PDA

View Full Version : Armed and Dangerous?


Billy Jack
01-13-2010, 7:31 AM
I realize this will be red meat to some of the members but it is a differing view and we need to look at all sides if we are to remain objective. The stinging defeat of AB 357 has many of you asking questions. Suffice to say I have answered these questions here already and many did not care for the answers they heard.

You do not make such a serious change in a law by changing a few words. The lazy author should have started from scratch. How many of you were aware that the author, a Los Angeles County legislature, was merely doing a constitutent a favor and really did much put much thought into the Bill or spend any time rallying support? A Bill lacking heavy weight co-sponsors will not pass in California.

Anyway, have a read of: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18862&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Support the various CCW suits that are currently in play and those about to be filed. (Not so veiled hint) Contrary to what many believe, this will be played out in the courts over the next ten years or so and not in the legislature.

Remember, all your freedoms are precious, not just your ability to 'keep and bear arms'. Your freedoms are being attacked by the current administration while they watch people obsessesed with one topic miss what is going on.
You might want to read the Executive Order signed by Obams January 11, 2010, called the Council of Governors.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors

You are in for a surprise at what he did while you were looking elsewhere.

Billy Jack

liketoshoot
01-13-2010, 8:00 AM
Remember, all your freedoms are precious, not just your ability to 'keep and bear arms'. Your freedoms are being attacked by the current administration while they watch people obsessesed with one topic miss what is going on.
You might want to read the Executive Order signed by Obams January 11, 2010, called the Council of Governors.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ncil-governors

You are in for a surprise at what he did while you were looking elsewhere.

Billy Jack



Well this is because of Pres. Bush not just from the guy sitting in the office now.

Window_Seat
01-13-2010, 8:13 AM
Many of us already knew the fate of 357 before it was even authored. Reality is reality, and we have a legislature who does not believe that the law should be changed, and that is why the majority of us are focused on the long term solution that is taking place.

The reason Knight didn't gather support is because it would have been wasted energy; Amiano would still have recommended a "no" vote, and it would have been even more stinging. It's called predictive analysis. This way, we know the level of hatred for 2A rights outside the home and workplace ahead of time with just "a few words".

Ultimately, CA will be a SICCW State, the HG Roster will be gone, the AWB will be gone, and 626.9 will be dead if we continue to do things right, and not get too emotional. A good strategy to use is to refrain from making absurd comments, and that should NOT be too difficult.

In a perfect world, all Sheriff's & CLEOs would be able to tell ahead of time who is fit, and who isn't, but that won't happen. What will happen is the Bill of Rights under the U.S. Constitution will have to apply to all states, including CA.

Erik.

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 8:23 PM
BJ,

The link you cite is of the absolute worst science. It makes the East Anglia climate research unit look rigorous and virtuous.

The thesis is armed people get shot more. Yet:
The authors acknowledge that they did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault -- that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot causes gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

They also don't take prohibited folks out of the pool...

You've never answered my question of you as to why shall issue works in Texas and Florida as well as Seattle, Portland, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. but couldn't work in California...

-Gene

510dat
01-13-2010, 8:39 PM
You've never answered my question of you as to why shall issue works in Texas and Florida as well as Seattle, Portland, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. but couldn't work in California...

-Gene

Why, because we don't have good enough cause! :rolleyes:

<- 510 doesn't appreciate BJ's holier-than-thou attitude.

bodger
01-13-2010, 9:30 PM
<- 510 doesn't appreciate BJ's holier-than-thou attitude.

When Billy Jack stops hearing that on a regular basis, he'll think he isn't doing his job correctly anymore. :D

JDay
01-13-2010, 10:21 PM
Your freedoms are being attacked by the current administration while they watch people obsessesed with one topic miss what is going on.
You might want to read the Executive Order signed by Obams January 11, 2010, called the Council of Governors.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors

You are in for a surprise at what he did while you were looking elsewhere.

Billy Jack

The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)

I don't see how you can blame this on Obama, it was put into motion before the election.

blkhat1069
01-13-2010, 11:04 PM
You CAN blame Bush for putting it in motion, But, you CAN blame the Current President for signing it!

HondaMasterTech
01-13-2010, 11:10 PM
Exactly what authority will this council have?

Super Spy
01-13-2010, 11:25 PM
Doesn't sound like that council is a threat to our 2A rights.....

JDay
01-13-2010, 11:43 PM
You CAN blame Bush for putting it in motion, But, you CAN blame the Current President else for signing it!

You can only blame Congress since they passed the bill with the requirement in it. If Bush didn't sign it you would all be crying for blood for not funding the armed forces. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2008

The National Defense Authorization Act is the name of a United States federal law that is enacted each fiscal year to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.

blkhat1069
01-14-2010, 12:09 AM
You can only blame Congress since they passed the bill with the requirement in it. If Bush didn't sign it you would all be crying for blood for not funding the armed forces. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2008

Sorry let me specify , I was referring to the Council of Governors And the NDAA For 2010. And how this board will be constructed and whom picks who will serve on the BOARD. This Bill is loaded with crap like Making some people more protected than others "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act", "Victims of Iranian Censorship Act (or the VOICE Act)"

This is Supposed to be A Yearly US Security and Defense Budget and Expenditure ACT .

bigcalidave
01-14-2010, 12:14 AM
Our freedoms are being attacked by the people who run this state with total disregard for the people who live here. What's with the paranoia about the "Council of Governors".

oaklander
01-14-2010, 12:29 AM
What does that paper and the Council of Governors have to do with shall-issue in CA?

Oaklander is not finding a connection. . .

:p

ETA: I'm familiar with that paper from when it first came out - the premise is similar to saying that driving a Buick in East Oakland is more likely to make you a victim of a drive-by shooting.

blkhat1069
01-14-2010, 12:48 AM
Our freedoms are being attacked by the people who run this state with total disregard for the people who live here. What's with the paranoia about the "Council of Governors".

Now put the same people who have total disregard for your freedoms molding NATIONAL Policy.... Lets see Patterson D(NY), Govenator R?(CA),Patrick D(Mass), Taft R(OH). "SAMPLE" Would give the perception of stricter Federal Gun control.. Not a national consensus of the truth...But it is Bi-Partisan, and representative.

oaklander
01-14-2010, 12:52 AM
Can you repost this in English please?

:p

Now put the same people who have total disregard for your freedoms molding NATIONAL Policy.... Lets see Patterson D(NY), Govenator R?(CA),Patrick D(Mass), Taft R(OH). "SAMPLE" Would give the perception of stricter Federal Gun control.. Not a national consensus of the truth...But it is Bi-Partisan, and representative.

blkhat1069
01-14-2010, 1:03 AM
Now put the same people who have total disregard for your (GUN RIGHTS) freedoms molding NATIONAL Policy....
Lets see "SAMPLE"
Patterson D(NY)
Govenator R?(CA)
Patrick D(Mass)
Taft R(OH).

This list would give the perception of Bi-Partisan, and representative to the nation, But all are anti-gun And would lobby for stricter Federal Gun control to subvert the state from having to deal with the issue independently.
And this will Not be a national consensus of the true feeling of most Americans.

Hope that is more readable, It sounded right in my head, but it can get downright crowed in there.

Billy Jack
01-14-2010, 9:30 AM
blkhat1069 is the only one who got it right.

You folks have to stop being myopic and see the whole picture. This Administration is the greatest danger to the Constitution and personal freedom to ever come down the pike. For heaven's sake, stop obsessing on the 2nd and realize that if the Statists continue to erode the Constitution, your 2nd Amendment rights will also go away.

How would you like a nice strong Governor like Arnold on the Council of Governors? Without the other Amendments to the Constitution, the 2nd becomes a moot point.

Keep the adoration coming, this Brave thrives on it.

Billy Jack

M. D. Van Norman
01-14-2010, 10:43 AM
Yes, the battle will probably be decided in the courts. That doesnʼt preclude the Legislature from coming to its senses and trying to save our bankrupt state from wasting even more money on an untenable legal defense.

Furthermore, letʼs take a lesson from our opponents. They donʼt usually pass their legislation the first time around. They submit essentially the same bills over and over again until they finally slip through. We should do the same, but our position has been defensive for so long that we measure our success by the bad legislation we stop … and slowly but surely lose ground.

Mitch
01-14-2010, 11:36 AM
This Administration is the greatest danger to the Constitution and personal freedom to ever come down the pike.

I'm no fan of this Administration, but it's not the one that threw habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment under the bus, in the name of "national security."

Your partisanship is showing.

dantodd
01-14-2010, 11:50 AM
You've never answered my question of you as to why shall issue works in Texas and Florida as well as Seattle, Portland, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. but couldn't work in California...

I have stated a number of times what the evidence is for this position, even when he straight up denied it. I have also taken heat from Bill for stating it but perhaps it is becoming more clear, BJ and TBJ have an economic interest in the continued existence of May Issue in CA. Do his lawsuits help others? Yes. Does he gate-keep and charge for every scrap of information he develops while taking freely (and requesting more) from here? Yes.

This is surely his right and I make no claim to try and strip any person of their right to make a living. Refusing to recognize how this might mold their opinions is naive.

I suppose there are alternative hypotheses of why he would want a "person in authority" to have the ability to deny constitutional rights to "the wrong people" but there is no evidence for any that I can come up with beyond the economic.

510dat
01-14-2010, 12:07 PM
Keep the adoration coming, this Brave thrives on it.

Billy Jack

A thousand pardons, your worshipfulness! Clearly, I forgot to grovel. Perhaps Your Mightyness, in all your beneficent wisdom, would deign to answer Gene's question, that we may all become more educated.

You've never answered my question of you as to why shall issue works in Texas and Florida as well as Seattle, Portland, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. but couldn't work in California...

-Gene

<- 510, counting the moments until The Brave's answer

HondaMasterTech
01-14-2010, 3:53 PM
So, the point of this council is a target to point a finger? It's a way for the "Current administration" to justify their wanting to eliminate all of our rights and say the stripping of our rights is what we want? Sounds stupid.

Sinixstar
01-14-2010, 4:01 PM
Now put the same people who have total disregard for your (GUN RIGHTS) freedoms molding NATIONAL Policy....
Lets see "SAMPLE"
Patterson D(NY)
Govenator R?(CA)
Patrick D(Mass)
Taft R(OH).

This list would give the perception of Bi-Partisan, and representative to the nation, But all are anti-gun And would lobby for stricter Federal Gun control to subvert the state from having to deal with the issue independently.
And this will Not be a national consensus of the true feeling of most Americans.

Hope that is more readable, It sounded right in my head, but it can get downright crowed in there.

What difference does that really make? Really? Does being on this council somehow make these people MORE anti gun? If they're already against us, they're already against us. Big deal.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

GoodEyeSniper
01-14-2010, 6:53 PM
What difference does that really make? Really? Does being on this council somehow make these people MORE anti gun? If they're already against us, they're already against us. Big deal.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

I think his point was that they formed a council under the guise of being "bipartisan", that may have some form of power, or persuasion, over disarming us even more.

Of course, Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same monster these days, so the whole bipartisan thing is just to appease the extreme fanboys of either side.