How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

Liberal gun policies were gutted by the courts over a decade ago due to lawsuits filed by conservative groups. You might want to revise your talking points, --------.

Let me get this straight

-conservatives go to court over literally any gun restriction; fought for decades to establish a judicially-created "right" to own firearms, a "right" to conceal carry, etc etc etc

-conservatives then pretend that we still have gun laws every time a shooting occurs and blame those gun laws for not workng even though the laws don't even exist because of conservatives

Is that about right?

California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

They don't need it. The Supreme Court gave it to everybody.

unless one holds a Dangerous Weapons Permit

Oh no, you need a permit to own your military toys, what an onerous burden that is.

I suggest you get someone to read you the link I provided.

A Wikipedia article that says you need a permit to buy an AR-15, and that the high capacity magazine bans have been struck down due to conservatives filing lawsuits just like i said?

No, i'll pass.

they literally come on here and pretend CA doesn't have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

The "strictest gun laws in the country" aren't strict enough to have any teeth because of people like you. Do you really not get that?

#42 I'm standing here with no gun in my hands, making a shooting motion with my fingers. No bullets are coming out. What am i doing wrong?

Does our military use the AR-15 in combat?

I think they use the M-16, and that the primary difference between the two can be bridged by purchasing a cheap plastic bump stock.

Regardless of whether the AR is "military" it's an obnoxious weapon for any civilian to own.

DC went too far and ended up with the Heller decision.

"Too far" for rightwing Federalist Society activist judges, yes. But their handgun ban was certainly within the bounds of longstanding precedent that existed when their law was implemented.

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.

I agree. I miss the days when gun laws were decided locally, but then conservatives had to "take things nationwide" and go to the Supreme Court. Here are some examples of what things were like before the Federalist Society and activist rightwing judges coopted our Second Amendment.

"A federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia. This is simply a straightforward reading of the text of the Second Amendment. This reading is also consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority from the other circuits." United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164"1166 (CA10 2001).

"It is well-established that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right. Since Miller, "the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right ... the Second Amendment protects only the use or possession of weapons that is reasonably related to a militia actively maintained and trained by the states." United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402"404 (CA6 2000).

"The link that the amendment draws between the ability "to keep and bear Arms" and "[a] well regulated Militia" suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia ... the Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia." Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710"711 (CA7 1999).

In order to claim Second Amendment protection, Wright must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between his possession of the machineguns and pipe bombs and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the "well regulated militia" requirement of the Second Amendment. After examining the text and history of the Second Amendment, we conclude that this reading of Miller is consistent with the motivating purposes of the drafters of the Second Amendment. The amendment describes a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The fact that the drafters qualified "well regulated militia" by reference to state security suggests to us that they intended this term to refer only to governmental militias that are actively maintained and used for the common defense. We find substantial support for this textual reading in the history of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265, 1271"1274 (CA11 1997).

We are a nation of states and you cant impose that on a state that doesnt want it.

And yet your side imposed your view on everyone else via the Supreme Court. Idiot.

The irony of rightwingers emphasizing that we are a system of STATES in a gun control discussion where STATES have no authority to enact significant gun legislation is beyond hilarious.

---- off with your STATES. There aren't any when it comes to gun control.

#110 The word "significant" has meaning.

#122 You don't need to repeal the Second Amendment to enact common-sense gun laws. You merely need to return to the reading of it that prevailed for nearly a century before the gun lobby got enough activist judges onto SCOTUS to overturn it.