Shouldn’t laugh, but this is funny!

AGREE

@sassygirl3869 @LiteralHiker the only use for an assault rifle is to rapidly clear (kill or severely injure)a lot of people in a confined area - they have no use in any civilian situation. but California already has some of the most stringent gun laws across USA - did he break the gun ownership laws or are they inadequate?

@ShadowAmicus he bought the gun in Nevada 3 weeks ago

@sassygirl3869 The USA has a totally screwed up system of armaments ownership that will only be fixed when politicians are pressured into change by the public - no sign of overwhelming pressure yet

@ShadowAmicus

He bought an assault rifle in Nevada and illegally smuggled it into California.

@LiterateHiker by smuggled, do you mean drove along an open road with no checks?

@ShadowAmicus

Perhaps "smuggled" is too strong a word. The shooter bought the assault weapon in Nevada, the brought it illegally into California where they are banned.

@LiterateHiker makes it obvious that state based legislation on gunsis ineffective and needs centralised decisions

@ShadowAmicus, this is the problem in a nut shell! Any weapons or accessories (high capacity magazines, bump stocks, laser sights) have to be banned nationally to be effective. Cities like New York, Chicago etc. have strong gun laws, but because gun access is just a short drive away to a nearby state or sometimes just outside the city, they are highly ineffective. Which of course the NRA is fond of pointing out.
The second problem is that there is such a glut of these weapons and accessories already out there in the hands of people who are borderline schizophrenic, any kind of ban at this point would take decades to actually make a dent in the killing sprees. But throwing your hands up and doing nothing, as promoted by gunaholics is not an answer either.
Having drivers licenses, regulations and DUI laws does not stop people from driving illegal, stupid and drunk, but I don’t recall people saying all these regulations should be eliminated! The most common response to this by gunaholics is that unlike the Second Amendment, there are no Constitutional guarantees to transportation. Given the odd, conservative, interpretation of the Second Amendment, which completely negated the “militia” wording, I’m guessing a clause could be found to deny driving laws as well, but that’s an argument for another time.

Our country is going to shithole status.

@sassygirl3869 Don't worry at the present rate we only have less than a hundred years to go.

@dalefvictor not funny.

@sassygirl3869 I do not mean for this to be funny.