Gun manufacturers continue to aid gun banners

[boomerang]

By taking the teeth from the sheepdog, you aren't protecting the sheepdog or the sheep. You're turning the sheep and the sheepdog over to the wolves.

I disagree. If they violate the sheep's rights (enforce unconstitutional laws) they are wolves or feral dogs, not beneficial sheepdogs.

[Darwood]

By taking the teeth from the sheepdog, you aren't protecting the sheepdog or the sheep. You're turning the sheep and the sheepdog over to the wolves.

I disagree. If they violate the sheep's rights (enforce unconstitutional laws) they are wolves or feral dogs, not beneficial sheepdogs.

It's kinda like the independent contractors that were on the Death Star 2.

[flintknapper]

Not exactly. The premise is this: Once firearms are no longer obtainable (by police, by military, by swat teams, by civilians, or anyone) it will cause such an uproar...that CA lawmakers will be "forced" to change their laws.

That requires there to be no law enforcement exceptions, exemptions, loopholes or similar manure.

Yup!

[The Annoyed Man]

I keep hearing about how conservative and freedom loving the people outsid of LA and Frisco are. I believe it is about time they walked the walk.

I believe that you're forgetting a crucial fact about all of those freedom loving people (defined as "Californians who support gun rights") "outside of LA and Frisco," and that is that those people comprise a significant minority of the state's population. First of all, Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans in California. Secondly, California Republicans often (but not always) tend to be less conservative than in many other states. Governor Schwarzenegger is fairly typical, and he's not really a conservative. Schwarzenegger supported (before he was governor) the AWB, and he continues to be a gun control advocate and to make public statements to that effect.

Now, here are some salient population facts about California which you failed to consider:

Population of California: 36,457,549

Population of California counties that vote overwhelmingly liberal/left:
Population of Alameda County: 1,457,426
Population of Contra Costa Country: 1,024,319
Population of San Mateo County: 705,499
Population of Marin County: 248,742
Population of San Francisco County: 744,041
Population of Los Angeles County: 9,948,081
Population of Santa Barbara County: 400,335
Population of Monterey County: 410,206
Population of Santa Cruz County: 249,705
Population of Santa Clara County: 1,731,281
Population of San Benito County: 55,842
Population of Solano County: 411,680
Population of Sacramento County: 1,374,724
Population of Napa County: 133,522
Population of Sonoma County: 466,891
Population of Lake County: 65,933
Population of Mendocino County: 88,109
Population of Humbolt County: 128,330
Population of Imperial County: 160,301
Population of Mono County: 12,754
Population of Alpine County: 1,180
Total population of the counties listed above: 32,818,901, or roughly 90% of the state's population.

California has 58 counties in all. That means that 21 of the state's 58 counties (36%), which represent roughly 25% of California's geography, have roughly 90% of the state's population; and that 90% votes overwhelmingly liberal on most issues. In California, which may or may not be the same as Texas in that regard, the vast majority of liberals do not support gun rights, period. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if those Californians who do actively support gun rights "walk the walk" as you put it until their shoes wear out, the state will continue to infringe on those rights because the overwhelming majority of the state's voters want it that way, and it's not really fair to the state's gun rights advocates to accuse them of not "walking the walk." The conservatives that can leave, do. The ones that stay tend to have good reasons for staying. The answer isn't all that simplistic.

[srothstein]

I propose a slightly different answer. The companies should just not deal with the governmental agencies in California but still sell to the public. This would mean that there would still be distributors at the wholesale and retail levels in CA. If the government wants a gun, they can go to the same retail dealer as the public and get the same weapons as they allow the citizens to own.

There are two different groups to be considered in this, and the smaller group will be hurt less than the larger. The large cities and the state will have to pay quite a bit more for their weapons and will not be able to obtain all of the super weapons they want. They will still be able to get what is needed to do their job. They will eventually cause the public to look at this as taxes are raised due to the higher costs.

The smaller agencies will not be hurt nearly as much since they very rarely get to deal with the manufacturers anyway. They have to go through the police distributors anyway. They will see a small increase in prices, but they will not be affected as much.

The tie in between the legislative and executive branch is that all laws should apply equally to the citizens and the governmental agencies. Even if the people do not put the pressure on the legislators, the police will when they get hurt financially by this tactic.

[anygunanywhere]

Annoyed Man, I agree with the political side of your point. Yes, Kali votes left.

Population and voting record aside, nothing will change until they vote change.

Wait. That sounds like BHO.

Works both ways, only when they vote for freedom change will be positive.

Anygun

[petroleumag07]

I really find this a stretch. Gun control is a product of politicians, not law enforcement agencies. Most agencies have a budget and pick within their budget.

We can ask American companies to stop selling in California, but then you will have foreign companies step in and reap the benefits.

Also, its not the law enforcement folks who want the guns. Its the lawmakers. The law enforcement guys having the best equipment can reduce crime, which pokes many holes in gun control arguments.

Why do you think Texas has loose gun laws, because there is less crime than D.C., Philly, Chicago, Detroit, or LA. The less crime, the tougher it is for politicians to take guns.

This author is pretty far off base. We have a bunch of people risking their lives fighting street gangs and drug dealers, we should wish the best equipment on them that can be found.

[Liberty]

I really find this a stretch. Gun control is a product of politicians, not law enforcement agencies. Most agencies have a budget and pick within their budget.

We can ask American companies to stop selling in California, but then you will have foreign companies step in and reap the benefits.

Also, its not the law enforcement folks who want the guns. Its the lawmakers. The law enforcement guys having the best equipment can reduce crime, which pokes many holes in gun control arguments.

Why do you think Texas has loose gun laws, because there is less crime than D.C., Philly, Chicago, Detroit, or LA. The less crime, the tougher it is for politicians to take guns.

This author is pretty far off base. We have a bunch of people risking their lives fighting street gangs and drug dealers, we should wish the best equipment on them that can be found.

I agree, if we are going to boycott someone we should boycott those closer to home who have had direct impact on our rights and not give business to those who have worked actively to prevent CHLers from the right to bare their arms. The San Antonio Chamber of Commerce comes to mind. They have done more to hurt our cause than Kimber has or even Los Angeles. I used to spend 3 or 4 weekends a year their. Now I will risk running out of gas before I help line those jerks pockets

[bdickens]

How is LAPD "gun banners?" They are a law enforcement agency sworn to and tasked with upholding the law. They don't make the law, they just enforce it. When I was an NCO, I had to enforce a whole bunch of silly regulations, stupid policies, and boneheaded orders. It wasn't my place to sift through them and cherry-pick the ones I liked. You think I agreed with picking up trash along Bragg Boulevard while we had jobs over 30 days in the shop? No. And I argued about it with the Shop Officer. But not in front of the troops.

This whole idea of boycotting Kimber because they "support gun banners" is stupid and its lazy. It's trying to get the gun manufacturers to do your dirty work for you because you're too lazy to vote, too lazy to write letters to your representatives and to the newspaper edtiors, and too lazy to talk to your friends and neighbors and convince them to do the same.

[srothstein]

LAPD was confirmed as a gun banning organization when they went to the city council and asked for and supported the ban on .50BMG rifles. They are the ones who irritated Barrett by using his rifle for political reasons, especially ones he disagreed with.

[bdickens]

Now was that the LAPD officers on the street, or was that the desk-bound LAPD brass?

[srothstein]

It was the brass, which makes the organization gun banning. Of course, I am fairly sure the average street cop does not support their position.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am thinking that if all manufacturers of guns refused to sell guns in Kalifornia, the anti's would declare victory. Getting all guns out of society is the ultimate fantasy for them. They could then direct all their energy towards developing the perfect Utopian society. Life would be grand in Kalifornia...no death...no crime...no hunger...no pain. Kind of a heaven on earth. I can just see the dancing flower children now.

I went off on the dream for a minute there. But my point is...wouldn't refusing to sell guns to anyone in Kalifornication be gun banning from the manufacturer?

[bdickens]

"It was the brass...."

Well there you go. So we punish the officer on the street who is trying his best to do the right thing and protect people while getting paid peanuts by denying him the tools he needs to do that very difficult and under appreciated job.

[Mr.Scott]

The only way to fight this is for ALL gun manufacturers to stop selling to anyone in CA, governments or consumers. Nothing in California will change until the voting consumers overturn the status quo when they are fed up with the shenanigans the elite socialist predominantly democrat and RINO enemies of freedom and champions of tyranny are pouring down the throats of the bleating sheep feeding at the government slop.

I keep hearing about how conservative and freedom loving the people outsid of LA and Frisco are. I believe it is about time they walked the walk.

I can't find the rant off thingy.

Anygunanywhere

I have to agree with this. It may take a drastic measure of the MFGers to all stop selling in California and when crime statistics keep coming out showing the number of gun deaths has not declined, and possibly increased, plus home invasions on the increase, the people of California, then will actually start seeing the errors of their ways and demand that they be given the rights that other Americans enjoy.