California Registration Fee

Thank you so much for the reply. Very refreshing to have a thoughtful reply. Most commonly we spew hate at each other. You are not doing that, and I thank you for that. I will ruminate a bit before a response.

 

Talk about thread drift.

 

Sounds good.
I realized I never answered the question posed by your anarchist friend.
I think a good answer might be one of the following:
A. Consider that the removal of the traffic light might result in further delays because of the confusion.
B. If the road is lightlily used, the signals could go and instead the intersection could be posted as “Cross traffic does not stop” for all four ways. We could all exercise a bit of personal responsibility here.
C. Pull the signals and let natural selection work it’s wonders. Like my daughter says, “Rip off all the warning labels and see who is fit to survive”.
D. Install a roundabout. It meets the anarchist’s needs, provides, a safe intersection, keeps traffic moving.
I do, however, have to question your anarchist friend’s bona fides. A true anarchist would not recognize governmental authority and would simply do as he pleases. Your friend may be more of a “fair weather” anarchist or possibly an anarchist enthusiast, as opposed to a true believer.

Just one guy’s 2 cents.

Your mileage may vary.

 

I'd been thinking of doing this. I would have thought the discount would have been more. Don't know if I'll go through the trouble now since the savings appear to be minimal.

 

My brother in laws tags for his 2020 came out to over 700 this year , not sure what mine would of been but I’m not taking off my shell so it’s worth it for me, I also paid 32,506 for mine last year and he paid 44,000 so

 

Think I was $550 this year after paying $32K for a 2020 off road. Before reading this thread, I was thinking the savings would pay for the cap in 5-10 years. For me, the price difference isn't worth the hassle/inability to switch back for the weekend.

Thanks for the thread OP. I'm glad I (you) figured this out now.

 

32k for a off road. That’s steal price

 

It’s like paying sales tax on your vehicle for ever.

I went to register a trailer and after waiting, the lady at the window told me I’d made a mistake while pointing at the value and said I would need to fill the form out again and bring it back. Then she explained how value affected fees—I picked up what she was laying down. First time anyone at the dmv actually helped me out.

 

Define actively. I do it too. It’s part of owning a commercial vehicle.

Obviously, you can’t park there all day but you can park there to load stuff up. Any stuff.

 

During smog years, that fee goes to $80.

 

Swept out to sea.

 

My words are in Bold.

I see your point, and agree it is a logical response. I suppose the question can become difficult because there are so many variations and levels of risk that, of course, there is no one response that fits every situation. Yes, and that is a major issue when it comes to governing diverse people with diverse interests and diverse pulls.

Generally speaking, my philosophy is to let others be. Agreed. I often vote against my personal beliefs in order to uphold this concept. If someone wants my input or my help, I'm more than happy to give it and I'll go out of my way to help another. However if someone wants to do something in a way I feel is wrong for whatever reason and that's the way they want it, then that's fine with me. What if their interests and behaviors negatively affect you? Of course, this isn't an absolute; nothing in life is. If someone was putting themselves in grave danger and didn't seem to understand what they were doing, I would intervene. If they did not want my help and insisted on doing it anyway, well, we all make choices. I don't believe in nanny tactics.

Here is an example. Several times while visiting Mammoth in late Fall I have come upon people venturing out on the ice at Twin Lakes. These people always have been tourists who just hopped off a bus for some reason. That's dangerous and pretty stupid. I called out to a guy that he shouldn't be on the ice, it's thin, the water was over his head, and if he went in, no one would be able to save him. He was less than 50 feet from open water. He didn't care and went on his way. His choice, and not my business. I'm not going to call someone over it nor do I think the lake loop ought to be closed because people make poor decisions.

Another example are the numerous people I have seen in the spillway on top of Vernal Falls in Yosemite. It's posted, and part of it is fenced, yet they come and stand in rushing water on a slick spillway just yards from a 460 foot fall to their death. I have said something in the past, but people rarely ever listen. One person was so close, It made me feel sick because I though I was going to see this person go over. Again, it's their business. The information is there, the conclusions are not hard to draw, they are making a choice. The only time I would think of intervening is with a child or a person I thought was cognitively delayed. Again, that's the nature of nothing being absolute. Good examples. If the person was a child or an adult with mental deficiencies, you might intervene to stop their behavior. What if that person was “normal” and impaired by alcohol? What if that person was blatantly hurting themselves? What if their interests interfere with your understanding of what is best for the whole?

The thing is, lots of people today want to impose their will or preferences upon others. This is what I really dislike about politics and governance. I tend to agree with this concept. There is little respect for minority (not ethnic, but smaller group) opinions and a demand for hive-like compliance to a position. Sad and true. The Constitution was originally written with the idea of giving protection and equality to minority voices. It's one of the reasons we have a bicameral legislature. What we, in fact, have is tribal standoffs and class warfare. Agreed. I like solutions where we both win. Me too! However, what we most often see are drives toward solutions where not only is the win for one side or the other, but each side wants to destroy the other. It's really just a rehash of the oldest method of propaganda; demonize the other side and create the idea we are here to save you. This is done with buzz words, phrases, appeals to ego, and relentless repetition. Everyone does it. It's easy to sell "common sense...", "public safety...", "environmental protection...", or rights, especially to those with no direct stake in something or even a base of working knowledge in that area. "You are with us, or you are against us..." is the point of leverage. Tribalism. Fear-based decision making. If you don't go along there's plenty of public criticism or the threat of being primaried, if you are elected. There is no room for a dissenting voice. Wow, great and thought provoking. A sure-fire way to mobilize people is dispersion of fear and hate. Righteous anger is a heck of a motivator. I see it used to entice people to consume products and give their power a certain way (turn on any cable news program and you will see this approach). I agree with you and feel that the masses have unconsciously agreed to being marionettes for decades (at least my adult life). BTW, this is one reason I cringe when people hate on California (or any other state). The hate is not helpful and only causes damage and division. California has problems, no question, my preference would be that the people take corrective actions. I do. Kind of like a marriage. If your spouse isn't a good fit, you work on your marriage. If it comes to a point of divorce, hating on your ex is hurtful in many ways and does nothing to help.

Lots of things I don't care about come up on propositions or in other areas. Smoking or vaping. I don't think there is anything redeeming about either, but I am not going to vote to curtail or tax either. There are already laws in place that regulate the crap out of it. Alcohol, same story. I don't have a dog in this fight and I am not interested in pushing my preferences on others. We are all adults and we make informed decisions. If you like smoking, smoke up. We all know the possible consequences. I like rock climbing, I understand I could fall. I believe in personal responsibility. If I want to do something, I learn about it, get training if necessary, and work to become proficient and safe at it. I don't want my interests superseded by someone (and almost assuredly someone who doesn't know anything about it but just doesn't like the look of it), who is going to make a decision for me because they are convinced they know better.
When I ride my streetbike to work, I can almost guarantee some hand-wringing ninny will comment, "Those are so dangerous, you shouldn't ride it, and I just wish "they" would make them illegal. I just ask them to mind their own business. I understand the risks and I have ridden for 47 years, held a license for 40, and have raced motocross, desert, sport bikes, and a little drag racing. Yet, someone always wants to butt in because they think its too dangerous, or I don't understand what could happen. Agree here too.

Guns was one of the areas I mentioned that I wish California would stay out of, which is not an interest to you. Guns are of interest to me as I have many, taken the gun safety course, have my hunting license, and volunteer in an “old west” group where I open carry shooting blanks for entertainment (and have shoot outs on the street). I have a colleague who has "opinions" on firearms and thought, at one time, he knew all there was on the subject. As it turned out, he really knew nothing. He thought the gun culture was the wild west, automatic weapons were everywhere, and there were virtually no laws. Well, at least that's what he was told by others who had no skin in the game or any practical experience. He thinks they should all be illegal for the average person because we aren't smart enough, can't properly handle such things, guns cause people to kill each other, there are accidents because they can just go off, and there really isn't a "right" in this area like people think. I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but just a little. As it turns out, my colleague understood almost nothing about the vast sea of regulations for firearms, how they actually operate, the history of ownership, the Constitutional right factor, or anything else. He simply repeated what other, equally uninformed people who just don't like firearms told him. I took him to a range to shoot once. while guns still make him a bit nervous, they aren't what he thought. I hope he thinks a bit more critically on this issues now. The example of your friend is one reason I am very pro-education. You provided an education for your friend. I think we need more of that.

You can claim just about anything is a public safety, crime, or common sense issue. Buzzwords. in the end, it will all be okay if we just give up a little freedom, just a smidge of rights, something we love or have a deep history with, you know, for the common good. "They" would never ask us to give up the whole thing. I’m curious why you put They is quotes. Curious because I don’t know who “They” are. There is just us. Just give a little. Incrementally, we find our freedoms disappear. Bit by bit we have to be evermore careful of what we say, do, own, post, or go. Be on the lookout for that group or this, they are insurrectionist, or anarchists, authoritarians, or from some "hate" group. A world based on fear. Decisions made because we're afraid and not giving careful and deeper though to the matter. This is interesting to me. I will relay a story. My wife and I spent time in Paris, France. I noticed that even though the Seine River bifurcates the large city with lots of people, there are very few boats on the river. I asked a local “where are all of the personal watercraft?” His response was “what?”. I said, “Where are all of the personal water craft, like jet skis?”. He said, “what is a personal water craft, and what is a jet ski?” I said, “like private boats, all I see are water taxis”. “Oh”, he said, "you have to have a permit to be on the river and only commercial permits are allowed”. My interpretation is that this person did not feel that his freedom disappeared because private boating was not allowed on the river. Was this mans personal freedom infringed because he may go through life without piloting a jet ski? He didn't think so. Is not having access to things on your gun list an infringement of your freedom? What about before those items were invented?

I read somewhere you can put black ants and red ants in a jar and they will coexist. However, if you shake up the jar and dump them on the ground, they will fight to the death. Who is shaking up our jar and why? I have heard this before as an analogy to explain a part of the human condition. In our case, only we can shake the jar (assuming you don’t count mother nature). For me, the real question isn’t whose shaking the jar, it is why do we seem to result to fear when being shaken, violence and hate? If the ants worked together then no amount of shaking could disturb them.

Lastly, you gave a list of items (gun related) as an example of things you wish you could do in California. And presumably you would like these things to be available to you, and if they were, you would be happier. I would like to understand that more. For me, each of the items on your list are things that occur outside of yourself. My experience has shown that in every instance if I attempt to gain happiness outside myself, I suffer. If I can’t have what I want, I suffer. If I don’t want what I have, I suffer. And I even suffer if I get what I want as it is fleeting. True happiness comes only from within us. Getting the world around me to react that way I want it will not make me happy. Getting the world in me to react in the way I want it does make me happy.

 

I think there are lot of "issues" with the anarchist friend. My point is that letting others live the what they want in an effort to preserve freedom has limits and is not practical, albeit a goal non the less. I studied and do understand the value of roundabouts! Don't get me started.

 

It was luck on my part. Sales were going down due to COVID (right at the time places were shutting down). I look at what trucks are going for now and don't know if I'd be bitching more about gas prices here in CA or the post COVID markup.

 

Generally speaking, my philosophy is to let others be. Agreed. I often vote against my personal beliefs in order to uphold this concept. If someone wants my input or my help, I'm more than happy to give it and I'll go out of my way to help another. However, if someone wants to do something in a way I feel is wrong for whatever reason and that's the way they want it, then that's fine with me. What if their interests and behaviors negatively affect you?

1. That can be difficult to answer. Generally, if it’s an annoyance, I’ll let it be. I’m sure there is some line where I couldn’t tolerate it any longer and would need to work it out somehow. I also understand lots of things annoy me so I try to remain cognizant of that. If whatever it was posed an imminent and serious danger, I would take a course of action right away. For example, If I discovered a neighbor had a thousand pounds of fireworks in a shed in his backyard, I would call the Sheriff’s Department. If the guy had a crate of stuff; who cares? I dislike fireworks as they really stress my dogs. Where an exact line is, is essentially a judgement call. What I am describing is one of those areas where people like to justify intrusion into other’s behavior or activities under the pretext of safety, nuisance, or some other rationale. Now, if Johnny Firecracker gets cited for that crate of goodies or blows a finger off, that’s the fruit of his decision making. My point is, I don’t want to be in other’s business and I would appreciate it if they stayed out of mine.


Good examples. If the person was a child or an adult with mental deficiencies, you might intervene to stop their behavior. What if that person was “normal” and impaired by alcohol? What if that person was blatantly hurting themselves? What if their interests interfere with your understanding of what is best for the whole?

2. If someone who seems impaired via whatever means and was endangering himself, I would call out to them, “Are you okay, do you need help?” Again, it’s a judgement call. I’ll reference the remark above regarding the fruits of poor decision making. As far as the comment about what’s best for the whole, I regard that as a slippery slope for decision making. I understand my personal values and the lens through which I view the world, but I also understand these are my views and may not coincide with others and may not be the only rational theory which may be applied.


Whether or not I choose to get involved and to what degree is a judgement call. In any of these situations it is difficult to know exactly what is going on, and assess the risk to your own person. California’s Good Samaritan shield Law also has distinct limitations of protection. Getting sued civilly wouldn’t be a good outcome for me, so calling 911 would be a better option.


Wow, great and thought provoking. A sure-fire way to mobilize people is dispersion of fear and hate. Righteous anger is a heck of a motivator. I see it used to entice people to consume products and give their power a certain way (turn on any cable news program and you will see this approach). I agree with you and feel that the masses have unconsciously agreed to being marionettes for decades (at least my adult life). BTW, this is one reason I cringe when people hate on California (or any other state). The hate is not helpful and only causes damage and division. California has problems, no question, my preference would be that the people take corrective actions. I do. Kind of like a marriage. If your spouse isn't a good fit, you work on your marriage. If it comes to a point of divorce, hating on your ex is hurtful in many ways and does nothing to help.

3. I have worked toward corrective action in areas I’m passionate about but it feels as if I am swimming against a rip tide. I also think many of these issues are about finding an equitable solution, it is about destroying the opposition by draining their resources in protracted fights with a state with very deep pockets. California often creates laws or regulations they know won’t pass Constitutional muster. The people who are the architects of such measures also know it will take decades or even generations before they are possibly overturned through the judicial review process. They address the review via taxpayer funds. The other party does it with their own money. There is little to lose for the state as they are unlikely incur a financial penalty. Even if there is a cost attached, it’s paid through tax revenue. At some point you have to consider when it is time to cut your losses.
The example of your friend is one reason I am very pro-education. You provided an education for your friend. I think we need more of that.
4. I tried to give him an honest outlook on the matter and I hope he looks at this issue from a standpoint of knowledge rather than fear and misguidance from politicians. The gun issue is just a point of leverage for politicians. Whether you support gun rights or work against them is just a matter of which way the winds blow, and whose funding your campaign. Most issues are just pawns to be traded away as necessary to keep one’s seat.


I’m curious why you put They is quotes. Curious because I don’t know who “They” are. There is just us.

This is just me being snarkey. I just mean to indicate that both sides like to make reference to these nebulous entities who are out to do harm.


This is interesting to me. I will relay a story. My wife and I spent time in Paris, France. I noticed that even though the Seine River bifurcates the large city with lots of people, there are very few boats on the river. I asked a local “where are all of the personal watercraft?” His response was “what?”. I said, “Where are all of the personal water craft, like jet skis?”. He said, “what is a personal water craft, and what is a jet ski?” I said, “like private boats, all I see are water taxis”. “Oh”, he said, "you have to have a permit to be on the river and only commercial permits are allowed”. My interpretation is that this person did not feel that his freedom disappeared because private boating was not allowed on the river. Was this mans personal freedom infringed because he may go through life without piloting a jet ski? He didn't think so. Is not having access to things on your gun list an infringement of your freedom? What about before those items were invented?

5. It appears this person never had that measure of freedom in the first place. I don’t know why that is. Maybe the river is an important corridor for commercial traffic and why it is reserved for that. Maybe the French detest the idea of private boats. It’s impossible to say. The difference here is this item on my list happens to be contained in the Constitution. In fact, it is such an important issue, it appears in the Bill of Rights as opposed to a later amendment or case law. This right and the tools of it are far older than my time here and in fact go back to the beginning or recorded time. The term “arms” as used in the Second Amendment is a historical term which encompasses not only fire arms, but edged weapons, spears, armor, clubs, et. al. Honestly, I don’t find this line of argument compelling. If you were never allowed to engage in assembly, speech, religion, or petition, would it be fair to say that’s okay because you never really experienced it in the first place? Would your freedom have not really have disappeared because you hadn’t had access to it? Where does it end? Does one not have a right to a speedy trial, or equal protection because they have never been previously engaged in an activity where that may be a factor? I’ve never been faced with the possibility of being compelled to quarter troops in my home, but that does neither negate that right nor lessen my interest in it.



I read somewhere you can put black ants and red ants in a jar and they will coexist. However, if you shake up the jar and dump them on the ground, they will fight to the death. Who is shaking up our jar and why? I have heard this before as an analogy to explain a part of the human condition. In our case, only we can shake the jar (assuming you don’t count mother nature). For me, the real question isn’t whose shaking the jar, it is why do we seem to result to fear when being shaken, violence and hate? If the ants worked together then no amount of shaking could disturb them.

6. The ants are doing what they were wired to do, probably as a defense mechanism. The human beings are doing what they are conditioned to do through manipulation. For some it’s fear, for others it’s confirmation bias. I don’t think that will be easily overcome by just saying everyone ought to work together. If the source of agitation is still present, the problems will continue.


Lastly, you gave a list of items (gun related) as an example of things you wish you could do in California. And presumably you would like these things to be available to you, and if they were, you would be happier. I would like to understand that more. For me, each of the items on your list are things that occur outside of yourself. My experience has shown that in every instance if I attempt to gain happiness outside myself, I suffer. If I can’t have what I want, I suffer. If I don’t want what I have, I suffer. And I even suffer if I get what I want as it is fleeting. True happiness comes only from within us. Getting the world around me to react that way I want it will not make me happy. Getting the world in me to react in the way I want it does make me happy.


7. My happiness is not predicated upon physical things nor do they define me. However, some of those things assist in my life and I appreciate having them for that. Some just give me the joy of experiencing what they do. You may have a different outlook. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to impose that personal philosophy on others. I’m not interested in forcing others to acquire things similar to mine, nor am I interested in removing their things because I don’t care for them.

An interesting philosophical point, but I would bet you own a few material things and I would venture a guess they give you some enjoyment.

This sounds a little close to Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset nonsense.

 

All these words amounting to nothing. In the words of my generation “Kill them all. Let God sort them out”. It works as well as anything else I’ve read here.

Now back to registration fees. My classic Ford is less than $200 a year. Not bad but in recent years it has risen. You’d think for a 44 year old car the fees should be going down.

My biggest grip is the lie they told us when smog checks be came mandatory. It was supposed to stop when a vehicle hit thirty years. But just before I hit that they changed the law and I now have to smog check ever two years. Really how many forty plus year old cars are still on the road. It’s just another way to rip off tax payers.

 

1. That can be difficult to answer. Generally…..Yes, that is the problem we have. I think it is a reduction in freedom to, for example, blow smoke in my direction while eating at a public restaurant. To a smoker, not being able to smoke while eating is a reduction in their freedom. That is the rub.

2. If someone who seems impaired….your judgement call may be different than another’s. Do we have room for that difference?

3. I have worked toward corrective action in areas…..Ditto, and I’m in the same place.

California often creates laws or regulations they know won’t pass Constitutional muster. So do other states (example: anti-democracy voter suppression and gerrymandering). I agree that's a problem, unfortunately, not a California problem, much bigger. All of it should be stopped.

4. I tried to give him an honest outlook…..Totally agree with you.

5. It appears this person never had that measure of freedom in the first place.
Engaging in assembly, speech, religion, or fresh air, water and safety (at least in my mind) are very different than the right to own a bump-stock, for example. The former are freedoms that we enjoy.

Would your freedom have not really have disappeared because you hadn’t had access to it? Yes, it very well could. Is your freedom thwarted because you can’t have access to things that haven't been conceived or invented yet? Of all of the things you have listed that you can not do in California, none of them were invented when America was.

6. The ants are doing what they were wired to do, …. I don’t think that will be easily overcome by just saying everyone ought to work together. I agree that it isn’t easy (or maybe even possible?) but I do think that is the goal and the only durable solution.

7. My happiness is not predicated upon physical things nor do they define me. Experiencing joy at those things and not being able to carry them out, does not necessary equate to your freedom being impinged. I can’t own and operate a shoulder-mounted, ground to air missile launcher. Is my freedom being impinged?

This sounds a little close to Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset nonsense. I have never heard of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, and I will look it up!

 

FREE DON5352

 

[QUOTE="Inferno!, post: 26021167, member: 271952" [/QUOTE]

2. If someone who seems impaired….your judgement call may be different than another’s. Do we have room for that difference?


I don’t think we need to have rules, guidelines, or procedures in such a situation. This is simply how I would handle it. I don’t really care what someone else thinks. Similarly, if someone wants to engage in behavior that may take them over a falls or into a frozen-over lake because that’s the choices they made… okay. Again, it is the fruit of their decision making.

California often creates laws or regulations they know won’t pass Constitutional muster. So do other states (example: anti-democracy voter suppression and gerrymandering). I agree that's a problem, unfortunately, not a California problem, much bigger. All of it should be stopped.


Red herrings.


5. It appears this person never had that measure of freedom in the first place.
Engaging in assembly, speech, religion, or fresh air, water and safety (at least in my mind) are very different than the right to own a bump-stock, for example. The former are freedoms that we enjoy.

Modal scope. I think you ought to clarify and define the matter at hand.

Nevertheless, I’ll take a shot at exploring this. It seems you want to reach back to the gun issue with the bump stock reference. I’m not clear whether you equate this with anything I’ve mentioned about automatic rifles or not but I feel some clarification is in order. A bump stock is not an automatic rifle. The ATF tried to broaden their definition of machine gun to include a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock device. The last I read on the matter was the ban was put on hold by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (March /21) with the majority opinion stating the ban is likely unlawful. Even the ATF has admitted it lacked the authority to change the criterion.

Really, this is an example of the government abusing a process because it knows it takes tremendous effort and time to reverse these acts. This is our government respecting our rights (and yes, I do mean that sarcastically).

I’m not interested in owning a bump stock either. They’re a gimmick, like a Type R sticker, but if another person wants one, who am I to get in their way?

By applying your own bias to determine whether a freedom is should be granted, you are placing yourself in the position of determining what should be a freedom and what should not. If you don’t like it, it’s not really a right? I’m not interested in behaving like a monarch and you shouldn’t be either, but we seem to continually circle back to scenarios where you support abridging the rights of others because it conflicts with your preferences.



Would your freedom have not really have disappeared because you hadn’t had access to it? Yes, it very well could. Is your freedom thwarted because you can’t have access to things that haven't been conceived or invented yet? Of all of the things you have listed that you can not do in California, none of them were invented when America was.

This is interesting. I have never had to exercise many of the rights I enjoy under the Bill of Rights. In no way, shape, or form does this diminishes their saliency, efficacy, or my ability to access them if I need to, or so choose. The idea they are forfeited because I have not used them is an illogical conclusion which appears based upon preference rather than reasoning, practice, or historical context.

You seem to stand on the premise that if something was not invented at the time of the founding of this nation, I don’t really have a right to it even if there were historical equivalencies in place. Interesting position. Using this standard, no one would have a legitimate claim to almost any right or any activity because we all started our lives with none of those things in mind or having a history of their use. No one was born exercising their First Amendment rights, or any other possible activity. Given this causation, no person who immigrated here would have any right to Constitutional protections

Computers, the internet, radio, television, on line communities, et. al. all did not exist at the founding of this country. By your standard, none of those conveyances enjoy, or could be considered to enjoy First Amendment protections. You would be limited to written, printed or spoken communication, likely with a quill, a manual type set press, or on the stump in the town square.

In the same way, communication has evolved and new methods have come into use, so it is with firearms. It was not uncommon (Post Bill of Rights, 1789) to own military firearms including artillery, explosives, war ships (Privateering), and other military hardware of the time. Later it was not uncommon to own cartridge firing rifles, lever-action guns (The assault rifles of the 1890’s), a Gatling gun, et. al.. Many people owned the military weaponry of the time. My Grandfather owned a Thompson Machine gun at one time. You could buy one at a hardware store. I have a picture of him, a horseback, riding his ranch in the late 20’s with a 1911 on his hip and a Winchester Model 1894 in a scabbard. All military weapons of the time.

Like I have stated previously, it’ all fun and games until someone comes after what’s dear to you. Many of our rights impede the government’s ability to control our criticisms of it, to document its behavior, to redress grievances against it, to protect us from unwarranted or retaliatory prosecution, and to defend ourselves against it should that become necessary – that’s the purpose.

Your arguments center more around preferences rather than facts and history. Preferences are great, but they simply are not a justification to strip others of rights you consider unimportant, outdated, or “not recently used”.
6. The ants are doing what they were wired to do, …. I don’t think that will be easily overcome by just saying everyone ought to work together. I agree that it isn’t easy (or maybe even possible?) but I do think that is the goal and the only durable solution.


The only way, in my opinion, this is a durable solution is by overriding the will of others, compelling a singular mindset, and subverting our inalienable rights for some idea of a greater good. It’s been attempted and failed miserably. The Bolshevik Revolution and the Chinese Communist Revolution went right down this road and resulted in the deaths of millions of dissenters, enemies of the state, and people they just didn’t like. China’s Cultural Revolution set them back generations and eliminated much of their knowledge base. Is this really where you want to end up?



7. My happiness is not predicated upon physical things nor do they define me. Experiencing joy at those things and not being able to carry them out, does not necessary equate to your freedom being impinged. I can’t own and operate a shoulder-mounted, ground to air missile launcher. Is my freedom being impinged?

Do you want to own such a thing, or is this just hyperbole? As a side note, I worked on Stinger (what you are talking about) and its variations, ATAS, SVML, others when I worked at General Dynamics. I never got to fire one, but I bet it would have been fun.

Yes, when the state creates restrictions like many of California’s firearms laws, it does violate my Second Amendment rights. The state wields a lot of power and is difficult to fight. That, however, does not place it in the right. Slowly, these matters will likely reach the Supreme Court and be adjudicated. I may be right, I may be wrong, that’s how it works. Because I say so, from the state simply isn’t good enough. Simply put California is heavy-handed with regulating firearms and likely has violated rights in one or more areas.

The Heller and McDonald cases have already made some significant impacts, we’ll see if Peruta and the other cases moving forward continue to uphold 2A rights.

 

My 2017 registration in April of this year (2021) was $380-ish dollars. But, I have disabled plates on the truck, and CA waives one of the fees for vehicles with disabled plates, so if I was paying the full fees, it would be on the order of $500 - $550/year.