 +   6 people like this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2016 at 10:28 pm

BobB is a registered user.

"Similar in tone?"

He didn't say it. Why make up false quotes? It only discredits the speaker.

If you're going to some kind of interpretation, say so. Don't pretend that the speaker really said it. He didn't. It wasn't even close.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 9:52 am

Billie is a registered user.

"Self defense against a tyrannical government is no different than self defense from a home invader."

Same basic ridiculous argument the Confederate states used to secede from the Union and start the Civil War - all because the "tyrannical government", led by President Lincoln, wanted to abolish slavery. Or, as North Carolina stated in their "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States", the "submersion of the Constitution . . . by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

In Alabama, Secession Commissioner S.F. Hale hysterically tied the "tyrannical government" to their homes being invaded and a declaration of war: ". . . the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions - nothing less than an open declaration of war - for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

You'd think Wayne LaPierre had been born in the deep South clinging to his Confederate roots . . .

"What This Cruel War Was Over" Web Link
"Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States" Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Herman Glates, a resident of Danville,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 11:26 am

Herman Glates is a registered user.

Why are you talking about the civil war? You’re off topic.

FYI, the South left the union over slavery. But Lincoln chose war. He could’ve responded differently.

You warmongers always have your excuses for killing people.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 11:30 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Ah...so the circle is complete. Billie just made the connection between guns and slavery.

A racist dog whistle if I've ever seen one...absolutely one of the most silliest arguments I've ever heard.

LOL! You can't make these things up!

So to square the circle, Billie provides anecdotal evidence that self defense against a tyrannical government and home invasion = slavery.

Genius!


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 11:35 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

BobB,

If this thread is about guns, I'm not quite sure why you continue to focus on HG the commenter. Is it because you cannot put forth an honest effort to discuss guns and statistics?

Much like Billie, you're filled with a lot of hyperbole, but very little content.

I know you have "beliefs", but that does not = fact.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 2:31 pm

BobB is a registered user.

"I know you have "beliefs", but that does not = fact."

Fact -- Jefferson didn't say that. It was falsely attributed. That is a fact.

"Beliefs" didn't enter into the discussion.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 14, 2016 at 8:46 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

1. Fact: guns are legal.
2. Fact: the constitution allows for the arming of militias AND "people".
3. Fact: the 2nd amendment has gone though many court case upholding #'s 1 and 2.

Everything else is noise, just like your focus on HG.

Dan


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 3:09 am

Billie is a registered user.

Wayne LaPierre, the face of the NRA, is all too fond of ginning up fear by blowing his "racist dog whistle":

Wayne LaPierre, "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace", Feb 3, 2013:
"What people all over the country fear today, is being abandoned by their government. If a tornado hits, if a hurricane hits, if a riot occurs, that they're going to be out there alone, and the only way they will protect themselves, in the cold, in the dark, when they are vulnerable, is with a firearm."

Wayne LaPierre, "The Daily Caller", Feb 13, 2013:
"[T]he border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping." (sound familiar?)

"Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face - not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that."

"After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all."

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne, "New York Daily News", Feb 15, 2013:
""[Wayne LaPierre's remarks on Hurricane Sandy] sounded good. Too bad it’s not true," said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne. “(In) the 60th Precinct in Coney Island, it was hardly hell week - there were no murders, no rapes and no shootings,” he said. The same was true in the neighboring 61st Precinct . . . Overall, crime fell by 25% . . . And Browne delivered another inconvenient truth for the NRA man - the city actually went a record eight straight days without a single murder."


"Wayne LaPierre on chances for compromise in gun control debate" Web Link
"Gun Laws and Legislation - Stand and fight" Web Link
"NRA chief LaPierre claims 'looters ran wild in south Brooklyn' after Sandy, but Coney Island residents say he is full of it" Web Link


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Billie, a resident of Mohr Park,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 3:11 am

Billie is a registered user.

Oh, and btw, Gov Brown just signed six new bills that will, among other things:
- Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners
- Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.
- Close the "bullet button loophole"


Web Link
Web Link


 +   3 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 7:48 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Want to see a real racist? I give you candidate Clintons own husband: Web Link

Pull quote: "the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear."

Of course he was talking to a Kennedy when he said this!

Dan



 +   2 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 8:35 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

So the federal government makes a law regarding back group checks for gun buyer and what happens? They can't perform the background checks within their own guidelines, to the tune of over 270k of applications: Web Link

According to the law, the FBI must perform background checks within three days of a purchase. If the check isn't complete in three days, the purchase goes through anyway.

In fairness, upon completing the background check, the FBI has been able to go to some of those buyers and request confection of the arms. But come on!

But by all means, let's talk about that evil NRA and WAYNE LAPIERRE!

Only government can be so incompetent and continue with their phony baloney jobs.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 8:36 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

Edit...auto-spell went haywire. Too many too change...


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Roz , a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Roz is a registered user.

The point of my blog is Background checks don't work if the person using the gun isn't the person who bought it. This happened in the case of Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner's shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Loughner also used his parents' guns.

Background checks also don't work if they are not done properly. Dylann Roof, who killed nine people during a church service, purchased his gun because of flaws in the system and mistakes made by FBI agents and local prosecutors. Web Link

Sixty Minutes recently reran a story on "smart guns" that required a thumb print to be operated. A gun dealer interviewed for the show said he received threats when he tried to sell smart guns in his store. Web Link

The recent murder of two Bailiffs in a Michigan courthouse by a prisoner who stole the gun from an officer would not have been possible if that officer had a smart gun. Web Link Will the people opposing smart guns take responsibility for the murder of those Bailiffs?

Roz


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Roz,

Here's the scenario for an RFID "smart gun": Your gun is in your bedroom. You are resting comfortably on your Lazy Boy in the living room and your RFID tether is in the kitchen. A home invader drops in with his weapon.

See the problem?

In addition, technology fails. How many times have you seen a delay on your computer or cell phone? The same thing happens in so-called "smart guns".

When engaged in self-defense, seconds matter.

BTW, I'm not against the concept of smart guns, but for defensive purposes they just aren't "smart".

Dan


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 7:42 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Roz,

If you and others are convinced that smart guns are the way to go, then why haven't police departments used them?

Might it be because they use their guns for defensive reasons?

Makes you think.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by rosalindr, a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 8:14 pm

rosalindr is a registered user.

Dan,

In my opinion (which is what counts here), the RFID chip would have to be surgically implanted in the gun owner's arm or hand, or a thumb print or hand print should be used.

Police are resisting smart guns because Obama wants to buy them. I think that's just political backlash.

Roz


 +   2 people like this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Aug 15, 2016 at 10:33 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

So you're of the opinion that people should be forced to have a surgical procedure to own a gun?

If I follow your belief logically, given that there are provably bad people who are also parents, should they be sterilized so they don't have any more kids?

Slippery slope.

Obama is the head of our Federal Government. He can't make local/state police buy the guns he wants them to buy.




To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Tri-Valley cities rank high in poll
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 572 views