To gun rights advocates, the debate since the Connecticut school shooting is more than just a battle over who gets to own what kind of weapons.
It's a fight over freedom, misinformation and society's right to protect itself.
"Once you start regulating and banning weapons, you start going down a slippery slope," said Marc Greendorfer, a San Ramon Valley attorney and gun owner.
Patch talked to an array of gun rights advocates in the last week. Here's what they think about recent gun control proposals.
They oppose California's current assault weapons ban and are against any kind of national prohibition on such weapons.
They aren't opposed to background checks, but they also aren't comfortable with a national database of gun owners. They don't necessarily oppose a 10-day waiting period if it's only for the initial purchase of guns and not subsequent purchases.
Patch commenters
On the Martinez Patch Facebook page, one commenter stated: "I do believe we need new gun laws but mostly about how guns are stored. We need to keep them away from people that are on crazy, dangerous drugs."
Another stated: "While we outraged screechers pick up our pitchforks, light our torches and wail for "action now!" we might want to step back and think about what sort of unintended consequences we set in motion for those who will follow us.
"It's easy to demand that fewer liberties be granted to us. It's even easier to demand the end to liberties of other people. It's satisfying to be part of a movement, especially when it might involve the thrill of vanquishing the faceless, despised opposition we have been coached so well to loathe. Those in DC are always happy to oblige. There's nothing magical about America that keeps us free. Freedom is messy and unsafe. Never underestimate the delusional self-importance of politicians once they arrive in the magical kingdom of Washington."
Gun advocates
Gun rights supporters reject the notion the Second Amendment of the Constitution is outdated, saying the nation still needs an armed citizenry.
"The AR-15 is the modern day equivalent of the musket," said Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation.
Guns and ammunition are serious business in California. Combs said there are close to 20,000 gun sale transactions on an average day in California. Since the gun control debate reignited after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Combs said gun sales in California have tripled.
The spike is driven, gun advocates say, by people's fear that certain weapons will soon be banned. "Whenever a serious conversation about gun control starts, the market will respond," said Combs.
The talk is quite serious among the nation's politicians.
Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled on Tuesday to present his commission's recommendation on new gun laws, with universal background checks being a priority.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a bill this month prohibiting the sale and manufacture of military-style assault weapons. House members, including Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, plan to sponsor a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.
State Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley introduced legislation last week that would regulate the sale of ammunition in California.
Gun rights advocates view these proposals as dangerous infringements. They feel there are other ways to reduce gun violence.
Gun restrictions
On a basic level, gun advocates object to restrictions because they believe they violate the Second Amendment's guarantee for citizens to "bear arms."
"I don't understand why we can have restrictions on weapons when we have the constitutional right to own weapons," said Greendorfer.
He added he is not against restrictions on certain individuals such as convicted felons, but he feels the Second Amendment prohibits the ban of an entire classification of weapon.
Greendorfer, a hunter and gun collector, said there are personal reasons for his views. He is a first generation American whose unarmed ancestors were dragged out of their homes in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s by armed Nazi soldiers.
Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle and Pistol, said citizens owning an array of weapons is the best way for society to reduce gun violence.
"It's having your destiny in your own hands," said Baryla. "Having rifles in the hands of citizens is a protection for the public. There is no correlation between tougher gun laws and a reduction in crime."
Advocates also reject claims that individuals do not need guns that fire rapidly and fire more than six shots. First, they say the word assault weapons is a "catch all" phrase used to categorize rifles that aren't really much more powerful than standard hunting rifles.
Second, they believe there are times when you need the ability for rapid and multiple fire. Combs said if a gun owner is faced with an angry intruder or a powerful animal such as a mountain lion, they want to be able to get off more than one round.
Combs acknowledges weapons such as machine guns and bazookas are rightfully restricted.
Waiting periods, background checks
Gun advocates don't object in general to background checks of gun buyers to make sure they aren't ex-felons or have documented mental health issues. They also don't mind a waiting period of three or 10 days for someone who is buying their first weapon.
What does bother them is waiting periods for people who are making subsequent purchases of guns or ammunition.
Baryla said waiting periods for someone who has already passed initial checks don't curb violence. "It's just a restriction on commerce," he said.
Baryla does oppose a national database of gun owners. He feels it's an invasion of privacy. He notes data can be misused as in the case of a website that has printed the names of licensed gun owners in New York City.
Greendorfer is less adamant. He thinks waiting periods are "pointless," but he doesn't have major objections to them. He also is in favor of a national database of gun owners and believes the federal level is the best place to oversee it.
National debate
Gun advocates feel there is a lot of misinformation about weapons and a lot of emotional rhetoric.
They point to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao as examples of gun control regimes.
"The people are the militia. There is still a need to keep the government in check," said Baryla. "Guns are the first thing to go when a government wants to control people."
deterring tyrannical government; repelling invasion; suppressing insurrection; facilitating a natural right of self-defense; participating in law enforcement; enabling the people to organize a militia system. Being that our government suspended Habeas Corpus along with the indefinite detention of people the government labels as "terrorists". To sum those important items up. These two items assure that if you are arrested, you are brought before a court to determine if there is cause to hold you. The indefinite detention means that, you just rot in a cell somewhere forever. Pretty damn far from the land of the free.. In the final analysis I don't worry about the very slim statistical chance that I will be a victim of a spree shooter. I worry about a government who intends to remove rights from the free to address the actions of unbalanced people. The 2nd amendment states very clearly the purpose of the amendment. TO KEEP OUR GOVERNMENT IN CHECK. Please, read the Second Amendment...
There should be a national data base since weapons can be sold over state lines and when a person sells a gun the sail should be registered so that the gun can be tracked. And if stolen the authorities should be notified. Treat the guns like automobiles. With owning a gun comes great responsibility and the owners should be made to abide by some simple rules to make our society safer from people who want to use them for mass destruction. Peaceful resistance is far greater of threat to the oligarchy than guns and ammo, and it's a lot healthier for the innocent bystanders. More civilians are killed in the time of war than combatants. And by the way read a interesting book called, On Killing, by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman, and learn about how the military changed their training methods to make killing more efficient. It's similar to how our children play killing games. It's called brain washing and we are doing a nice job of it.
Unfortunately, in the Sandy Hook Connecticut shooting, the mother legally purchased the weapons. The son got his hands on legally purchased guns. However, if assault weapons and large-capacity ammo clips had been banned, he might not have been able to kill as many people.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/ http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/exclusive---stanley-mcchrystal-extended-interview-pt--1?fb_action_ids=4459557320531&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=share_fblike&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
Also with all due respect to General Stanely McChrystal he is ignoring reality, (and his pledge to the constitution) most of his troops will not be willing to shoot fellow american's. And if he thinks poorly trained armed men wouldn't be a challenge for the remaining "loyalist" he is smoking something because poorly trained insurgents sure put up a fight in Iraq/Afghanistan against the full force of our military. And please don't say something along the lines of "how are you going to fight nukes?" remember IF they could even convince personal to use nukes on fellow american's how would they nuke an insurgency mixed in with the general population? And that's assuming it turned into an all out civil war rather than a quick over throw. Face it the 2a isn't about hunting and its about self defense including defense from your own government. Even if your not comfortable with that idea. here are some more links for your reading/viewing http://youtu.be/sFMUeUErYVg http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html http://news.yahoo.com/know-stop-school-shootings-003203357.html
I agree with Dan that tyranny or outrageous government acts need not be met with armed resistance, but the threat of said resistance helps ensure that such a terrible decision will never need to be made. The moment that the United States lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war was greatly reduced. Now, just having those nukes in the silo ready to go if needed, ironically, curtails the risk of needing them. Please remember that passive resistance in India was not met with introspective withdrawal by the British until lots of passive resistors were mowed down by machine gun fire. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
The Sandy Hook shooter's mother, who owned the guns, failed miserably in her duty to secure them against unauthorized access. Had she done so, she and those school kids would be alive today. Had she not been killed and the children were, she would be in jail for unlawfully failing to secure those arms in the type of gun safe I am confident you guys have for your handguns, shotgun and rifles. Finally, I am bothered by the fact that Sandy Hook is being used to push a ban on assault weapons that are so seldom used in criminal deaths, and were not used to kill a single child at Sandy Hook. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/