Gun Control | The Observer | Roz Rogoff | |

Local Blogs

The Observer

By 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

Gun Control

Uploaded: Apr 11, 2013
Gun Control is an issue that comes up whenever there's a horrible tragedy and fades away with the national memories of it until the next horrible tragedy. So I'm going to weigh in on the pros and cons of what's being proposed while the topic is still hot.

First of all I want to make clear that my positions are not all one side or the other. Twenty-odd years ago I was a member of the NRA. Not because I believed in their radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or their lobbying efforts to control Congress, but because I liked target shooting and the NRA took over a target range in Santa Monica, so I had to be an NRA member to use it.

Target shooting isn't violent or Dirty Harry, "Make my day." It's not shoot'em ups or bang, bang, bang. You must be very calm and focused to hit the small spot in the middle a target 50' away. Olympic shooters time their heart beats between pulling the trigger to be as steady as possible.

I started shooting in the late 80's when some neighbors invited me to the shooting range in Santa Monica. I tried it out and found it very relaxing. My first riffle was a Marlin 60 with a 14 shot magazine. It was cheap and handy and fun to shoot but not very accurate, and every once in a while a hot shell casing would pop out and land on my neck causing a minor burn.

I moved up to a Remington bolt action center shot 22. I don't remember which model it was, but it cost around $165 20+ years ago. It wasn't top of the line but it was a really nice riffle. I liked the craftsmanship in it. I added a scope and a padded gun case. That was a really neat riffle.

Unfortunately both of my riffles and a shotgun I bought for skeet shooting but never got around to using were stolen from my house along with some Swatch watches. I suspected the guy across the street did it, but I didn't have any proof.

I realized that keeping guns in the house isn't a deterrent but an enticement to thieves. Someone on the Pleasanton Weekly said I should have had them in a gun safe, but I never thought I needed one. A gun safe is to keep young children from playing with your guns. Anyone else can find a way to break into one.

I heard a story on the news about a gang of thieves that targeted police officers homes because they were looking for guns. So they broke in and stole the gun safe with all the officer's guns conveniently packed up for them.

Adam Lanza had no trouble breaking into his mother's gun safe. So that's not a means to keep guns from being stolen or used by the wrong people. That's why I don't believe background checks would be very effective in keeping guns out of the wrong hands either.

The guns Adam used were all purchased by his mother, who by all reports was a model citizen. I doubt a background check would reveal she had a crazy son. There are strict laws against releasing medical records. Background checks that include checking on relatives sound way too invasive to me.

I agree with limiting magazines to 10 bullets. My Marlin held 14, and that's the top selling riffle in the country. So maybe the limit should be 15 bullets. This could have kept the carnage down at Newtown and Aurora, and even Gabby Gifford's shooting.

There's nothing in the Constitution about how many bullets anyone can have. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was written there was no such thing as a bullet or a repeating riffle. The most sophisticated firearm available was a flintlock musket.

I'm also for the restriction against private ownership of "assault" riffles. These are not target weapons and are unfair for hunting. The practice of raising animals on ranches and inviting duffer hunters to shoot these poor creatures like clay targets is really distasteful to me. That's where Dick Chaney shot his lawyer friend in the face. I could make a joke about shooting lawyers, but there are too many lawyers in my family for that to be funny.

So what was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in getting the Colonies to sign on to the Constitution? The Bill of Rights was used to mollify opponents in each Colony's government. Remember these were 13 separate Colonies of Britain. Each Colony wanted to keep its separate identity, but they all needed a central Government to coordinate the relationships among them and internationally without becoming another Britain.

That was the purpose of guaranteeing each Colony control over the rights in the Bill of Rights. This was a political maneuver to get all 13 colonies to sign on. It wasn't a promise to the colonial citizens; it was a promise to the Governors in control of those Colonies.

There would be no national religion, because many of the Colonists or their ancestors came to America to escape whichever national religion was imposed on them. However, the states could establish their own preferred religion, and anyone who wasn't part of it could not run for office in that state. Most states prevented Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other minority religions from holding state office, but anyone could hold National office if they could be elected to it.

The Second Amendment gave the Colonies the right to regulate militias, and it gave them the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't give the right to citizens to own cannons or tanks or bombs. The states can set their own rules about how guns should be controlled. And that's where I believe it should stay.

However, the Federal Government should set rules about ammunition. For example particularly deadly forms of ammunition like hollow point bullets, could be treated like restricted drugs and require the police equivalent of a prescription to buy. A similar restriction could be placed on the number of bullets purchased at a time or magazines that hold more than 15 bullets. These are reasonable controls that don't even touch the 2nd Amendment.

I am in favor of licensing guns like cars and requiring a gun handling test like a test drive and insurance to cover accidental injuries or deaths. Every gun registered should have a ballistic test, so if the gun is stolen and used in a crime it can be traced back to the original owner or licensee. This could be a great tool in catching and convicting criminals and preventing crime.

If the NRA really represented gun owners, they would be more like the AAA in offering gun insurance and safety training. Instead the NRA has become a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers and sellers. Their goal strayed away from helping gun owners and became a means to control Congress so that gun sellers can sell their wares to anyone with the money to buy them.

Consider this, if guns were licensed by each state, like cars, that would create thousands of jobs giving safe gun handling classes and tests, registering licenses, selling insurance. This would not be a bad thing, huh?
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by Raymond, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm

You say, "... my positions are not all one side or the other."

Then you say (in the same paragraph, no less) that the NRA has a "radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" and that they worked on "lobbying efforts to control Congress."

Sure glad that your opinions are not one-sided.

The first two paragraphs of your article are all that anyone needs to read.

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 11, 2013 at 4:42 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.


Apparently the first two paragraphs are all you feel you need to read. Heaven forbid you might read something in my blog you agree with now that you have set yourself up to be so sure what else I'm going to say.


Posted by mloliver, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 11, 2013 at 7:03 pm

mloliver is a registered user.

It was a well balanced article, Roz. (That generally means I agree with you in substance.) If you haven't been shooting lately, you might not be aware of some of the existing restrictions. CA had the most restrictive gun laws in the US until NY's latest restrictions. In CA to legally purchase a gun, you need to pass a background check, learn how to use the weapon, and then wait 10 days to pick up the gun you purchased. California restricts magazines to 10 shots. Possession of a magazine holding over 10 is illegal. There are also many restrictions about how the gun can be legally transported. That's great for law abiding citizens, but doesn't do much for the scoff-law with his loaded gun under the seat of his car. Therein lies a problem. It is also nearly impossible to get a concealed weapon permit in CA unless you are a member of law enforcement.

I also have a concern about the definition of "assault" weapon. Some politicians use assault and semi-automatic synonymously. A semi-automatic is not an assault weapon, but an automatic (like a machine gun) is.

I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more about this in the future.


Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 11, 2013 at 7:50 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.


Thanks for the comment. I know California's laws are very strict, and yet there is so much gun violence in some communities that these laws don't do much good. That's why I'm somewhat cynical about them.

You can tell my dislike for the NRA. Back when I was shooting it was better than it is now. Gun owners like Raymond, who believe the NRA is helping them, are being duped. The NRA is a manipulative, power hungry organization.

I consider semi-automatic guns "assault" weapons. I know these are not literally "assault" weapons, which is why I put "assault" in quotes, but when it is too easy to kill a bunch of people or even helpless animals, then they should be regulated.

The original law against assault weapons was signed by the first President Bush after a massacre of children at a Stockton elementary school in 1989. "President George H. W. Bush signed an executive order (the Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle Ban) banning importation of assault weapons." Senator Diane Feinstein authored the Federal Assault Weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994 Web Link largely because of the playground shooting in 1989.

Posted by Ms. Bunny, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 12, 2013 at 9:04 am

I appreciate your objectivity Roz, even though I can't abide by all your ideas of restrictions. I am also reminded? California has some of the toughest control laws ALREADY in the United States. I definitely believe in the Right to Bear Arms, our Second Amendment. Yet I also believe in the Assault rifle ban (which should have never been lifted) as well as limiting ammunition purchases and doing more thorough background checks (-as in if you've been incarcerated for mental illness of any kind? You should not be able to own a gun) I am disturbed about some of the NRA's positions BUT, it's clear we do need an advocate group for gun ownership in America (probably more than one, as we have...) BTW? It's pretty easy currently to check gun ownership/origin and use through ballistic tests with handguns in this state.

Posted by Raymond, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm

I don't have to eat a whole sandwich to know that it's bad...

Posted by , a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 13, 2013 at 10:01 am

Roz, you are a fine person, and a dedicated community member, but the Dirkarino must disagree with your column. You are not as informed as you think you are when it comes to firearms. You actually spread misinformation with your ignorance.

1) Hollow point bullets are safer than full metal jackets. Full metal jacket bullets can easily fly through inside and outside walls of homes. Hollow points are more likely to mushroom and stop, due to the hollow point absorbing material. All the fools out there who say hollow point bullets are evil are ignorant and are a perfect example of people who run off about an issue they know nothing about.
2) You mention assault rifles, an imply that the AR15 is an assault rifle, which by definition it is not. Have you ever shot an AR, no. Have you ever handled an AR, no. This is obvious to anyone who has. The AR15 is easy to handle. It has virtually zero recoil and is incredibly accurate because of this. The .223 Remington round, or 5.56x45 if you will, is unique in that the bullets tend to yaw and tumble when hitting objects. This, just like hollow points end up being safer, because they are less likely to fly through walls. This rifle is incredibly well suit for home defense. Most experts, which, I am one, will inform you that this is a far easier weapon to handle and use appropriate than a shotgun, or handgun. Constitutionality of a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, is more than questionable and will most likely end up in the supreme court very soon. In California we have laws that limit detachable box magazine capacity to 10 rounds, unless you owned the magazine before the ban date, then you are grandfather. The +10 capacity magazine is non-transferable. A key aspect to the Heller decision dealt with the issues of whether particular firearms were in common use. There are millions of 30 round magazines in common use, thus plus 10 ban is destined for the graveyard. Please do some research, as the Attorney who argued the Heller case, Alan Gura, successfully has said so many times. If you, or your loved ones were the victim of a home invasion robbery, which is common today, as victims you would surely be dealing with multiple armed assailants. With four armed assailants, which is more than common, 10 rounds would very likely not be enough. Have you ever been professionally trained on how to defend yourself with a firearm? Very few people have this luxury. The reality I have seen many times in this scenario, that it is difficult for even experienced ISPCA shooters to accomplish this in 10 rounds. The stress of the situation and the speed at which bad things occur cause misses. The real world is nothing like Hollywood and the average home resident is not Raylon Givens. You sit here in San Ramon, a well to do community with very low crime. If you were in the hood for any real length of time and had the need to defend yourself and loves ones just once, you would change your tune. You are out of touch.

3) Now I know your next thing to say is, why not buy a shotgun like Joe Buffoonden said. Shotguns, with even just birdshot, go right through walls! They kick like crazy, especially for women under 150 pounds. Semi auto shotguns actually kick less because of the fact that the automatic action absorbs a significant amount of the recoil, making them a better choice for self-defense. I have shot numerous semi auto shotguns in my years and can tell you that the number of feed failures are virtually nonexistent. This is why the US military no longer primarily uses pump shotguns for their shotgun applications.

4) The NRA is a civil rights organization that protects the rights of American citizens from the ill-informed foolish masses and the lying Orwellian Socialist Liberal Democrats. We all k now the Orwellian Liberals have no problems passing unconstitutional laws, to the point where they want to tell you how much soda you can buy.

5) Gun safes are very good for keeping burglars out, especially when properly anchor with bolts. Did you k now that California DOJ has a standard? I do not think any resi burglar is prepared to deal with this and will simply pass them over. Generally these burglars are in and out in less than 5 minutes. There is no way one can get into a DOJ safe that quickly, without the use of ?grease? (look it up). Adam Lanza?s mother was an idiot gun owner and kept her firearms in a gun Cabinet, not a safe! She allowed her son to buy body armor, who the heck does this with a mentally ill kid? You were a very irresponsible gun owner! Shame!

6) Your constitutional argument is childish. You obviously have never taken a political science class, or studied consituional law. The word regulated in the second amendment, means well organized. The supreme court has ruled on this point numerous times. The second amendment is about providing the means to protect against tyranny, more than self-defense. This is proven by the Heller decision and the common use section of the majority opinion.

7) Licensing Civil rights. Well, let?s make everyone apply for a license to exercise the first, second, third, and forth amendment rights and so on rights too! This is childishly unconstitutional.

8) You have obviously joined the more government is better side!

This blog was a thinly veiled attempt providing a reason to take away a constitutional right. Shame!

Auto accident deaths are statically more prevalent than mass shooting deaths, We have licenses, tests, you name it and yet we still have idiots killing people, sometimes by accident, other times through willfully negligent behavior. You can?t license the crazy out of evil!

Posted by Alan Richardson, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 13, 2013 at 10:14 am

This Dirka person is pretty amazing at getting to the core of issues and spot on with the opinion and reasoning. Nice job and no goats either, LOL. We need to get this person in office. Where can we find him and draft him to office? Dirka, are you out there? We need you! Come in from your fields.

Posted by Elmer Fud, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 13, 2013 at 10:40 am

Bunny is in la la land when it comes to ballistics data. She has been watching too much TV. BTW, micro-stamping was never enacted in California and is unconstitutional. Firing pins can be easily changed and rifling changes with several shots fired. Bullets deform to the point that they can not be matched to a specific gun. So all in all, her comments are a crock.

Dirka is right on the common use argument. Read up Bunny and Roz, you need to get your facts right before you render an opinion.

Limiting ammunition purchases is unconstitutional. In the end people will just stock up slowly before the prospective law is overturned. Have you ever heard of reloading? You silly rabbit.

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Wow! Dirka I must complement you on your compelling arguments.

I'm not willing at this point to research everything you claim, but I'm impressed with your apparent knowledge of the subject.

Yes, I am voicing opinions and have not done the level of research you have to support your belief that any government control over an individual's use of weapons is unconstitutional. However, even though semi-automatic rifles are not officially "assault" rifles, and hollow point bullets cannot penetrate walls, I was commenting on the lethal properties of these weapons and how many people can be killed by them in an attack by a crazy person.

Maybe my focus should be more on dealing with the crazies, but that could be an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.

"Amendment IV
Search and arrest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And yet President G. W. Bush appears to have violated that with phone tapping and the Patriot Act.

Yes, I know I'm changing the subject, but the Bill of Rights covers all kinds of protections and some elements of it are highly ambiguous. Supreme Court rulings on what is or isn't constitutional depend on the makeup of the Supreme Court at that time.


Posted by Raymond, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm

Yep, the libs like the fact that the Constitution is a moving and malleable target. It can mean whatever the left wing judiciary wants it to mean. E.g, sometimes the "people" are the people and other times the "people" are the militia.

And I know this, the more nebulous the Constitution becomes, the more we lose our liberties. Of course, that suits some people just fine.

Posted by Marbury V. Madison, a resident of another community,
on Apr 14, 2013 at 8:22 am

"...the libs like the fact that the Constitution is a moving and malleable target. It can mean whatever the left wing judiciary wants it to mean."

Oh, boy. Raymond, I'll keep this short, 'cuz you indicated your lips get tired. But would it interest you to know that, for the first, say, 200+ years of these United States, the 2nd Amendment was ALways interpreted, by EVery Supreme Court, to require a militia, and it was ONLY the Conservative Roberts Court's majorities in two recent cases that extended that right to individuals? That's a pretty 'malleable' Constitution!

The "judicial activism" door swings both ways, sir -- it all depends on whose ox is being shot. You might want to change the channel occasionally.

Posted by Raymond, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Your post is a complete fabric of lies. Believe what you want personally, but write the truth after you read some history.

Posted by Marbury V. Madison, a resident of another community,
on Apr 14, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Really, Raymond? Here's Supreme Court scholar Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker Web Link

"Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: ?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.? The courts had found that the first part, the ?militia clause,? trumped the second part, the ?bear arms? clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms?but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."


Too "liberal"? Okay, how about the Library of Congress Law Library entry Web Link :

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right."

"The Second Amendment, one of the ten amendments to the Constitution comprising the Bill of Rights, states: ?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.? The meaning of this sentence is not self-evident, and has given rise to much commentary but relatively few Supreme Court decisions."

"In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. .... "

"Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that ?[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.? 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional."

Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here (PDF).

So, Raymond -- how's the weather, there in Fantasyland?

Posted by , a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Not once has the supreme court ruled that the second amendment only applied to militias. In fact the Heller ruling clarified this issue to finality, so the non-patriot weasels can't use their tyrannical socialist ways to subjugate the masses. It is a settled matter of federal law.

The founders were anti big government. Thomas Jefferson et al had a huge disdain for unchecked professional armies.

Chew on that gun grabbers.

Throughout history whenever tyrannical governments existed and where the few ruled the many, citizens have been disarmed. The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Then, if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

Advocates of the control of firearms should not argue that the Second Amendment did not intend for Americans of the late eighteenth century to possess arms for their own personal defense, for the defense of their states and their nation, and for the purpose of keeping their rulers sensitive to the rights of the people. Those who do are revisionists, plain and simple.

Issues addressed by the majority
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment ? a purpose not previously articulated by the Court ? and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74?75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent?s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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."[45]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service ? M16 rifles and the like ? may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment?s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[46]
The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court?s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[47] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach.

So there you go too liberal, or whatever you want to call yourself. The law of the land is on our side. You sir are a sheep, not a patriot. Gun grabbers think freedom is cheap and they are spoiled herd animals, grown soft from their X5's and MBA lifestyles. Their utopian views are naive to say the least. Your tired argument is a matter of settled law, LOL. We win!!!!!!!!!!! And THANK GOD!!!!

Posted by Prudie Silverspoon, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 15, 2013 at 10:17 am

With regard to your latest pedantic diatribe, I quote:

?If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.?

― W.C. Fields

Prudie (NRA Member)

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 15, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.


It looks like "Marbury" got Dirka's goat!


Posted by Dirka Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 15, 2013 at 8:53 pm

My goates are fresh and happy and none are missing contary to the poser that poses no logical argumnet based on facts. I count many who agree with the Dirkarino, so goes public opinion. And since we are at it, I'll quote Twain, " I don't argue with idiots, as on lookers will not be able to tell the difference." Patriot yes, idiot no. Run along now.

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 15, 2013 at 9:36 pm


Posted by Alan Richardson, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 8:06 am

OK, I am going to stand up for Dirka! I have to hand it to Dirka, he put Silverspoon, Maurbury, or whatever their name is in their place. I fact checked all of his assertions, because I think he made some superb points. The Liberal side of things tends to want to chop up the amendment and reinterpret and twist the words to their agenda. .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The use of the words right and people are very important in the clause. Virtually all notable constitutional scholars agree on this. The amendment is brilliantly brief on purpose.

If taken in context, the founders intent was to make sure that the citizens had the ability to rise up and fight tyranny like they did. They fought a professional army and liberated their people via common use firearms. Soldiers came armed with their personal weapons and liberated the people. This is a fact of history that can not be denied and confirmed in Heller.

Now the use of weapons of mass destruction are another thing all together and this historically has meant that the word arms meant small arms.

One can also argue effectively that though the landscape has changed, we still have a wild frontier. Inner cities are statistically more dangerous than the wild west and anarchy is the way of the criminal. Thus, the gun control laws mostly affect law abiding citizens and not the criminals who willfully ignore them. To this end, many of the gun laws are arbitrary and capricious.

I like twain too Dirka, "I try not to let my schoolwork interfere with my education." However, in this case, I can see we are both scholars.

It is sad that most folks have not had the opportunity to study the constitution, the federalist papers et al. We are loosing our national identity through historical revisionism. Instead our country has become a reactionary amoral superficial-Facebook-immediacy driven culture, not based on reason, but rather on the superficial convenience of the moment.

All right have limits, but the genie is out of the box on semi auto weapons. This is a reasonable place to draw the line, no full auto weapons. As far as magazine capacity, this genie is out of the bottle too. Dirka is absolutely right, this will be overturned based on the common use interpretation/doctrine of the Scalia opinion.

Silverspoon, likes to the word pendantic, however ironically, he is sadly in need of an education. This is the arrogance of the liberals who do not base their argument of logical reasoning and fact, but ratherer immediacy and emotion. Nice job Dirka, this guy is with you on this one.

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 9:28 am

No laws can stop the existence of evil in this world. Morality comes from somewhere other than laws. Personally, I believe good is either inside you, or not. Some have more good than others. Good can be taught and nurtured, but evil often is instinctively born and sociopathic by nature.

The fundamental thing we see with all of these mass shootings is that the individual is severely alienated and detached from reasonable society. In ultra radical Muslim fundamentalism, like Nazi Germany, the alienated find comfort in someone giving them a feeling that they belong and are loved and then delivering a purpose; in their case an evil purpose. Stupid weak fools find comfort here. This is the means of megalomaniac religious leaders, or supra-nationalist zealots. We have the same thing with people struggling to make it in this world and do not fit. Paranoid schizophrenics, when alienated, are dangerous. It is here we have to focus and it can be done without violating the rights of the people.

Dirkarino believes there are limits, just like we legally limit nuisances and one can't yell fire in a crowded theater. However, we must all remember that liberty is not cheap, or easy to come by. It is a slippery slope indeed to limit the right to protect against tyranny. This again is why the common use reasoning by the Scalia majority was brilliant.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Now we pass laws to make sure people understand their responsibility to not be reckless and are held accountable. Laws very rarely stop evil, they provide a way to hold the culprits accountable. Some are deterred by being held accountable, but not all.

Some find good in the fear of God, and other reasonable secularists find it in philosophical logical reasoning and many are simply good by nature. The common denominator is the respect for life and others reasonable pursuit of happiness.

Bad people, will do bad things if they are alienated enough. As demonstrated yesterday in Boston, there are other ways to indiscriminately kill and maim than guns. We live in a dangerous world. You can't legislate evil out of crazy and stupid, especially at the expense of the good people. Again, liberty is extremely expensive, let us not forget that, please.

Now I milk my goats! Silverspoon needs some goat milk, with active cultures, to kill that supercilious bug up his bottom. Dirka knows big words too, la dee da poser. Get in your hybrid and drive home to your utopia and don't forget to stop at whole earth market for some granola to mix with your goat milk. Kumbaya MOFO!

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Prudie Silverspoon, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 10:44 am

Whoa, back the truck up, Dirka. I happen to agree with many of the pro-gun arguments, with some limits, just not necessarily the way they are presented. I have never been accused of being a liberal before. Many of my associates would find that laughable.

Thank you for the offer of goat's milk, but I prefer soy. Sorry, no hybrid, just a V-8 SUV.


Posted by Marbury V. Madison, a resident of another community,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 11:33 am

Wow ? it looks like fear-and-loathing are alive and flourishing in the gun-totin? community. I understand your need for aggression ? you?re under pressure, and was it Bear Bryant who said the best defense is a good offense?

Let?s start with what I actually said ? which has nothing to do with guns (I?ll get to them), but only that both ends of the political spectrum interpret the Constitution in ways that serve their political purposes. You can clothe it in ?originalist? or ?living constitution? frockage, but it?s the same activism ? it comes with the territory.

Do I happen to prefer a constitution that doesn?t freeze its jurisprudence in time ? that time being 1787 ? pre-emancipation, universal suffrage, internal combustion, space travel and the intertubes? Yes, indeedy I do ? but my point to Raymond?s myopia was that both sides do it ? and they do. Think Patton: ?Hell, I know I?m a prima donna, but so?s Montgomery ? and he doesn?t even realize it!? I may be Patton; Raymond is Montgomery.

Now, Dirka, I don?t know whether you agree or not ? but the 2A is just one example of the phenomenon, and I have no idea how that makes me a /gasp/ ?gun-grabber.? Really? Hyper-ventilating hyperbole does not become ye, shepherd.

Now, as to guns, I did not say, either, that the Supremes had ?ruled that the 2A applied only to militias,? although that is a pretty fair reading of Miller, by negative implication. The Amendment is unhappily drafted, and seldom interpreted. But when the Court says that the 2A does not invalidate an indictment for carrying a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, because there?s no evidence that the defendant was part of a militia, that conclusion would appear to put some pressure on the ol? individualist position you prefer.

Now, you like Heller ? good for you and your conservative activism. But to treat it like it was brought down on a stone tablet is a little over-much. As you are no-doubt aware, often when the Court makes an abrupt departure from prior law, which Heller is, they strenuously attempt to minimize the apparent contrast. Nice try, Antonin. That ruling and the later one will hold up for a while, but I sense the tide is turning against it, and in any event, it is not etched in stone or the received natural law wisdom of the Ages. It is written in a spare, one-vote majority iirc. So, apparently, some pretty capable folks somehow found a way to disagree with it. I happen to be with them. Time will tell.

My own view is that the 2A is lesser freedom in the greater scheme of the Bill of Rights. Those who believe it?s a check on over-reaching government are, well, badly outgunned (and anyway, they might better focus on treating their paranoia). And I think that we-the-people have asked way too little in the way of responsibility from those who bring dangerous instrumentalities into society. I think those responsibilities can and should be substantially increased without chilling the legitimate Constitutional rights embodied in the 2A.

I like the animal analogy: if I choose to keep a tiger for self-defense or to hold the nasty gubmint at-bay, and my tiger causes harm, then I?m liable, strictly so ? negligence not in issue, because I put others in-peril by bringing something so potentially dangerous into the neighborhood.

Posted by Vetran & Soldier, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm

Rights are human rights, why don't we take away some of yours! Four tours later, I have seen first hand what evil people do when people do not have the means to stand up for themselves. Most of the time they disguise themselves as religious leaders and politicians. It is for people like you that the founders wrote some things so narrowly. I prefer Dirka's version. He must know a little about it, because we called in country the sand box, or Dirkadirkstan all the time. It's a pretty common term.

One cannot read the second amendment without mentioning the context of the declaration of independence to understand it. Rifles win wars, not bombers and tanks. The big machinery simply softens the landscape. To think otherwise, is ignorance. Freedom fighters, or insurgents can and do outlast all the artillery, bombers, tanks and other heavy weaponry and not just in US history. Depending on what side you are on they are either angels, or cockroaches you can't kill. Let's look at Nam, WWII France, Korea, Afghanistan, now and the Soviet war, Israel's wars and police actions and a ton of others. The weapons go underground, but they come out later and they can chance a superpower out in good time, even in the smallest countries.

Go live in the hood for a while, see how it is to live in a war zone. Now do you think the crack dealers and thieves are going to turn in their guns for your peace powwow? F NO.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and when the government is the only ones with guns, they have absolute power.

See how long it takes for the cops to show up next time you need them.

You sir have never been in the shit, it's obvious. I think you should give it a try before you pop off about taking away rights. I for one have been there and will never give up my rifle. Any brother vets out there care to chime in?

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Soldier, thank you for your service.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Marbury V. Madison, a resident of another community,
on Apr 16, 2013 at 11:36 pm

With any due respect, anonymous internet poster, I hope your aim was truer with your weapon than it is with your scattershot words. You know a great deal less than you think you do about me, for instance, and it's also my experience that the guys, and gals, who've actually been there don't tend to spout-off about it like you just did.

Posted by Iraqvet, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 8:59 am

Marine here, two tours and a stop-loss extension in Iraq for me. Marbury, everything Soldier says is true. Calling someone a liar and calling their service into question is pretty low, especially with no proof.

I do not blame the guy for wanting to keep his identity hidden.
A lot of us are back home looking for jobs, or better jobs and posting political stuff about guns can tie back to you pretty easily. You are not using your own name either, so what does that say about you?

Posted by mloliver, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 9:27 am

Iraqvet and Soldier,

A special thank you and to all the vets in the area for your selfless service. I hope the employers in the region take their personal freedom into consideration when vets apply for jobs. Thank you for helping all of us by safeguarding the freedoms we all enjoy.


Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 10:20 am

Soldier does not deserve the disrespected directed at him - - shame.

Here is a re-post of an identified marine who wrote a letter to Sen. Feinstein.

You can find it here:
Web Link

Joshua Bostonâ?¨Cpl was quite respectful in his tone, but Marbury, it is hardly required here. Soldier risked everything and feels strongly about his rights. I do not blame him one bit for calling you to task. Marbury is the anonymous pot calling the kettle black? Your attitude towards rights is extremely offensive to many vets who fought for freedom and this country.

Chipping away, incrementally, Obama even said this in his inaugural speech. It is Kafkaesque.

Marturdery, some things are as simple today, as they were in 1786. How old are the ten commandments?
The only thing these new attempts at unconstitutional laws do is make law abiding people into criminals. The bad guys do not pay attention to laws.

We have more deaths by auto accidents each year, by far, than guns. In fact the statistics show that where gun laws are less strict, crime is actually a lot lower, look at Texas.

The supreme court does like wiggle room in some instances, but Heller did not leave much wiggle room with the common use section of the ruling.

California politicians think they are invincible right now. The NRA is in the catbird seat with their lawyers. They are relishing the legislation, because then they can litigate and settle this thing for once and for all. We saw the backlash that occurred at the mid-term elections after Clinton's ban, a lame duck presidency is coming. Thank god. Obama has gotten the biggest pass ever, the economy sucks and taxes are up! The green economy push doesnâ??t work. As it sits right now, Obama is like Woodrow Wilson and Neville Chamberlain bundled into one. Yes, progressive, like Woodrow Wilson, a horrible president. We all know what happened with those guys. The liberals make a mess of things with their Pollyannaish idealism and disdain for the constitution and the conservatives come in and fix it.

Hereâ??s the repost letter:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the governmentâ??s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You maâ??am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Bostonâ?¨Cpl,
United States Marine Corps

Read this and compare to Obama:

Web Link

My goats pass wind in your general direction. Hop in your X5, or Pius and donâ??t forget your canvas bags on your way to utopia. Bring plenty of granola snacks, itâ??s a long journey.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

No one is proposing to take your guns away! This fear mongering has to stop.

I respect those who served in the military (militia). Under the 1st Amendment, Cpl. Boston is free to tell Senator Feinstein where to go. I am planning my own letter to Senator Feinstein on her intention to change the Social Security COLA to the Chained CPI. So I agree with Cpl. Boston's dissatisfaction with Senator Feinstein but not for the same reasons.

In his letter Cpl. Boston said, "I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public."

Nobody, not Feinstein, not President Obama, is proposing to take away anyone's arms. This is the slippery slope fallacy that if guns are licensed then the Government will know where to go to take them away. The gun lobby and extremists are using scare tactics to convince gun owners that their right to keep their own weapons is in jeopardy.

So far the only restrictions being considered are limiting sale of guns to people who shouldn't have them (background checks) and limiting the amount of ammunition anyone can purchase at one time. These are not very restrictive. These are just common sense. Senator Feinstein's proposal to license or restrict "assault" weapons was rejected by the Senate and is no longer an issue.

The NRA must be laughing all the way to the bank. Gun sales have gone through the roof and ammunition is hard to find in gun shops or even on the Internet. The NRA has served its masters well and gun and ammunition manufacturers will continue to throw money at them to keep the hysteria alive.


Posted by Alan Richardson, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm

Well, Roz, I have to disagree with you there. You are incredibly misinformed. have you read any of the proposed legislation in California? Registration leads to confiscation, history is the precedent here. Take a look at some of the bills proposed in California, that are definitely unconstitutional. They are going to classify the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 as an assault rifle! Thank God for the NRA! It is obscene and they are coming for your guns. They will take the registration step, then Obummer will appoint a few more supreme court justices and then you will see, they will take them, just like they did in Canada, Australia, Germany, the UK and a ton of other countries. Obama is a draconian socialists and Dirka is right, he is just like Wilson. This guy is a huge liar. Wasn't he going to shut down Gitmo? He says what ever is convenient at the moment and then does whatever he wants later. These prospective laws will make virtually every gun owner into a criminal. Dirka is right, it is Kafkaesque. No one is paranoid here, this is systematic disarming of the American public.

2013 SB 47 - Yee, Assault Weapons

2013 CA AB 48 - Skinner/Ammiano, Magazines

2013 CA SB 53 - Deleon/Yee Ammunition purchase permits

2013 CA SB 108 Yee Firearms: lending and residential storage

2013 CA SB 127 - Gaines Firearms prohibition mentally ill


AB 169 - Unsafe Handguns - Dickinson

AB 170 - Bradford - Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles

AB 174 - Bonta - Weapons: grandfather clauses. // March 19 - amended, no longer a gun bill //

AB 180 - Bonta - Ammunition. // March 19 - Amended, allows Oakland to pass restrictive firearms registration and licensing laws //

2013 CA AB 187 Bonta Ammunition Tax // March 19 - Amended Now 10% tax on retail ammunition sales //

2013 CA AB 202 - Donnelly - School security: School Marshal Program

2013 CA SB 140 Leno - Amend budget to allow DROS funds for APP enforcement

All pretty draconian. They are coming for your guns, you can count on it.

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 1:11 pm

The weasel socialist gun grabbers can have the last word here. The Dirkarino will wait for the courts to affirm the second amendment. The rate at which guns and ammunition sales are going and at such a sustained rate, is more than confirming the concern with the American public. Mr. Richardson, I appreciate your support here, but in the end this is a liberal rag and we have a ton of socialists here.

Let's tell the Corporal he needs to have a license to express his first amendment rights. Hmmm, is the something wrong with this concept?

They will twist the words to fit there purpose. The genie is out of the box when it comes to American firearms. None of the laws will do anything to stop crazy. The stupid population grows at an exponentially faster rate than the educated. They have more babies and want more services. They don't need guns to kill either.

Hopefully the Calguns Foundation and NRA intervene quickly.

Dirka needs to bale some hay and shovel some goat poop other than here. It's nice to see others here are with the Dirkarino. The Dirka actually didn't expect to see such support for this here.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Jared Gleason, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 17, 2013 at 9:12 pm

I did not know about these bills, thanks for posting. I looked at a few and am aghast. The proposed laws in California are some of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Defining anything with a detachable magazine an assault rifle, even .22's. Taxing the heck out of bullets, to the tune of a nickle a bullet. The tax is more than the value of the a .22 round. The people sponsoring the bills know nothing about guns, it's very obvious. We shoot Appleseed and it's pricing us out.

Go try to find .22 ammunition anywhere right now. It is gone and has been since December. I used to think it was panic, but now I am wondering.

It sure looks like they are inching away at our second amendment rights, by requiring so much licensing, taxing etc.. None of these laws are going to stop mass shootings/killings.

I agree with all above who think it's downright unconstitutional. We had someone kill and maim plenty of people with a pressure cookers on Monday. So we need to license and register the serial numbers of all pressure cookers. Also, all wireless remote control toys. Anything bigger than 1.5 gallon is an assault pressure cooker. We need serial numbers on galvanized pipe too. Now what about gasoline and bottles? Fertilizer, oh my goodness fertilizer is even more dangerous. So we need background checks for all of the above, because they can level even more carriage than a rifle and much more efficiently. All one has to do is Google for the how to.

These opportunist politicians are panicking from terror attacks at the cost of civil rights. It reminds me of my wife's family being interned in camp. They were a small minority and no one cared about their rights. They lost everything. This is nothing to be taken lightly. Why people pay so little attention and credence to something so important is beyond me. People who stand up for these rights are true patriots.

Veteran & Soldier and Iraqvet, thank you so very much for your service. You put it all on the line for freedom.

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 12:06 am

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Alan, Dirka, & Jared,

The State of California isn't the Federal Government. Gun control has pretty much flopped at the Federal level, but it is cruising right along in California and several other blue states.

There are plenty of red states with almost no gun control. If this is such an important issue to you, move to one of them.


Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 12:14 am

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Oh and one other thing, the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Federal Government. The whole point was to leave those controls up to the states. I don't know why anyone is surprised by what is proposed in the California State Legislature. You ought to know how they are by now.


Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 1:12 am

So Roz you are saying that federal rights are not worth fighting for here in California! We should just leave. Well contrary to your opinion, the consitution and the bill of rights still apply here. They apply everywhere in these United States. And by your reasoning, if some didn't like slavery, they should just go North. Separate, but equal if fine in Missippi, if you don't like it go to NY. How about Gay marrriage, it's not the law of California, but they fight for their right. Wow, that was the weakest argument I have ever seen.

The bottom line is, you area gun grabber socialist. The Dirka is neither Republican, or Democrat, he is live and let live. He doesn't need a Bible, Tora, or Koran to thump, just the good old constitution and some common sense. It also doesn't hurt to have a superb education in the very subject we are dissgussing.

This is our blue state, just leave, waaaaa, waaaaaa baby cry.. Regan came from California, so did Pete Wilson, Dukmagian (sp?). Your blue fools have screwed up yhis state so many times and then we have a huge run of conservatives fixing things.

Patriots don't run, they dig in. We have been here before, in the 70's. Moonbeamand company screwed us up then too. Oh, and do you ask for a license to vote, hell no that would stop illegal aliens from voting blue.

I have been here longerthan you, bornhere and gather my family has been too, all four sides and none of them run.

My goats love the climate too and it makes their milk sweet.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Bob P, a resident of another community,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:00 am

Roz, the gun haters have a very distinct strategy, and that is to slowly and steadily attempt to erode the public's ability to possess and own handguns. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate the handgun from America.

They are willing to do it slowly and even behind the scenes. They are willing to allow rifles and shot guns to exist at least until they take care of the handgun issue. After that, they will extend the grab to every other firearm.

Posted by Prudie Silverspoon, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:07 am

Jared, you are so right about the ammunition. It isn't just California, ammo is in short supply all over. I went to Reeds earlier this week to try out a gun I'm interested in purchasing, and couldn't rent it because no ammo was available. Online suppliers are out, one local gun shop posts any deliveries they get on Facebook and it will be gone in an hour. All this ridiculous legislation is causing a run on guns and supplies. Even if I were to have the gun I'm interested in ordered, I probably wouldn't see it before Christmas if at all.


Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:15 am

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Bob P.

Are you being serious or facetious?


Posted by Cindy, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 9:45 am

Dirka makes an excellent argument. We have a gay son and he does not leave the state just because he and his husband want to get legally married. They stay here and work hard promoting education, that gay marriage is a civil right based on equal protection under the law. So why should he leave to stand up for his second amendment rights?

Posted by Bob P, a resident of another community,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 11:14 am

Roz, only slightly facetious. Although if you research the origins of the the current group, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, this group has morphed from the original group, National Council to Ban Handguns (NCBH) which was later renamed Handgun Control, Inc.

In the words of founding chair, Nelson T. Shields, III.:

"I'm convinced that we have to have Federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily--given the political realities--going to be very modest ... Our ultimate goal--total control of handguns in the United States--is going to take time ... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal."10

Do I think this will happen, no.

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Thanks for the input, Bob. I didn't know there are similar extremists on the anti-gun side too. Let them fight each other and leave those of us in the middle alone.


Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 18, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Roz, shows her true colors, she writes an article on gun control, but admits she knows nothing about the issues. It's classic liberal hogwash. No offense intended Roz, you are a nice person and generally well informed on a lot of other issues, but you let emotion get the best of you on this one. It is not extreme to stand up for your constitutional rights.

Semi automatic weapons are constitutionally protected. They have been around for more than 100 years. Do you know why they call it the 45 acp the 1911? It's because it was released in 1911! It wasn't even the first, but it sells like hotcakes today, with hardly any changes to its design.

It's the instrumentalist gun grabbers who are nefariously inching there way to a total ban. This is why the founders put it in the bill of rights, they knew better. They got to it second, that's pretty high on the list. Freedom of speech and then guns, search etc. et al came later. This was not by accident.

So you so called just left of center folks can bury your heads in the sand all you want, but it's foolish when it comes to civil rights.

No one is asking for machine guns, or sawed off shotguns, cannons, or facsimile; rather, leave things alone. Heck we usually don't ave a problem with a ban of .50 caliber either. Those rounds can take out an engine block at over a mile.

People involved in shooting sports shoot hundreds and even thousands of rounds in a weekend. Spree shooters usually stock up over long periods of time anyway. These people usually don't have a ton of disposable income. None of this draconian legislation is going to stop a thing, it's just a bunch of crap from idiots that no nothing about guns.

Nevada, is only a few hours away for most. Reloading is another option, and it makes things a lot cheaper. One can swag their own bullets for pennies. A three hundred dollar turret press can crank out thousands of rounds in a day, however, one can load a few hundred with a 35 dollar hand press very quickly. It is an uncomplicated task.

The crazy people who want to kill is the problem. Wake up. There are already enough laws on the books to deal with irresponsible gun owners, or illegal gun owners. Enforce the ones we have now. Obama ,he great socialist's, Attorney general doesn't even prosecute people who get caught lying on DROS applications and neither does Moonbeam's people. Oh and we let illegal aliens drive and apply for benefits at State Universities.

Tax and spend, tax and spend, more laws. I won't even start with the federal government buying up tons of hollow point bullets. US soldiers can not legally use these bullets, they are against the Geneva convention. The feds have never in their history used hollow-points to practice with. This is because they cost a lot more! Obama and his minions are a crafty bunch of Chicago machine politicians. They took out a huge amount of supply from the market and with demand so high, ammunition is nowhere to be found.

Roz, you wanted to write a blog on gun control, be careful what you ask for.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Dam', Roz -- 43 comments (well, 44 now) and counting -- the most since the 50 you got for taking-on Joan Buchanan over spay/neutering! Obviously, I'm jealous.

I have a sneaking suspicion that some of your opposition fears similar emasculation in any attempt to regulate their manly appendages (by which I mean their weapons, of course!).

There. THAT alone should get you past the 50 mark. (and Congrats!)

Posted by Alan Richardson, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm

Dirka shredded you all. Not one of you anti gunners could counter his reasoning. This person is brilliant. He has taken this whole site to task. Dirka please run for office, we need people like you. The reality is that your only argument is emotional and not based on fact, or reason, just like he said. You all make a pathetic example of rationalizing the theft of civil rights. Not one of you could answer this assertion.

What a bunch of stupid girlymen! You have manginas, little affraid men.

Posted by Alan Richardson, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 19, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Cushing and Bobby, we are formally revoking your mancards. In exchange we give you a lifetime supply of Tofu. Dirka, that one was for you.

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Apr 19, 2013 at 10:31 pm

@ Alan: I don't know who Bobby is, but I do feel like a bystander, shot in the crossfire of your wild melee. Was it John Paul Jones who said 'I have not begun to fight?' I'd add -- 'nor do I intend to,' at least not on this thread. I'll write my own blog on the subject, again, at some point and see if I can break Roz' Comments record. I'm counting on your help in that regard.

As to male parts, thanks for your concern, but all's well in the ol' equipment department -- fortunately, however, unlike you I do not require mine to do my thinking.

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 20, 2013 at 11:26 pm

Dirka Dirka Bakala has some friends here :-). Write your blog socialist weasel and we will shred your simpleness. The Dirkarino will make a point of taking down your simple little poser cliche, world is flat bullshit, third grade quotes and all. The Dirkarino will make a point of embarrassing you with your own editorial weakness. Yes, Dirka just called you out. The Dirkarino waits for your next blog!

Dirka Dirka Bakala, Sherpa Sherpa

Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Apr 21, 2013 at 7:15 am

Really, Dirka, you've called-me-out? Nah, 'you' really haven't, since only one of us is willing to stand behind our writing, identifying it with our real name, instead peeking-out from behind an internet alias. Before you can earn a proper call-out, you've at least got to stand-up and identify.

Second, let's get something straight. The RC is My blog, and I will write about this issue precisely when I want to address some aspect of it that I think would be interesting or provocative to read. That's how this works. You don't get to define terms, but you ARE welcome to get your own blog -- it's pretty easy (but you might not get to hide your identity anymore).

Now, if your blood's up, and you must have something I've already written on the subject, feel free to chew on this entry from late last year: Web Link It got a lot of page views at the time -- I'm never sure why one gets more than another, but based on your rabid level of interest, I'm surprised you missed it.

Third, most folks don't find name-calling to be particularly persuasive. Most folks recognize that it all it means is that someone who's trying to bully another person has run out of ideas with which to do it. Interesting that you mention third-grade, because most folks leave name-calling behind right about then. Of course, most folks (meaning 91%) support universal background checks, too -- but I digress.

Quotations, on the other hand, really can be enlightening -- done right. Try this one: ?If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.? (Elbert Hubbard)

If you look behind name-calling as a tactic to what motivates it, sometimes it's a strategic attempt to intimidate, and just as often it's fear. But here's the thing -- even if it's the former, it only works if you let it -- and you've made it too easy to shrug it off. Your aim is lousy on the merits. Those names are preposterous and unsupported. You missed. To paraphrase Roy Scheider's famous character: maybe you're gonna need a bigger gun.

There. 49 and counting.

Posted by Ms. Bunny, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 26, 2013 at 8:09 am

ELMER darling...An opinion is just that: an opinion. You don't have to agree whatsoever dear. Freedom of speech IS alive and well in this country, and btw? Whose going to take the time and trouble to change the firing pin guy? (snicker) Real criminals seldom think that speciously. Give me a break!

Posted by Dirka_Dirka, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 27, 2013 at 8:54 am

Bunny, you are so cute, but Elmer is right. Please allow the Dirkarino the opportunity to educate you. You obviously have no experience with guns. This is a big part of the problem with modern gun control laws and lawmakers putting forth new gun control laws, they are incredibly clueless with regard to the facts of gun ownership and just as importantly how they work. Today's firearms are extremely modular and often take down with minimal use, or virtually zero use of tools. In order to properly maintain most guns, the firing pin must be removed and cleaned.

Here is a video showing the removal of a Glock firing pin. It takes less than 30 seconds! The Glock is the best selling hand gun in America and the choice for many police departments.

Web Link

The Dirka says this respectfully, of course your opinion matters, if you hadn't posted it, we would not have had the opportunity to help with your education. Does your husband clean your guns for you? The Dirka believes that all gun owners need to understand how to take down their weapons and properly maintain them. Perhaps you own an old-school revolver and have never handled a modern semi-auto pistol. Revolver firing pins are usually fixed on the hammer.

Regarding ballistics, Mr. Fud is also correct. Spent cases are usually more easily linked to a gun than the bullet. Firing pin
impressions can be fairly unique, but again and little sandpaper, or even a razor mark can quickly change the impression for good.

The cost of a Glock firing pin is roughly 40 bucks.

Laws regulating ammunition purchase are pointless, as a black market will pop up immediately. Requiring a license to purchase ammunition is unconstitutional.

Dirka Dirka Bakala

Posted by Steve Dallas, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 28, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Careful, shep -- she may not know much about guns, or free speech for that matter (if you think the first amendment protects private sector speech, try telling your boss what you 'really' think), but you're dealing with the most aggressive rodent since her cousin tried to take-out Jimmy Carter.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,008 views

Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance grew from chance meeting
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 331 views