PDA

View Full Version : City of Sacramento to consider supporting Chicago gun ban


Dirk Tungsten
12-13-2009, 3:38 PM
I didn't see this anywhere else, so I hope this isn't a dupe. Copied and pasted from the Sacramento Bee's website:

TUESDAY

Sacramento considers filing brief in support of Chicago's handgun ban

What: Sacramento City Council will consider whether to authorize the City Attorney's Office to join as amicus curae with other cities arguing that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and local governments. Last year, the Supreme Court court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun ban, ruling it was an infringement on Americans' fundamental rights. Now, in McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court will consider whether it applies states and local governments.

When: 6 p.m.

Where:1st floor council chambers, City Hall, 915 I St., Sacramento

I may actually try to attend this, if only to see our completely useless local rulers discuss the merits of curtailing of our rights. I'm sure the rationalizations will be hilarious.

wildhawker
12-13-2009, 3:48 PM
I can't wait to read which side of history our friends in Sacramento wish to align themselves.

PatriotnMore
12-13-2009, 3:58 PM
I didn't see this anywhere else, so I hope this isn't a dupe. Copied and pasted from the Sacramento Bee's website:

TUESDAY

Sacramento considers filing brief in support of Chicago's handgun ban

What: Sacramento City Council will consider whether to authorize the City Attorney's Office to join as amicus curae with other cities arguing that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and local governments. Last year, the Supreme Court court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun ban, ruling it was an infringement on Americans' fundamental rights. Now, in McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court will consider whether it applies states and local governments.

When: 6 p.m.

Where:1st floor council chambers, City Hall, 915 I St., Sacramento

I may actually try to attend this, if only to see our completely useless local rulers discuss the merits of curtailing of our rights. I'm sure the rationalizations will be hilarious.

I would like to see all C.G's here, and gun owners in general, in Sacramento show up for this in direct opposition.

wash
12-13-2009, 4:03 PM
If you get to ask questions, ask them if they agree with the origional reason why our state constitution does not include RKBA, because they didn't want Mexican Americans to have guns.

Then ask them what other races they want to discriminate against.

Ask them if they want to legalize slavery too.

NorCalMama
12-13-2009, 4:03 PM
Sorry if I didn't read it carefully, but what is the date of the meeting??? Cause I definitely want to attend this!

edit: It says Tuesday, so just so I'm totally clear, this Tuesday? Also, can you please post the link?

Dirk Tungsten
12-13-2009, 4:05 PM
It's this Tuesday, which is the 15th.

NorCalMama
12-13-2009, 4:11 PM
What should a person attending read up on in order to prepare for the meeting? Any lawsuits? Any laws? Any other materials that would be beneficial in preparation??
Thanks! And thank you for the heads up!

CCWFacts
12-13-2009, 4:13 PM
If you get to ask questions, ask them if they agree with the origional reason why our state constitution does not include RKBA, because they didn't want Mexican Americans to have guns.

Then ask them what other races they want to discriminate against.

Ask them if they want to legalize slavery too.

Yeah, ask them about the Colfax Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre) and the subsequent United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), which the Chicago case is trying to overturn. Ask them if they think it's cool to massacre blacks and then escape prosecution, because that's the side they are defending.

Print out some copies of the San Francisco Chronicle 1924 article explaining the purpose of our CCW law (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm), which is to keep Latinos, Chinese and legal aliens from being armed.

It's amazing to see people still attempting to defend the Cruikshank ruling. It's the last Jim Crow court ruling still in force in the US that I am aware of.

Dirk Tungsten
12-13-2009, 4:19 PM
Here's the link where I learned of this: http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2392762.html I went looking for further information on the City Council's website, and I couldn't find anything, so either the agenda isn't published there, or it's well hidden in there.

Honestly, I may not be the best person to ask re: recommended readings to prep for facing the city council. I'm wondering if there will even be much time allotted for public comment. I wonder of the City council is even aware of all of the pending cases awaiting a decision in the Chicago case? Competence and awareness don't seem to be their strong suit.

RP1911
12-13-2009, 5:01 PM
I'll be there. Suit and tie on.

RP1911
12-13-2009, 5:06 PM
Here you go:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=98

Item #28

28. Estimated Time: 15 minutes
City of Sacramento Amicus Support in McDonald v. Chicago
Location: (Citywide)
Recommendation: Discuss and consider whether to authorize the City Attorney’s
Office to take the necessary steps to have the City of Sacramento join as amicus
curiae with various cities in McDonald v. Chicago, United States Supreme Court Case
no. 08-1521, in support of the position that the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution does not apply to the States and local governments.
Contact: Eileen Teichert, City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, Office of the City Attorney.

dfletcher
12-13-2009, 5:17 PM
Ever the diligent public servants - they're spending time and money on this item instead of addressing city issues.

Kalgunner
12-13-2009, 5:23 PM
their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

cc4usmc
12-13-2009, 5:27 PM
their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

Same thing I was thinking. If it doesn't apply to the states, where is it supposed to apply?

snobord99
12-13-2009, 5:46 PM
their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. You would think it was that simple, but it's not. Look for an explanation of the legal concept of "incorporation." It dictates some parts of the BoR applies while others don't.

And, actually, it does apply to "all citizens." But only if the entity doing the limiting is the federal government.

bodger
12-13-2009, 6:01 PM
"In support of the position that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not apply to the states and local governments."


Anyone who supports that position is a traitor to this country.

bigcalidave
12-13-2009, 6:15 PM
Oh good, they have put aside 15 minutes to talk about it... How nice of them. What can get done in government here in 15 minutes?

Kalgunner
12-13-2009, 6:18 PM
i understand incorporation of the bill of rights. the supreme court ruled on incorporating most of the bill of rights to the states, in cases interpreting the 14 amendment. i'm guessing the 2nd amendment wasn't part of the rulings.
i think its a slippery slope when the supreme court sets precedence by picking and choosing god given rights.

tango-52
12-13-2009, 6:32 PM
Oh good, they have put aside 15 minutes to talk about it... How nice of them. What can get done in government here in 15 minutes?

They may have only 15 min on the agenda, but if people put in speaker cards on that item, they are obligated to hear the public input. They will usually limit it to 3 minutes per speaker, but if 20 people put in cards, that is an hour. Get there early, get your cards in, practice your speech and get all your points in the time limit. Make them very aware and uncomfortable about the position that they are considering. :D

nicki
12-13-2009, 6:44 PM
If you want to make a difference, please get together before the hearing so that you can make a coordinated attack.

Please don't focus on the 2 amendment because the real issue of the MacDonald case is not just the 2 amendment, it is the whole bill of rights and that needs to be driven home to them.

The majority of Americans actually believe that the Federal Bill of Rights already applies to the 50 states.

Someone needs to stand up and say something like this.

"I joined the Military, put my life on the line because I believed in supporting and defending the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and now I find out that I didn't even have those rights, that I put my life to protect freedoms that don't exist".

Our country fought a bloody Civil War that tore the country apart and after that war, some politicians actually tried to do the morally right thing and grant equality under the law to all through the 14 th amendment.

The 14th amendment was overturned by a Racist Supreme court when they overturned the murder convicitons of those responsible for the Collafax Massacre, a Massacre where it is estimated that Sheriff Crunnshiak and his white hooded friends murdered 150 blacks.

The MacDonald case is about finally killing the remaining vestiges of the Jim Crow era.

Like it or not, this country was founded by the gun. When peaceful means to redress of grievances with the King of England failed, he left no choice but armed resisitance.

Our government is supposed to operate under the consent of the governed and the second amendment was put into the bill of rights because the people who founded this country did not trust governments and wanted the people to maintain the means to replace the government by force.

If you are trully for equal rights, then the only thing you can do is file a brief against Chicago.

The Bill of Rights is a all or nothing package deal.

BTW, Sacramento has a large Afro American population, I am sure a brief supporting Chicago will go over real well.

Nicki

SixPointEight
12-13-2009, 6:52 PM
Oh good, they have put aside 15 minutes to talk about it... How nice of them. What can get done in government here in 15 minutes?

That's because "they" likely have already made up their mind, but the poster after you is right about public speakers

RP1911
12-13-2009, 7:01 PM
Here you go:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/index.html

I wonder which council member's idea was it to bring this forth.

bwiese
12-13-2009, 7:26 PM
Opposition is welcome.

From a practical standpoint, I don't think it's that relevant. They're also opposing a bunch of CA state DAs as well as the AG. I believe the Chicago case is in fine shape/good hands regardless of what Sacramento throws at it.

Given that the antis are trying to pass some bad laws in San Mateo County, I'd hope that all those in that area are still focusing on that since it's on the same day (Tues 15 Dec).

Southwest Chuck
12-13-2009, 7:36 PM
Here you go:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/index.html

I wonder which council member's idea was it to bring this forth.

I just saw an agenda and video link on that site. Does this mean it will be video taped and available to see afterwords for the rest of us Calgunners? :confused:

RP1911
12-13-2009, 7:53 PM
^^ Yes.

wildhawker
12-13-2009, 8:25 PM
A great point, Bill- let's direct our attention to those issues which require our direct and immediate support.

The ground war is in San Mateo.

Opposition is welcome.

From a practical standpoint, I don't think it's that relevant. They're also opposing a bunch of CA state DAs as well as the AG. I believe the Chicago case is in fine shape/good hands regardless of what Sacramento throws at it.

Given that the antis are trying to pass some bad laws in San Mateo County, I'd hope that all those in that area are still focusing on that since it's on the same day (Tues 15 Dec).

hoffmang
12-13-2009, 9:09 PM
If you absolutely positively can not make it to San Mateo, then feel free to head over to Sac City to oppose this.

I think asking them why they support the Colfax Massacre and oppose the Bill of Rights is interesting. Remind them that a vote for an Amicus in support of Chicago is a vote against the Bill of Rights and that even unreconstructed racist Confederates weren't that politically dumb.

-Gene

Aegis
12-14-2009, 5:55 PM
Maybe someone in attendance can ask the council members if they have CCW permits. Could be an interesting piece of information to argue a point.

CSDGuy
12-14-2009, 6:15 PM
It would only be "interesting" if those on the City Council actually have one... The Mayor (IIRC) has his own Protection Detail though...

RP1911
12-14-2009, 7:33 PM
I'll be on crutches. Now all I have to do is figure out how to wear a suit and conceal the knee brace.

GarandFan
12-14-2009, 7:34 PM
I believe the Chicago case is in fine shape/good hands regardless of what Sacramento throws at it.

And how.

Python2
12-14-2009, 9:31 PM
And how.
You need a lot of back reading in this forum to answer your question.

GuyW
12-14-2009, 9:57 PM
You need a lot of back reading in this forum to answer your question.

You don't get the (dated) vernacular - he's agreeing with the post he quoted....

.

Python2
12-15-2009, 8:07 AM
You don't get the (dated) vernacular - he's agreeing with the post he quoted....

.
My bad, I jump the gun. Need glasses to differentiate period and question mark:o

HowardW56
12-15-2009, 7:58 PM
Sacramento just voted to join in the brief...

hoffmang
12-15-2009, 8:03 PM
There were three commentators against. The last one was a Calgunner and I think the middle one was too. The last one did an outstanding job while the middle one was also very good.

-Gene

RP1911
12-15-2009, 8:26 PM
I was there. The first one rambled on (older guy). The other two were very good. Councilmember Robbie Waters (Ex -Sac County Sheriff gets it and voted no). I believe Mayor Johnson voted against.

It passed however.

NorCalMama
12-15-2009, 8:47 PM
I was there. The first one rambled on (older guy). The other two were very good. Councilmember Robbie Waters (Ex -Sac County Sheriff gets it and voted no). I believe Mayor Johnson voted against.

It passed however.

My husband and I were there also (I sat in front of you actually) and we couldn't figure out who the second "no" belonged to. So it was Johnson???

RP1911
12-15-2009, 8:53 PM
From talking to one of the other speakers, he said it was Johnson.

bigcalidave
12-15-2009, 9:14 PM
Sacramento just voted to join in the brief...

Idiots. Do any of them have a clue what they are doing? Do they even know why they are trying to support this?

hoffmang
12-15-2009, 9:17 PM
Idiots. Do any of them have a clue what they are doing? Do they even know why they are trying to support this?

They're just joining common cause with the legal reasoning of the KKK in 1875. It's ok. :eek:

-Gene

AyatollahGondola
12-15-2009, 9:25 PM
I was there. The first one rambled on (older guy). The other two were very good.

Talk about rambling on.....the agenda item about making Sac a sister city with Bethlehem:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:
They moved that ahead for some reason. I thought it would drone on until my head exploded.
Robbie Waters story was a reminder. He was accosted in the parking lot of Jumbo market if I remember correctly. He shot the bad guy in the face.
McCarty is a jackass
Johnson did vote no, but did so without comment.
I guess we should be happy that it wasn't unanimous. Some of that other stuff was, and without even a word of discussion...which indicates that the fix is in before any comments at the meetings.

Kid Stanislaus
12-15-2009, 9:43 PM
There were three commentators against. The last one was a Calgunner and I think the middle one was too. The last one did an outstanding job while the middle one was also very good. -Gene

Yeah, the first one was an old fart ('bout my age!) who was not well organised at all, hell, I thought he was Eboneezer Scrooge when I first saw him! :p Well, I'm not sure it was worth worrying about, all the action is really with the SCOTUS and I'm sure they've all made up their minds by now. Come next June we'll either be dance'n in the streets or cuss'n the day we was born!!

CCWFacts
12-15-2009, 9:55 PM
They're just joining common cause with the legal reasoning of the KKK in 1875. It's ok. :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ColfaxMassacre.jpg
Gathering the dead after the Colfax Massacre. The KKK of 1873 thinks it's cool to massacre black people, and the Sacramento City Council of 2009 supports them.

NorCalMama
12-15-2009, 10:05 PM
Ok, granted, he did kind of "ramble", but I was disgusted that Johnson called "time" on him when EVERYONE prior who went well over their time allottment was allowed to speak and nothing was said to them. Namely, the guy from the Railroad Museum...
I feel like a tard for this, but as my husband pointed out, it's obvious Johnson voted "No" because he damn well knew it would pass... seriously, the whole thing just made me so angry.
I wonder why they bumped the sister city thing? Anyone know?

AyatollahGondola
12-15-2009, 10:56 PM
I wonder why they bumped the sister city thing? Anyone know?
I'm going to suggest that they wanted to get all the jewish faithful out of there before someone pointed out that the beneficiary of the sister city effort was a community that allows it's citizens to carry automatic weapons to protect their persons and country. Otherwise some enterprising opponent might summon them up to explain why Sacramento should become a sister city with one that doesn't share its' values?

Racefiend
12-15-2009, 11:09 PM
This actually made the KCRA news. They interviewed Sam Paredes in opposition to the decision. According to them Waters was the only council member to oppose it.

ChrisTKHarris
12-15-2009, 11:12 PM
I just saw this news segment on Channel 3...I am LIVID.

NorCalMama
12-15-2009, 11:27 PM
http://www.kcra.com/news/21979828/detail.html

Also, go to http://www.kcra.com and notice one of the main headlines-cops kill a KNIFE weilding woman at a Modesto school. Where is the "knives kill people" outrage?!

luvnlife916
12-15-2009, 11:32 PM
God save us from these people. I was watching the KCRA 11:00 news and I was floored by the report. The segment ended with the reporter saying that this will end gun violence. Amazing, these people have no clue.

press1280
12-16-2009, 3:16 AM
"We've been able to take off the streets 200 guns, arrest a couple hundred felons," McCarty said.
Does he think if Chicago loses that all of a sudden felons will be able to legally carry????
But really, isn't this move to try to protect the sheriff in the Sykes' case? If SCOTUS doesn't incorporate, that means Sac. can continue its arbitrary CCW system, along with any other possible bans that they may dream up?
I think they know incorporation spells the end for discretionary CCW issuance.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-16-2009, 4:57 AM
Idiots. Do any of them have a clue what they are doing? Do they even know why they are trying to support this?


Of course they do.

They're doing it for the children!!!! :TFH:

Haven't you been paying attention?

The Raisuli

cc4usmc
12-16-2009, 5:53 AM
God save us from these people. I was watching the KCRA 11:00 news and I was floored by the report. The segment ended with the reporter saying that this will end gun violence. Amazing, these people have no clue.

Anyone happen to record that segment? lol

Write Winger
12-16-2009, 7:10 AM
http://www.kcra.com/news/21979828/detail.html

Also, go to http://www.kcra.com and notice one of the main headlines-cops kill a KNIFE weilding woman at a Modesto school. Where is the "knives kill people" outrage?!

We need to ban large knives such as assault meat cleavers and assault butcher knives. NOBODY needs to own such weapons, besides licensed and trained butchers.

Dirk Tungsten
12-16-2009, 8:19 AM
Much respect to the calgunners who attended. I would have gone but I was sick and am still not feeling well. As much as I don't care for Robbie Waters, it's good to see him do the right thing. The rest of the council is 100% worthless, as they have proven repeatedly.

AyatollahGondola
12-16-2009, 8:21 AM
Much respect to the calgunners who attended. I would have gone but I was sick and am still not feeling well. As much as I don't care for Robbie Waters, it's good to see him do the right thing. The rest of the council is 100% worthless, as they have proven repeatedly.

Can I ask why you don't care for him?

Dirk Tungsten
12-16-2009, 8:37 AM
I'm gonna choose my words very carefully here, but he has been involved in some things I don't approve of morally or ethically. My biggest complaint (and this could be said of others on the board) is that, to me, he represents le Ancien Regime. Frankly, he's been in politics too long, with too little to show for it. None of the council members, and indeed the mayor, have anything approaching a vision for the future, no demonstrable comprehension of the problems facing sacramento, and a willingness to bend over for anybody with $$$. Or maybe I'm just bitter because I'm watching this town rot under these people's stewardship.

AyatollahGondola
12-16-2009, 8:45 AM
I'm gonna choose my words very carefully here, but he has been involved in some things I don't approve of morally or ethically.

I think I know what you're referring to here. Can't argue that he has performed admirably on all fronts.
The new regime doesn't seem any better though. In fact, they seem worse. they are hell bent on development at all cost, they are beholden the same type of snake oil salesmen who come before them, and then they have the added threat of tossing out solid American values and replacing them with this new age tripe that thinks they can solve all the worlds problems by giving in to them. Drugs, crime, sexual deviancy, and such are viewed as some sort of partnership now.

Dirk Tungsten
12-16-2009, 8:53 AM
I think I know what you're referring to here. Can't argue that he has performed admirably on all fronts.
The new regime doesn't seem any better though. In fact, they seem worse. they are hell bent on development at all cost, they are beholden the same type of snake oil salesmen who come before them, and then they have the added threat of tossing out solid American values and replacing them with this new age tripe that thinks they can solve all the worlds problems by giving in to them. Drugs, crime, sexual deviancy, and such are viewed as some sort of partnership now.

Yeah, I feel some of your pain. The problem with this town is you get old, corrupt and incompetent, or the new breed, who are rank amateurs with neither the experience or knowledege to perform adequately. Also, no moral compass.

FastFinger
12-16-2009, 8:56 AM
None of the council members, and indeed the mayor, have anything approaching a vision for the future, no demonstrable comprehension of the problems facing sacramento, and a willingness to bend over for anybody with $$$. Or maybe I'm just bitter because I'm watching this town rot under these people's stewardship.

I'm so confused.. Here I thought we were talking about Sacramento - not Los Angeles.

Dirk Tungsten
12-16-2009, 9:29 AM
Heh, you could substitute the name of any city in California, or California its self in that statement and it would still apply.

NorCalMama
12-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Heh, you could substitute the name of any city in California, or California its self in that statement and it would still apply.

I'm convinced that you could apply what was said to ANY big city in the country. All rotting under poor "leadership" that is corrupt to the core. After last night I felt more affirmed in my wanting to move to a nice small town in a more "gun friendly" state.

I'm amazed that the lawyer in support of the Chicago gun ban, or whatever that weasel was, openly said that his side doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, but he still wants to support this. Is it so he can have his name by something so retardedly PC? What would someone's reasoning be for this? Furthermore, what misguided principle drives people to believe stripping law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment Right someone reduces gun violence/crime?

And who was the third guy who spoke? I heard him afterwards say he's on Calguns but my husband and I left without talking to him... we were so impressed with what he said. He was prepared and wiped the floor with the anti gun weasel lawyer.

aileron
12-16-2009, 11:22 AM
We need to ban large knives such as assault meat cleavers and assault butcher knives. NOBODY needs to own such weapons, besides licensed and trained butchers.

England has already starting down this road. So don't think they wont try.

Kid Stanislaus
12-16-2009, 11:32 AM
Has anybody used FIA to get the files on those cases in Sacramento? I'm refering to the cases involving their ammo restrictions laws they claim have been SO effective keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm think'n that if those cases were examined closely we'd find the devil is in the details.

wildhawker
12-16-2009, 11:53 AM
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2165

drop down index under the clip

stormy_clothing
12-16-2009, 11:55 AM
Gathering the dead after the Colfax Massacre. The KKK of 1873 thinks it's cool to massacre black people, and the Sacramento City Council of 2009 supports them.

I hate BS like this - if the city council thought it was ok to kill black people there would statistically be almost no crime left in oakland and nothing to worry about.

What SCC does not want to do is in any way directly impinge on criminals at all, they can make all the new laws they like and spend boatloads of tax payer dollars to pass the measures but with courts closing down and jails being overfilled this is going to have no effect there are too many bigger issues to deal with.

yellowfin
12-16-2009, 11:56 AM
Furthermore, what misguided principle drives people to believe stripping law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment Right someone reduces gun violence/crime?Among the citizenry, simple ignorance and/or identity politics. For people who don't know any gun owners personally or have any positive information outlet, the anti gun political/media machine is the only source of information they have, so they believe all that they've heard. From that springs the identity politics problem which you see. The antis have gotten extremely skilled at conditioning people to believe that the average and majority of gun owners are either A. {white males, rural living, overly religious and usually Protestant Christian, Republican, racist, sexist, homophobic, uneducated, poor, anachronistic, and so on, and they hunt} or B. {violent criminals, vigilantes, conspiracy theorists, degenerates, paranoids, or psychopaths}--as many possible characteristics as they can attach some negative stereotype to. Then they play every single one of those back to people to get them convinced that they MUST be anti gun because they're not those things and are against most of them. They paint gun ownership like cross dressing, something unfitting and therefore unnatural and wrong for them to do.

* If they're black or Hispanic or Asian or Pacific Islander, they must be against gun ownership because that's something for white people, and they're racist and hate black people.

* If they're female, they cannot be for gun ownership because that's a male thing, and males are sexist and politically wrong.

* If they're urban dwelling, they cannot be for gun ownership because they don't hunt, that's a country thing for uneducated, poor hicks, and they cause all kinds of accidents because they're stupid.

* If they're educated, they can't be gun owners because gun owners are poor and stupid. It would be bad for their image.

* If they're Jewish, they must hate all gun ownership because that's what Christians like and Christians put up Christmas trees everywhere, fill the radio stations with Christmas music, and because there are so many they must be oppressing Judaism because every previous dominant culture has. They have to fight against gun ownership because they have to fight against whatever is around to have some kind of relevance.

* If they're a fair minded person who likes equality and rights, they must hate gun ownership and gun owners because they must be sexist and bigoted. The irony of this is, of course, is that they become bigoted and hateful of us in the process and don't ever bother to notice.

* If they're a parent, they must be against gun ownership because they don't want dangerous evil objects with no use around their kids nor they people who own them who are crazies or hoodlums. They used to blame Elvis, girls having short haircuts, boys having long haircuts, sex, etc., but they can't do that. They have to pin all of society's evils on something so guns make a perfectly convenient taboo because that's all that they can disapprove of without getting into actual morality, reality, responsibility, etc. which they're not comfortable with or don't believe in in the first place.

**Combine any of those characteristics, often all of them, and you have a perfect class of people to blame all of society's ills upon. Containing the problem to that class of people, treating them as nothing but a cesspool from which all vile stenches, rot, and evil come from makes mistreatment of that class and any and all laws curtailing, removing, or altogether eliminating them into a perfectly reasonable and virtuous objective. The Romans did it with the Christians. The Nazis did it with the Jews. The Maoists did it with the educated. The French revolutionaries did it with the wealthy. Various tribes in all kinds of 3rd world places do it with other tribes. The KKK and the segregationist south did it with the blacks. Now urban California, DC, NYC, and Chicago do it with law abiding gun owners.

It's hate politics, nothing more. Prejudice born of ignorance and manipulation. Nothing at all different from segregationist politics. Guess what, it works! People bought segregation hook, line, and sinker for exactly the same reasons! They all thought "I'm better than that, than those people. Get those ewwy scary disgusting people away from me so I don't catch their cooties or get robbed or raped walking alone at night" and politicians catered to it, stoked the fires more, and milked it for all it was worth. Same with the politicians today. They don't honestly believe a single word of what they're saying, but it's hate politics which work AND they can, thus far, get away with it. They've turned it into their favorite pet boogeyman, and with the information control and laws which work to segregate, it works.

RP1911
12-16-2009, 7:16 PM
And who was the third guy who spoke? I heard him afterwards say he's on Calguns but my husband and I left without talking to him... we were so impressed with what he said. He was prepared and wiped the floor with the anti gun weasel lawyer.

He prefers that his name not be associated with his online ID publically.

redcliff
12-16-2009, 9:33 PM
I'm glad I live in Redding; we have our problems but at least our Mayor own's a gun shop :)

hoffmang
12-16-2009, 9:40 PM
He prefers that his name not be associated with his online ID publically.

He's an international man of mystery...


(But he posts and reads here a ton.)

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
12-17-2009, 4:52 AM
He's an international man of mystery...


(But he posts and reads here a ton.)

-Gene


Austin Powers is a CalGunner????

The Raisuli

P.S. Redcliff; Plus 1 for the avatar.

CDMichel
12-28-2009, 4:55 PM
For those who might be interested, I will be talking about this on NRA News tonight. Sirius XM radio 144, or www.nranews.com. Not sure which segment.

Ravenslair
12-29-2009, 2:35 AM
Per today's Sacramento Bee, the City of Sacramento will be supporting Chicago. The council vote was 7-2 for supporting. Mayor Johnson and one council member voted no.

yellowfin
12-29-2009, 5:45 AM
Those 7 can be publicly made to explain why they voted against civil rights sometime around in June or July.

RP1911
12-29-2009, 7:56 AM
We need a two paragraph letter to the Bee response that touchs on the civil rights/racist aspects of the support.

I'm not a good writer otherwise I would do it. if someone can write it, I'll put my name to it if the writer is concerned about ID-ing themselves.

smallshot13
12-29-2009, 8:09 AM
We need a two paragraph letter to the Bee response that touchs on the civil rights/racist aspects of the support.

I'm not a good writer otherwise I would do it. if someone can write it, I'll put my name to it if the writer is concerned about ID-ing themselves.

And what makes you believe the Bee would publish it? The Bee is a leader in any restrictive rights movement, not a follower. In particular, gun control is one of its higher priorities.

CSDGuy
12-29-2009, 10:09 AM
Per today's Sacramento Bee, the City of Sacramento will be supporting Chicago. The council vote was 7-2 for supporting. Mayor Johnson and one council member voted no.
Councilman Robbie Waters (also former Sacramento County Sheriff) was the other no vote. Waters wasn't all that surprising, but Mayor Johnson was... at least to me!

RP1911
12-29-2009, 10:22 AM
Smallshot

I have seen other 2A related letters from readers published. We won't know if we don't submit a letter.