News

Raucous gun control event spurs council review of chamber policy

NRA members packed the City Council chambers last weekend to shout down speakers promoting tighter local gun control laws, spurring City Council members to seek a review of the city's "vague" policy against political events in the City Council chambers.

"I'm open to having the council chambers off limits" to such events, said council member Margaret Abe-Koga at the end of the Feb. 11 council meeting. A majority of the council was also interested enough to have the Council Procedures Committee look at the city's policies for use of the City Council chambers for such events not sponsored by the city.

Council member Jac Siegel said it wasn't fair to put city staff in the position of interpreting a policy against political events in the City Council chambers, a policy which Mayor Chris Clark called "vague."

"Defining a political event is going to be tough because almost anything can be political," Clark said. "Free speech-wise, I'm not sure how we deal with that."

During the event Saturday morning -- hosted by former Mountain View mayor and state Assemblywoman Sally Lieber -- National Rifle Association members had an intimidating presence, standing around the edges of the chambers and shouting down speakers, some before they could even start, some attendees said.

One speaker was Mountain View resident Josh Wolf, who led a march calling out former Mayor John Ink for not signing on with a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" - organized by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

As Wolf began to speak, a man holding a sign that said "statistical slaughter" interrupted him repeatedly, saying "Are you a credential teacher sir, yes or no? Legal question sir, legal question." Another shouted, "Are you part of the Occupy movement?"

Lieber reminded everyone that cards were provided for them to write questions on. "Answer the question!" shouted a woman. "You won't answer the question?" shouted a third man. "It's a plain, simple question!"

Wolf was eventually able to speak, ignoring the questions.

Videos posted to Youtube after the event only capture its second half. Attendees said that mothers of victims of gun violence were also shouted at by the group, at the start of the event.

At Tuesday's council meeting, a few residents were overheard calling the event "polarizing."

"The contrast between this and the Civility Roundtable held on basically the same subject, was remarkable," said council member John Inks. "It wasn't a forum, it was a shouting match."

Comments

Posted by Brent, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm

I believe an NRA slogan is "An armed society is a polite society."

Do we think gun carrying citizens attending meetings like this
would be more polite – or more intimidating ?


Posted by Not one of you, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm

OK tough guys. Have your view, but shut your cake hole when your are at an event specifically designed to hear all views. This is America you clowns, and a huge reason that this proud gun owner will never associate with the NRA. What an embarrassment.


Posted by Steve, a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Why would the NRA members ever bother to attend a meeting hosted by Sally? It would be even sillier than Jessie Jackson trying to influence a KKK rally.


Posted by Finally some sanity, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 2:52 pm

My brothers, if I knew about this i would have been there shouting along side of you.


Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 2:52 pm

That event was not meant to hear all views. It was meant to be a gathering of people who think guns are bad and should be taken away from everyone who has one.

Let's not forget, we are talking about an enumerated civil right.

It's hard not to get emotional when someone is talking about taking away your natural born right to self defense.

I will agree screaming at people doesn't accomplish much. But of course neither do "tough" gun control laws. And that's not stopping people from proposing new laws every legislative session.


Posted by Not one of you, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 14, 2014 at 3:11 pm

No. No excuses. They acted like a bunch of spoiled ego driven 4 year olds. Don't let it happen again and you might get some sort of message across...other than you lack self control to act in an adult manner(good personality trait for a gun owner)
Anyway, its making the rest of us gun owners look bad, so please quit acting like a buncha kooks.


Posted by lm, a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 14, 2014 at 3:13 pm

We have the most fatalities from guns of any civilized country on the planet. Time to conform to civilized norms. Have guns but in their place.


Posted by Squiddo, a resident of Castro City
on Feb 14, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Squiddo is a registered user.

Oh please.....no one acted spoiled. They group grew frustrated when they realized the event was .45 minutes of lecture that included blown up images of kids killed in other cities. Gang violence and horrible at that but the argument to self defense starts there. Had I known the event was a farce I'd have saved my time. Many felt the same way.


Posted by Robert, a resident of Slater
on Feb 14, 2014 at 3:22 pm

Robert is a registered user.

I attended the so called forum, which was actually more of a one sided lecture than the advertised forum. Many attendees presumed that since it was in council chambers the public would be allowed to speak as in a council meeting. The audience was told that if they had something to say, fill out a comment card. Comment cards were sorted and some, addressed to specific speakers, were commented on by those speakers. The bulk of the comment cards were only read at the meeting's end and not answered. In my opinion, Sally Lieber lost control of her meeting early on, and left the invited speakers to calm down the crowd on their own, offering little help to regain control of the meeting she was hosting. The anti-gunners have deep Bloomberg pockets and their arguments were mostly emotional. The "facts" presented by the anti-gun "experts" I feel could be easily refuted by the pro-gun "experts". What continues to bother me is that the victims of gun violence were displayed before the media cameras and sad stories were told, which connects with those people who have turned off their critical thinking skills. It is sick and disgusting that the anti-gunners continue to exploit the victims of gun violence for their own political gain. Shame on you,Sally Lieber.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 14, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Geez, have people gotten so sensitive that they can no longer tolerate a raucous debate? Part of political correctness is that no one can disagree, and everyone must get along and be so nice to one another. Spirited discussions date back to the founding of this country.


Posted by USA, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 14, 2014 at 5:33 pm

USA is a registered user.

Web Link


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 pm

Are these NRA member rational or wanta-be crazy gun totters that cannot understand that they not part of a "well regulate militia"! The Constitution says nothing about self defense.

When will these 4 year olds learn to read.

Ben


Posted by Flava Dave, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 14, 2014 at 6:47 pm

Flava Dave is a registered user.

"Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
58 minutes ago

Are these NRA member rational or wanta-be crazy gun totters that cannot understand that they not part of a "well regulate militia"! The Constitution says nothing about self defense.

When will these 4 year olds learn to read."


It also says nothing about the right to an abortion. Or a jury of your peers. Or a right to privacy. Or an explicit right to vote. Or the right to marry. Or even the right of the SOCTUS to decide what the constitution says.


When will you stop calling people 4 year olds when they disagree with you.


Posted by Flava Dave, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 14, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Flava Dave is a registered user.

Right wingers in a meeting in a room: disruptors.

Left wingers blocking sidewalks in public: Freedom.

Got it.


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm


Flava Dave is right. There are a lot of issue the Constitution says nothing about. That does not mean laws cannot be passed allowing or disallowing any issue. Don't claim what is not in the Constitution is a Constitutional right. Gun law controlling concealed weapon are valid and not trumped by the Constitution.

Show me the wording about concealed weapon in the Constitution.
Ben


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm


Flava Dave is right. There are a lot of issue the Constitution says nothing about. That does not mean laws cannot be passed allowing or disallowing any issue. Don't claim what is not in the Constitution is a Constitutional right. Gun law controlling concealed weapon are valid and not trumped by the Constitution.

Show me the wording about concealed weapon in the Constitution.
Ben


Posted by Flava Dave, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm

Flava Dave is a registered user.

So your response to things we can do that aren't in the Constitution is to say look at the Constitution? So are you implying we can't vote or have abortions? Or anything else not listed?


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 14, 2014 at 7:49 pm

I repeat. There are a lot of issue the Constitution says nothing about. That does not mean laws cannot be passed allowing or disallowing any issue. (you must have not taken this like I meant it. Is it cleared if I state that "that does not mean laws can be passed allowing or disallowing any issue?) Just do not claim law are in the Constitution when they are not! I repeat: Gun laws controlling concealed weapon are valid and not trumped by the Constitution.

Again show me the wording about concealed weapon in the Constitution.

Voting is controlled by laws. Abortions could be done when there where no law about abortions. It became an issue when law prohibiting abortions were passed by States.

Ben


Posted by Flava Dave, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 14, 2014 at 7:56 pm

Flava Dave is a registered user.

Show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to vote.

Show me a case that was specifically about abortion that the SCOTUS ruled on.


Posted by Moreregulation, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 14, 2014 at 8:05 pm

Gun nuts tend to think backwards from normal people. They start with the assumption that everybody(**) has the "god given" right to own any gun they want and then base their reasoning on this assumption. That's why if you try to reason with them and your conclusion is "maybe we should have some restrictions on gun ownership", then they get upset and you can't talk to them.

I really think there is a psychosis there.

** (By everybody, gun nuts *generally* (but not always) mean American born Caucasians that are not criminals. Unless the crime is spousal abuse and then a lot of gun nuts will allow an exception. Or there are people like George Zimmerman, who not only #1: loves to pull his gun (yee-haw), but #2: killed a person of color. Later when he used it to #3: threaten his girlfriend, it became the "perfect storm" of what every gun nut seems to aspire to. Not that they will admit it of course...


Posted by DC, a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 14, 2014 at 8:41 pm

The council passed a ban on polystyrene, no vote from the public it just kinda happens. Smoking, sugar drinks, fatty foods, I hear the sun is bad.


Posted by Greg David, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 14, 2014 at 9:11 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

DC said: "The council passed a ban on polystyrene, no vote from the public it just kinda happens. Smoking, sugar drinks, fatty foods, I hear the sun is bad."

Thanks DC!

The main point of this article is should this sort of sham forum be held in council chambers. My view is, absolutely not. This should have been held at the senior center or another neutral facility.

By hosting this in the council chambers, Mr. Bloomberg's disciples paint a picture that this gun control agenda is somehow supported by the city of Mountain View. This is classic smoke and mirrors. Prey on the tragic memories of innocent victims, deceive the sheeple into thinking a tool is the cause, and skip down the road to nation void of civil rights...

All the while, lets keep sweeping the mentally ill onto the streets....




Posted by moreregulation, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 15, 2014 at 1:38 am

Greg--Why don't you ask the NRA to rent out the council chambers and give an informational session? Here are some suggested speaking points:

- The 2nd amendment specifically protects the rights of Real Americans to own any guns they want. There should be absolutely no exceptions to this god given right.

- There have been killings in Gun Free zones, which proves that they don't work. Any law that doesn't work 100 percent of the time should be removed.

- Show examples of all the robberies and home invasions that were foiled due to homeowners using their guns to justify the few occasional deaths that happen when kids get ahold of their parents gun. (Well worth the cost in my opinion!)

I would also take the high road (unlike the MAGI people) and let the audience interrupt with angry questions and statements whenever they like. It's ridiculous that the anti-gun meeting wouldn't let the audience do that! So what if they wanted to take questions later. This is America! And in America we do what the hell we want!


Posted by These people, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 15, 2014 at 6:38 am

These people who cannot even conduct themselves properly in a meeting....these are the people who want us to feel OK about them carrying guns. They want us to think they can conduct themselves properly with a gun and use it ONLY when it is "in their defense".

HA!
Not showing us anything but your true colors. SCARY!!!


Posted by Good Jobe Kids, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 15, 2014 at 6:59 am

The children posing as adults, shouting down and preventing ANY comment they deemed against their cause from being heard, have set back their cause locally.
Yes you did.


Posted by ann, a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2014 at 8:05 am

..these people…you're fear is misplaced…be much more afraid that we have a president who declares he has a pen and is going to use it…with blatant disregard for congress and we the sheeple.. i stand with the NRA people who were brave enough to speak out ..i applaud them..that was not a meeting..it was a brain washing one sided lecture..
disarm american citizens and squash their right to speak out? huge mistake


Posted by Babies All, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

Whatever it was about, for whatever reason, one group acted like a bunch of babies, stamping their feet and screaming so that what they personally do not want to hear, cannot be heard.
Whatever your cause, that behavior is childish and will loose you the argument every single time, regardless if your position is correct or not.


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 15, 2014 at 9:29 am


Not So, read the constitution.

The 2nd amendment specifically protects the rights of Real Americans to own any guns they want. There should be absolutely no exceptions to this god given right.


Besides there are no god given rights (from which mystical gods). There have been may mythical gods over the centuries. There are no gods, they are all invented by people. Now we know how big the universe is and that there can not be any god to create it or rule over it.

Ben


Posted by Ben, a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 15, 2014 at 9:29 am


Not So, read the constitution.

The 2nd amendment specifically protects the rights of Real Americans to own any guns they want. There should be absolutely no exceptions to this god given right.


Besides there are no god given rights (from which mystical gods). There have been may mythical gods over the centuries. There are no gods, they are all invented by people. Now we know how big the universe is and that there can not be any god to create it or rule over it.

Ben


Posted by Testor, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 15, 2014 at 11:07 am

I was at the meeting. These people had this meeting at city council to give the impression that it was sanctioned by the city. That is down right dishonest. They did not follow their own rules. The second speaker showed a blown up autopsy picture of her son that was shot up into swiss cheese with an AK-47 by some dirt bag gang member in Chicago to a 10 year old girl and the rest of the audience without any warning. Sure, there were NRA members there but not all of them were NRA members, that is an assumption. The speakers spouted many false statements as truth and when called on it they had nothing. The lawyer they had that is with the firm now defending Sunnyvale was totally delusional and false when talking about how they win these preemption cases all the time. Not a single one of these so called "gun nuts" called anyone names but here in this commentary that is all I see from the people that seem to think rights are voted on. This is the truth, if you were not there you have no business calling people names, making generalizations about groups of people that were there. The city should never have allowed these people to use this space. It was a very short sighted decision to do so and I expect the people that made that decision are bias in favor of groups like Occupy, MDA, MAIG etc.. Mountain View, you're officially on notice. :p


Posted by mrrabbit, a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2014 at 12:06 pm

FACTS:

These facts cannot be disputed. Any video uploaded to Youtube that are in any way edited or shortened are suspect - and likely an attempt to edit out the following facts.


Fact #1:

Mrs. Lieber was formally asked if this was a forum or debate BEFORE the event started.

She responded that it was a forum in line with the format used by the League of Women Voters.

She was then advised by me that:

a. She needed to wait until AFTER speakers presented to collect cards.
b. That the cards should contain questions only - no comments.
c. That she need to review forum rules with the audience at the outset.
d. That if she failed to do "c", only then would we bring our signs out.

She failed on ALL four particulars noted above.

This interaction five minutes before the event started was recorded on at least two cameras. It's on the record - should they be uploaded in their entirety.

The same particulars were noted for the gentleman in the brown coat who appeared to be assisting her.


Fact #2:

The event immediately started as a one-sided debate with a full force outright attack on those who are pro 2nd Amendment.

After the first two speakers and roughly 20 minutes, the pro 2nd Amendment side had no other alternative but to take out signs and start verbally calling for alternative speakers.


Fact #3:

At least 5 times during the event - loud enough for all to hear - the request / demand was made by the pro 2nd Amendment side:


ENFORCE FORUM RULES AND WE WILL PUT OUR SIGNS AWAY, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!


Never did the anti 2nd Amendment side acknowledge or respond to this.

Even Mr. Spitaleri himself was provided this opportunity BY ME!!!

His choice was to walk away in disgust...


I find it very telling that for the two cameras in my vicinity that recorded this - this exchange has not been uploaded to Youtube.


Only a distant camera video has been uploaded - with the audio out of shot due to the distance involved.


Fact #4:

Josh Wolf was introduced as an "educator" when given his turn to speak as a formal speaker on the panel.

He was challenged three times to:


1. Clarify whether or not he was a credentialed teacher with the State of California or not.

2. Provide his document number if he was.


He ducked the question those three times - and the question card containing the exact same question was removed from the pile by Mrs. Lieber and handed to Mr. Spitaleri?


Fact #5:

The lawyer lady flat out declared war on gun owners and supporters of the second amendment.

Her list of "things that can be done" was literally a war campaign objectives list to crush and destroy:

1. Firearm owners.
2. Firearms.
3. Firearms dealers in brick and mortar stores.
4. Firearms dealers in residences.
5. Ammunition sales.
6. Shall Issue concealed carry policies in several counties.
7. State preemption in three areas related to firearms.

Her agenda if realized would literally turn firearms owners into the Jews of Berlin, circa 1936.


I challenge the Antis to upload the FULL AND UNEDITED video containing the FULL AND UNEDITED AND CLEAR audio of the event. There were at least two cameras down below and nearer to the left managed by the Antis in the perfect position to do so.


Let's see that video...


=8-)


Posted by Ron, a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Hi Ben,

Please check this out:
EDWARD PERUTA v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM D. GORE, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

Consulting the text's original public meaning, the Court sided with Heller (an earlier Supreme Court case), concluding that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms and that the "central component of the right" is self-defense.

Two years later, the Court evaluated a similar handgun ban enacted by the City of Chicago. The question presented in McDonald, however, was not whether the ban infringed the city residents' Second Amendment rights, but whether a state government could even be subject to the strictures of the Second Amendment. That depended on whether the right could be said to be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty." To these questions, the McDonald Court declared, "[o]ur decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer." After all, self- defense, recognized since ancient times as a "basic right," is the "central component" of the Second Amendment guarantee. Id. Consequently, that right restricted not only the federal government but, under the Fourteenth Amendment, also the states.

These passages alone, though short of dispositive, strongly suggest that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a firearm in some fashion outside the home.

So you are correct in that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to CONCEALED carry, but it DOES guarantee the right to carry a firearm in public. And honestly, wouldn't you have armed law-abiding citizens carrying their guns concealed rather than on their hip out in the open?


Posted by Ron, a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2014 at 2:35 pm

mrrabbit - As a Jew with an uncle who lost his entire family except one sister to the concentration camps, I absolutely support your statement about the Jews of Berlin, circa 1936 - because Hitler disarmed his populace before slaughtering millions of them. Based on the events of Nazi Germany, you would think that every LGBT, Jew, and Gypsy would be fighting like mad to keep their right to keep and bear arms.


Posted by SantaClaraMom, a resident of another community
on Feb 15, 2014 at 3:24 pm

Thank you mrrabbit for your clear, concise statement of the FACTS. Let us now point out that the only group acting like four year olds here are the ones who are relying on name-calling rather than facts.


Posted by Old Ben, a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 15, 2014 at 3:35 pm

A child is 100 times more likely to be killed by a pool than a gun.

BAN SWIMMING POOLS. For the children.


Posted by NRA Puppet, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:10 am

Old Ben, I could not hear you because I shouted down everything you were trying to say. You do not get to voice your opinion because I will shout it down.
Because I disagree with you, your opinion will never be allowed to be heard. I will shout you down.


Posted by They quickly ran out of ideas, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:21 am

"After the first two speakers and roughly 20 minutes, the pro 2nd Amendment side had no other alternative but to take out signs and start verbally calling for alternative speakers."

They had NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE!?!?! NONE?!?!
FACT?!?! LOL.


Posted by Hutch 7.62, a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2014 at 9:32 pm

@MORE REGULATION

how much is MAIG paying to spread anti constitutional Hate?


Posted by moreregulation, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm

OK, let's look at how much money is being spread around:

MAIG action fund donations received in 2012: $3, 380,238.
NRA Revenue in 2012: $256,290,928

In other words, the NRA is wielding a war chest of over 75X that of MAIG…and that's just looking at the filed financial numbers. There are a lot of NRA support organizations where donations from gun & ammo manufacturers are funneled to. The NRA's sole function is to preserve and grow profit of the gun companies. The companies make the most money when the most number of people have and use guns. This of course includes criminals, so they will oppose any legislation that will keep guns away from criminals. That is capitalism at it's finest, which is fine, but please recognize the vested interest that the NRA has to spread lies.

On the other hand, MAIG has no greedy self-interest. They are simply trying to make this a safer community.

MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) is trying to enable law enforcement the ability to keep guns from people that are not allowed to have them.

If you are against MAIG, then you are FOR illegal guns—it's that simple.

The arguments raised by NRA against MAIG are to generate fear among gun owners: "MAIG has a hidden agenda to ban all guns!" Ridiculous. If you actually look at the laws they lobby for, they are mostly about reporting and tracking.


Posted by Hutch 7.62, a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:01 am

@MORE REGULATION
Nothing MAIG is doing is keeping illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals and/or the mentally ill. A standard capacity mag ban in Sunnyvale has and will do nothing to curb crime, nor has any of MAIG'S feel good schemes but rather take firearms out of the hands of law abiding Americans

The rampant Cartels and gangs in California are still getting guns from south of the Mexican border, the corrupt Mexican military or at one time Eric Holder's ATF Operation Fast and Furious.

Until MAIG addresses the current problem of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining illegal guns through illegal means, Law abiding citizens will be skeptical of MAIG current radical gun grab schemes.

Let me ask you this since you seem to be so fond of MAIG's..... what is MAIG doing to stop the flow of illegal class 3 machine guns that seem to be found on the many POT farms(some protected by CA's own prop 215) in and around California some often found right under our own noses in and around the mountains of Santa Clara Co. even on Mid Pen open space. If you are not well versed on the subject may I suggest 'WAR IN THE WOODS by John Nores Jr.'



Posted by moreregulation, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 am

Hutch--you are wrong.

"Nothing MAIG is doing is keeping illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals and/or the mentally ill."

Oh, really?

They published this report: Web Link, which showed many gun sales were happening online to people who were not eligible to own guns. The websites where these transactions are happening do not have to facilitate criminal background checks!!!! So, MAIG is lobbying for this and the NRA is lobbying against this.

In other words, the NRA is lobbying on behalf of criminals. Why would they do this? To sell more guns and ammo! It's just money and you guys are being duped.

"The rampant Cartels and gangs in California are still getting guns from south of the Mexican border..."

What? A gun nut is blaming Mexico? How interesting. Did you know that more guns fall into criminal hands here in the US than in Mexico???? Why? Because the current US supreme court is just Conservative enough to let the NRA interpret the constitution for them.

"Until MAIG addresses the current problem of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining illegal guns through illegal means, Law abiding citizens will be skeptical of MAIG current radical gun grab schemes."

This is the NRA's speaking point for almost everything. "Gun Free Zones have shootings in them, therefore Gun Free Zones don't work!"
or
"We have more gun regulations than we had 20 years ago, yet we have more gun violence. Therefore, gun regulations do not work!"

That's like saying, "Cops keep pulling automobiles over for speeding, so therefore speed laws do not work."
or
"Murder is a crime, yet Murders still happen, so let's get rid of the law!"

Can't you wake up and see how you are being manipulated by the gun lobby?

Here's a challenge to you:
"Name one law that the NRA has proposed in the last year that would truly assist law enforcement in keeping guns away from those that should not have them."
Good luck finding that! If it passed, that would mean fewer guns sold and, of course, fewer bullets...or less $$$ for the gun industry.


Posted by Ron, a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 18, 2014 at 9:31 am

Sunnyvale is being sued in response to its local gun control. Other cities might want to wait for the outcome. At a minimum, council members in Mountain View should read papers filed in the lawsuit. Lieber, of course, does not need to read anything to learn how to get publicity for herself.


Posted by Hutch 7.62, a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm



They published this report: Web Link, which showed many gun sales were happening online to people who were not eligible to own guns. The websites where these transactions are happening do not have to facilitate criminal background checks!!!! So, MAIG is lobbying for this and the NRA is lobbying against this.

-Illegal is still Illegal. So why don't you go protest in front of Facebook then.

In other words, the NRA is lobbying on behalf of criminals. Why would they do this? To sell more guns and ammo! It's just money and you guys are being duped.

-More misinformation

"The rampant Cartels and gangs in California are still getting guns from south of the Mexican border..."

What? A gun nut is blaming Mexico? How interesting. Did you know that more guns fall into criminal hands here in the US than in Mexico???? Why? Because the current US supreme court is just Conservative enough to let the NRA interpret the constitution for them.

- You do know guns are illegal in Mexico right? And most of those come from from Hugo Chavez. But MAIG's propaganda machine won't tell you that. Nor will they tell you about the many drug cartels now operating in the USA

This is the NRA's speaking point for almost everything. "Gun Free Zones have shootings in them, therefore Gun Free Zones don't work!"
or
"We have more gun regulations than we had 20 years ago, yet we have more gun violence. Therefore, gun regulations do not work!"

That's like saying, "Cops keep pulling automobiles over for speeding, so therefore speed laws do not work."
or
"Murder is a crime, yet Murders still happen, so let's get rid of the law!"

Can't you wake up and see how you are being manipulated by the gun lobby?

-And even more Bloomberg propaganda...........

BTW how much is Bloomberg paying you?


Posted by Steve, a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2014 at 2:30 pm

Again... all you needed to do was look at the host of the party to see that it wasn't worth attending.
People attending Sally's soiree already had their minds made up about guns. Neither logic nor illogic could change that. Better to concentrate on those willing to entertain different points of view?


Posted by Jose, a resident of North Whisman
on Feb 18, 2014 at 7:36 pm

Refreshing to see many people are quoting the Main Stream Media for their information which is at most inaccurate. That's what they want you to believe. As a matter of fact gun ownership has gone up and violent crime has gone down. This is according to the CDC. What pains me is many of the Liberal minds condone Abortion yet scream when some people are killed by a crazed gunman. No amount of legislation will stop crazy. The day of the the Newtown shooting over 1,200 babies were killed by abortion. Please explain to me how that is ok because damned if I can understand that kind of reasoning.


Posted by sonnyt650, a resident of Castro City
on Feb 19, 2014 at 8:55 am

It is enlightening that many anti-firearms types resort to absurd extrapolations of statements made by those that oppose their do-nothing-about-crime proposals. Smoke and mirrors is a perfectly apt description of the tactic, though it doesn't take a skeptic to see behind the facade. If 25% of the population legally owns guns though a different 1% of the population is prohibited but are the ones committing the crimes, what does any limit on the 25% provide for society? Why would the 1% comply with such new regulations when they dismiss the existing prohibitions?

Notice I haven't strayed into legality of firearms or any of that, instead it's a simple connect-the-dots exercise. I didn't indicate that anything should be struck down though in fact there are quite a few bad laws out there, so please skip the simplistic (and incorrect) assertion that I'm proposing dismissing all laws.

If we want to get into it I submit that "assault weapons" are simply firearms available to the rest of the nation that are outlawed here only because they are high-profile. Any given year rifles whether scary looking or not account for less homicides than knives or bludgeoning, but Bloomberg et al want to save us from the 1% (again assuming 1% of society is prohibited) of 1% (assuming 1% of all crimes are committed with "assault weapons") by stripping their legality for the 25%.


Posted by Greg Coladonato, a resident of Slater
on Feb 19, 2014 at 11:13 pm

Greg Coladonato is a registered user.

Deja vu? From 2009:

Lieber event raises eyebrows
City's rental policies questioned after ex-Assembly member collected campaign funds
Web Link


Posted by Moreregulation, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 20, 2014 at 12:18 am

Notice the gun nuts in this forum are equating enhanced regulation in gun ownership to be outright bans of all guns. They continue to say, "There are plenty of guns on the books--the cops just need to enforce them!"

What they don't want you to know is that for each regulation on the books to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (and others that shouldn't have them), there are also laws on the books that make those laws difficult or impossible to enforce. Or, there are giant loopholes in the laws. Whatever.

All organizations like MAIG want to do is close the loopholes and fix the deliberately sabotaged existing laws to keep our community safe. Unfortunately, this will reduce the profit to gun & ammo manufacturers, so they instruct their lobbyists and publicity machines to put out misinformation that is being faithfully echoed by gun nuts.

I'm actually PRO-FIREARM. I think that people should have access to them and I think they are awesome toys. However, I don't think that the access should be completely unfettered, nor do I think that there is anything unconstitutional about tracking ownership. I am not a criminal. I do not get into bar fights or road-rage. I do not beat my wife. So, I don't need an untraceable gun. Apparently, there are a good number of "Town Square" posters that do!

Fortunately, it looks like the laws coming into play in 2015 will address some of this. When the Supreme Court gets fixed, then I hope to see more improvements in this area.


Posted by sonnyt650, a resident of Castro City
on Feb 20, 2014 at 6:44 am

Moreregulation: please enlighten the rest of us as to the loopholes inserted into California law by the all-powerful gun lobby. Let us know where Kamala Harris is diverting funds which legally should have been used to beef up the background checks. Until that time you're just parroting MAIG generalizations that don't form a coherent picture rather than providing value to the conversation.

BTW: good for you that you are part of the 74% or 25% that isn't prohibited, though asserting the rest of us are part of the 1% pretty much destroys any credibility you might have.


Posted by Hutch 7.62, a resident of another community
on Feb 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm

@Moreregulation
"Fortunately, it looks like the laws coming into play in 2015 will address some of this. When the Supreme Court gets fixed, then I hope to see more improvements in this area."

Pretty bold assumption, considering the recent 9th district decision on CCW. Also considering that gun owners in California increase substantially each year.

Web Link

Web Link


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,600 views

On Tour - The Highly Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Occidental, Pitzer, and Scripps
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,624 views

See Me. Hear Me. Don’t Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,427 views

Questions for Council Candidates--Housing
By Steve Levy | 24 comments | 1,246 views

Rock N Roll Green Beans
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 931 views