PDA

View Full Version : Don Kates on Jerry Brown


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
03-17-2010, 11:06 PM
Many of you have heard Bill Weise, others, and myself allude to why Governor Brown deserves our support. Apparently, I can now explain myself a bit more. Don Kates had Dave Hardy post (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/03/don_kates_on_th_1.php) the following on Dave's blog:

Don writes:

"I have been asked to comment on the up-coming California
gubernatorial election: Of the Republican candidate, an immensely
wealthy woman named Meg Whitman, I know nothing except that she is the
former Chief Executive Officer of eBay and that she is alleged to be
anti-gun by some people who claim to know and that the allegation is not
surprising to anyone.

SPECIFICS: Whitman has no interest in meeting with gun groups to solicit
their support; Whitman has supported Barbara Boxer; Whitman supports
"environmental" lawsuits that are anti-hunting but makes no attempt to
gain the aid of gun groups on environmental issues.

In contrast, I do know Jerry Brown. We went to law school together
though we were not big buddies. And when I contacted him about
supporting the pro-Second Amendment position in the McDonald case, he
filed an influential pro-Second Amendment brief with the US Supreme
Court. I know that he personally made the decision to do this,
overruling his staff; and he wrote the brief himself. (He is an able
lawyer.) When he was assailed by anti-gun forces, his response was that
the 2d Amendment is a "civil rights issue.""

I certainly hope I don't have to explain who Don Kates is, but if you don't know who he is you should assume that the only reason the Second Amendment wasn't nullified in the 1970's and 1980's is almost solely due to him (and his parrot.)

Hat tip to a certain wiley individual who knows who he is.

-Gene

Doheny
03-17-2010, 11:09 PM
Jerry's my guy...

(in a manner of speaking.)

Gray Peterson
03-17-2010, 11:20 PM
This is most telling:

In contrast, I do know Jerry Brown. We went to law school together
though we were not big buddies. And when I contacted him about
supporting the pro-Second Amendment position in the McDonald case, he
filed an influential pro-Second Amendment brief with the US Supreme
Court. I know that he personally made the decision to do this,
overruling his staff; and he wrote the brief himself. (He is an able
lawyer.) When he was assailed by anti-gun forces, his response was that
the 2d Amendment is a "civil rights issue.""

berto
03-17-2010, 11:30 PM
Well, there we have it from the inside. Other issues may rightfully give folks the heebie jeebies but Brown is clearly the best viable option for 2A.

The Shadow
03-17-2010, 11:42 PM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to down play his pro gun stance and prop up his former "Moon Beam" reputation to play to the democrats, and others that are prone to vote on the left. Conversely, maybe we could somehow derail Meg Whitman as a "Big business" corporate shill. It does have possibilities.

G17GUY
03-17-2010, 11:59 PM
+1 for JB.

Meg Whitman is pumping out the advertisements like no other. :(

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 7:17 AM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to down play his pro gun stance and prop up his former "Moon Beam" reputation to play to the democrats, and others that are prone to vote on the left. Conversely, maybe we could somehow derail Meg Whitman as a "Big business" corporate shill. It does have possibilities.

She's going to try to control the tempo and demeanor of the race. However, rumor has it unless she is in control of the room she is speaking in, she falters badly. That means a moderated debate is going to kill her. She will most likely only consent to one debate with limits on the subjects and overall time, and not engage the open public for a discussion. JB will get her there.

glbtrottr
03-18-2010, 7:31 AM
She has a temper.

She'll come across *****y, intolerant and elitist.

Did you see what happen to Hilary? Think much worse.

She's not particularly charismatic.

Snore...

mcholak
03-18-2010, 7:41 AM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-18-2010, 7:59 AM
She has a temper.

She'll come across *****y, intolerant and elitist.

Did you see what happen to Hilary? Think much worse.

She's not particularly charismatic.

Snore...

So true.

She's already doing this with her attack ads on Poisner (and I am NOT defending Poisner nor his record here). Of everyone I have spoken with on these ads, no one has found them productive or positive in her regard. Too many (ok, all) people which I have discussed her with have found her abrasive and elitist.

The Shadow
03-18-2010, 1:35 PM
She's going to try to control the tempo and demeanor of the race. However, rumor has it unless she is in control of the room she is speaking in, she falters badly. That means a moderated debate is going to kill her. She will most likely only consent to one debate with limits on the subjects and overall time, and not engage the open public for a discussion. JB will get her there.

She has a temper.

She'll come across *****y, intolerant and elitist.

Did you see what happen to Hilary? Think much worse.

She's not particularly charismatic.

Snore...

So true.

She's already doing this with her attack ads on Poisner (and I am NOT defending Poisner nor his record here). Of everyone I have spoken with on these ads, no one has found them productive or positive in her regard. Too many (ok, all) people which I have discussed her with have found her abrasive and elitist.

Well, it's all good then. Obviously, she's never read Sun Tzu's "Art of War".

Glock22Fan
03-18-2010, 2:14 PM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.

When I ponder this question, I also think about how hard it will be to overturn legislation I disagree with (both 2nd related and on other topics) when the pendulum swings back again.

IMHO, it is much harder to overturn anti-gun legislation than it is to overturn, say, a hike in taxes or whatever. Therefore, although I wouldn't vote for a pro-gun Nazi, I'm certainly prone to give JB serious consideration, even though he may have a D after his name.

PatriotnMore
03-18-2010, 2:19 PM
Yep, and I get vocal about my dislike for her politics every time I see her in an ad.

+1 for JB.

Meg Whitman is pumping out the advertisements like no other. :(

I am not a fan of J.B. either, but I would see him win before her at any cost.

hill billy
03-18-2010, 2:42 PM
I am not a fan of J.B. either, but I would see him win before her at any cost.

This is how I see it. JB did some bad stuff while he was in office the first time but I am really concerned about Whitman.

wash
03-18-2010, 3:00 PM
Brown is much more of a politician these days than the last time he was governor. I don't expect we will see anything too upsetting when he's in office, when compared to what Whitman would do.

Whitman is Bloomberg Mk2. She wants to buy an office probably on some kind of ego trip about running for president. She can not be trusted.

loather
03-18-2010, 4:19 PM
Brown's got my vote.

BigDogatPlay
03-18-2010, 4:23 PM
Brown is much more of a politician these days than the last time he was governor. I don't expect we will see anything too upsetting when he's in office, when compared to what Whitman would do.

Nothing too upsetting about the Green Kool Aid he'll want us all to drink. Right.....

Whitman is Bloomberg Mk2. She wants to buy an office probably on some kind of ego trip about running for president. She can not be trusted.

Running for president? I don't know. I can't imagine she's got that big a pair. She strikes me as a completely empty suit who can't assemble coherent sentences without total control of the room and a working teleprompter.

Oh wait... we already elected someone like that as president, didn't we. ;)

As to trust, your observation is quite true, IMO. No politician can ever be trusted.

easy
03-18-2010, 4:31 PM
While I doubt that Meg can pull off the things she 'thinks' she's good at, we must remember that Brown gave us one of the worst on-going financial burden this state has - the Inmates Bill of Rights.

Meg is an anti as well as a commie lover. Case in point: she adores Van Jones ideas and how he wants thing to be(search Utube) Jones is a self avowed communist and one of BHO's favs.

Legasat
03-18-2010, 4:55 PM
Jerry Brown is uber lefty and wingnut to boot. But, he says he owns a gun, filed an americus brief on behalf of incorporation, and is cheap bastard when it comes to spending money. I have read that as Mayor of Oakland he was moderately business friendly, cut spending and got rid of several programs that wasted money in the City budget.

I am NOT a Jerry fan, but at this point between Meg & Jerry, I'll probably hold my nose, shake my head in disbelief and vote for Jerry.

wuluf
03-18-2010, 4:56 PM
This choice is a classic one for me. Whitman is the more "conservative" of the two. I likely agree more with her philosophy than Brown's...except on guns. The Second Amendment is my most important issue, but not my only issue. Do i vote for the liberal who supports my gun rights, or the more conservative who hates guns? I'm glad we still have a few months to decide...

socalblue
03-18-2010, 5:39 PM
Meg would run into the exact same problem as Arnie: the Governor can't dictate squat in CA. It's not a business where the CEO can make unilaterally make decisions (Arnie learned this the hard way).

Right & wrong don't matter to the CA Legislature, but rather what will get me $$ or votes? Change or reform in this state happen only two ways: it suits the purpose of the special interests that own Sacramento or via the ballot box (IE: Prop 13).

The problem with the ballot box is that the propositions tend to be written in such a manner as to require or prohibit specific items (spending, bonds, etc). The end result is that while the goal of passing the proposition is met, the state has less and less flexibility to adjust to changing conditions.

HowardW56
03-18-2010, 5:53 PM
Yep, and I get vocal about my dislike for her politics every time I see her in an ad.



I am not a fan of J.B. either, but I would see him win before her at any cost.

I'll take Moonbeam over Meg any day... He's got my vote...

thebronze
03-18-2010, 6:04 PM
This choice is a classic one for me. Whitman is the more "conservative" of the two. I likely agree more with her philosophy than Brown's...except on guns. The Second Amendment is my most important issue, but not my only issue. Do i vote for the liberal who supports my gun rights, or the more conservative who hates guns? I'm glad we still have a few months to decide...


She's no Conservative, by ANY stretch of the meaning of the word.

magsnubs
03-18-2010, 6:15 PM
I am not one issue, and my primary concern is advancing EVERYONE's liberty. I am totally screwed on this one. I'll probably just "waste" my vote on a Gale Ogden, at least that way I can absolve myself of having contributed to any of the B.S. both are likely to pull. I'll just pray for gridlock!

Shotgun Man
03-18-2010, 6:34 PM
[...]
I certainly hope I don't have to explain who Don Kates is, but if you don't know who he is you should assume that the only reason the Second Amendment wasn't nullified in the 1970's and 1980's is almost solely due to him (and his parrot.)

Hat tip to a certain wiley individual who knows who he is.

-Gene

I know only that Don Kates is a somewhat renown (certainly on calguns) 2A lawyer (e.g., he was the Nordyke lawyer).

You should develop your statement about his 2A work in the 1970s and '80s with a link at the very least, because from your statement he's done more than a lot of folks might be aware of. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) doesn't say too much about him.

BTW, I will vote for JB without hesitation or reservation (absent Ted Nugent running a viable campaign).

EastBayRidge
03-18-2010, 7:26 PM
Not sure it's that much of a dilemma if McDonald comes down positive for incorporation, and a whole bunch of stupid CA gun laws fall to litigation shortly thereafter. Does it really matter much who the governor is ?

Gray Peterson
03-18-2010, 7:33 PM
Not sure it's that much of a dilemma if McDonald comes down positive for incorporation, and a whole bunch of stupid CA gun laws fall to litigation shortly thereafter. Does it really matter much who the governor is ?

Democratic Governors can more nominally control Democractic Legislatures. For example, most of the really horrific gun control laws in the state's recent history were passed when Gray Davis was Governor and he wanted payback against the NRA-PVF for endorsing Dan Lungren, who seized guns from people's homes. He was a very vindictive SOB that essentially told the Legislature to send him as much gun control as they possibly could to give payback to gun owners.

Read what Don Kates said again. He OVERRULED his staff and wrote the brief himself because he couldn't trust his own staff to not screw with it.

FS00008
03-18-2010, 7:35 PM
JB has my vote and has had it for ages.

MrBrent
03-18-2010, 7:40 PM
Brown is so pro global warming CRAP that I can't stand it. He will cost a million jobs in CA and if I don't have a job I can't afford a gun. I don't like any of them at this point.
JB also got all the state workers into unions and you know how that has cost the state. We are nearly bankrupt.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/11/1854735/the-state-worker-california-state.html

Skidmark
03-18-2010, 7:44 PM
Brown's got my vote.

He'll get a few of my dollars, too. This is going to be one where we need to dig in and pony up to support the right candidate, since Whitman's resources are essentially unlimited.

Racefiend
03-18-2010, 7:45 PM
I know only that Don Kates is a somewhat renown (certainly on calguns) 2A lawyer (e.g., he was the Nordyke lawyer).

You should develop your statement about his 2A work in the 1970s and '80s with a link at the very least, because from your statement he's done more than a lot of folks might be aware of. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) doesn't say too much about him.

BTW, I will vote for JB without hesitation or reservation (absent Ted Nugent running a viable campaign).


Actually Don Kilmer was "the" lawyer. Kates was co-counsel

Shotgun Man
03-18-2010, 8:15 PM
Actually Don Kilmer was "the" lawyer. Kates was co-counsel

Thanks for the correction.

oaklander
03-18-2010, 10:14 PM
Mr. Kates has a pretty good bio here (he is of counsel to the firm):

http://www.michelandassociates.com/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=67&Itemid=106

MSO4MATT
03-18-2010, 10:40 PM
RINO'S should be extinct by November 10th, they are the most useless form of politician!

magsnubs
03-18-2010, 10:46 PM
The others are useful?

MSO4MATT
03-18-2010, 10:54 PM
good point...we do have some on our side, but in general I'd have to agree.

Theseus
03-18-2010, 10:56 PM
The others are useful?

He said "most useless". . . At this point I think nothing will help California. I would have already left if I could afford to.

1JimMarch
03-18-2010, 11:10 PM
OK...here's why Don's opinion matters.

Normally, an optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says it's half empty, and then there's Don who will tell you it doesn't matter, the water is likely toxic and even if it isn't we're all gonna die eventually so who cares.

Seriously, the guy can be the ultimate in pessimist.

So when he's OPTIMISTIC about something RKBA-related, pay attention.

Shotgun Man
03-18-2010, 11:11 PM
Mr. Kates has a pretty good bio here (he is of counsel to the firm):

http://www.michelandassociates.com/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=67&Itemid=106

Actually, the wiki article that I linked is more detailed than the Michel and associates link.

I was inquiring about what he did in the 70s and 80s in support of the 2A that was alluded to in Gene Hoffman's post.

CCWFacts
03-18-2010, 11:11 PM
I'm voting for JB.

I like him in many ways, especially his pro-2A brief he filed in McDonnald. That takes some guts.

My only reservation about him is that I would like to see the Democratic party machine in this state be smashed, and having any-who-isn't-a-D in office would help that. But I'm willing to overlook that reservation, because obviously we've had Arnie and he hasn't done much to crush the Democratic party machine here, so Jerry vs. Meg probably wouldn't make much difference one way or the other.

And anyway, I like Jerry's qualities.

rabagley
03-18-2010, 11:23 PM
Let's see, Jerry Brown is:

Against the death penalty. I'm also against the death penalty. I think that there absolutely are crimes that deserve the death penalty, but I do not trust our justice system to get it right, and killing someone is irrevocable.

For legalizing marijuana. I'm also for legalizing marijuana (along with all the other drugs that we can't keep out of the hands of addicts). The "War on (some) Drugs" is responsible for more erosion of our Constitutional protections than anything up to the very recent "War on Terrir".

For a less progressive income tax. Personally, I love simpler tax systems, especially when they don't kick me in the wallet for being a good provider to my family.

Doesn't care about smelt. He hasn't put out a position on the fish, but all he makes are snarky remarks. Not so good for the smelt, decent for central valley farmers.

Built a $5B reserve by being a fiscal tightwad that got voted away by the public via California's utterly moronic proposition system. [EDIT: this appears to be an overly optimistic reading of the facts. Learning more.]

IS PRO-GUN! Nuff said.

On the potential downside:

Supporter of AB32 (Carbon Tax). Yawn.

Um... so what is it that we're trading for 2nd amendment support again? Maybe I'd like him to man up and say that the smelt can go **** themselves instead of just making sarcastic remarks, but, honestly here: why not Jerry Brown?

I know who I'm voting for, and this registered (R) will be voting for the (D) candidate on the ballot.

Lead-Thrower
03-18-2010, 11:25 PM
Meg Whitman is anti-gun and thinks she can buy the office. Jerry Brown got us into a bit of a financial mess, and gave the unions an astronomical amount of power...Tough choice, but I think I will go pro 2A and vote for Jerry.

BigDogatPlay
03-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Built a $5B reserve by being a fiscal tightwad that got voted away by the public via California's utterly moronic proposition system.

This is just a wee bit off the mark.

He presided over the gathering of a surplus by allowing taxes to continue to rise uncontrolled above and beyond requirement for revenue. And spending did grow, just not nearly as much as some outside his office might have hoped.

His astute political handling of the Prop 13 movement that arose out of backlash to his (and the Legislature's) policies, ensured him a second term in 1978 when anyone who paid attention was writing his political death warrant.

rabagley
03-19-2010, 12:16 AM
This is just a wee bit off the mark.

He presided over the gathering of a surplus by allowing taxes to continue to rise uncontrolled above and beyond requirement for revenue. And spending did grow, just not nearly as much as some outside his office might have hoped.

Okay, fair enough. Personally, I don't think that governments should run on the ragged edge of spending being equal to revenues. Budget surpluses during times of plenty can prevent disaster in lean times. I note that the states that had a surplus and did the smart thing with it (created a "rainy day fund") are doing just fine in the current financial crisis.

His astute political handling of the Prop 13 movement that arose out of backlash to his (and the Legislature's) policies, ensured him a second term in 1978 when anyone who paid attention was writing his political death warrant.

Hm. Good for him I suppose. I'll have to learn more about that. Thanks for the pointer.

GuyW
03-19-2010, 5:47 AM
She's no Conservative, by ANY stretch of the meaning of the word.

+1

She's not even recognized as a Republican by most whom I know....

With this bag of misfits, CA is SOL in this election....
.

OleCuss
03-19-2010, 6:22 AM
I might still go Poizner, but I doubt it.

My take on Whitman is different. She talks the conservative fiscal talk but she is either naive about what she can do or she's lying. I favor lying since I don't see how she could be that naive. Well, stupidity is another possibility but I consider that to be less likely.

Net effect is that I believe that Whitman is lying about every conservative impulse she claims or she is hopelessly naive. Can we say Arnie on steroids?

On social policy it wouldn't surprise me to find out Meg is actually to the left of Jerry Brown.

Jerry Brown is a more honest person and is more likely to get fiscally sound policies out of Sacramento.

In any case, however I vote, I'm pretty sure it won't be for Whitman.

not-fishing
03-19-2010, 6:24 AM
Lord voting for Jerry Brown is asking a lot.

I still remember Rose Bird and the mess she made.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-19-2010, 6:49 AM
Actually, the wiki article that I linked is more detailed than the Michel and associates link.

I was inquiring about what he did in the 70s and 80s in support of the 2A that was alluded to in Gene Hoffman's post.


I was curious about that parrot!


The Raisuli

chessknt
03-19-2010, 7:42 AM
Brown is much more of a politician these days than the last time he was governor. I don't expect we will see anything too upsetting when he's in office, when compared to what Whitman would do.

Whitman is Bloomberg Mk2. She wants to buy an office probably on some kind of ego trip about running for president. She can not be trusted.

Are you so sure? He has nothing to lose now and only a legacy to build. Hes gone ape over the environment and will rubber stamp CA single payer (which the Legislature has no problem passing).

Basically the governors job is to oppose the insane legislature's ideas on a variety of issues. Since single payer would kill my future in this state I have to go with the candidate that will shoot it down.

mzimmers
03-19-2010, 8:17 AM
Ugh...what a decision. Jerry Brown might be the best candidate from a purely 2A perspective, but let's not forget his legacy of soft-on-crime judicial appointments, and the Medfly situation bungling. Throw in the fact that he is (or at least was) a world-class flake, and...he'd be a very mixed bag at best.

Maybe it really is time to bail. Prescott, AZ, anyone?

bwiese
03-19-2010, 9:44 AM
A
Basically the governors job is to oppose the insane legislature's ideas on a variety of issues.

Yep. INCLUDING BAD GUN BILLS.

If we may end up with a bad AG replaicng brown (fairly high risk) we need to have some holes at least partway plugged.

Just because we see the light at the end of the tunnel in the court system does not mean legilsators won't keep throwing bad gun bills just to see if they stick. Fighting each one of those cost $$$ and time and opportunity cost.

Paul
03-19-2010, 9:53 AM
Whitman supports "environmental" lawsuits

Moonbeam is one of the environmental movements biggest and longest term supporters. To conveniently fail to mention this makes Mr. Kate's opinions worthless in my opinion. Moonbeam Jerry Brown never met a job destroying environmental bill he didn't like.

Without jobs Californians still working are going to be paying more and more and more for the out-of-control spending that the democrats have continued for the last decade. Damned if we do and damned if we don't, California is going to take it in the shorts for another term and that might just drive it over the brink. Our tax burden is huge and IMHO it's going to get worse, way worse, before it gets better. This state is doomed and I see no way out, Brown will throw fuel on the fire big time.

I'm not supporting either in this race and come election time I've voting (R) without a doubt.

Paul
03-19-2010, 9:56 AM
Maybe it really is time to bail.

This.

As much as I love where I work and my job I'm looking at moving my position back east.

Pvt. Cowboy
03-19-2010, 10:10 AM
This.

As much as I love where I work and my job I'm looking at moving my position back east.

I don't think it was a year ago when I seem to recall you were saying (paraphrased) "I'd rather stay and fight to the death than give up California", but I know a lot of really awful stuff can happen in a year.

Gray Peterson
03-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Moonbeam is one of the environmental movements biggest and longest term supporters. To conveniently fail to mention this makes Mr. Kate's opinions worthless in my opinion. Moonbeam Jerry Brown never met a job destroying environmental bill he didn't like.



Why would Kates care about an environmental bill when he's a GUN lawyer? He was asked to comment on Jerry Brown on the issue of 2A and gun owners civil rights.

I can't believe people would vote in an anti-gunner like Whitman at the state level. I think that even if Jerry Brown were to say in a debate (if Sykes becomes a question in a debate if the judge orders the county sheriffs to issue carry licenses on a shall-issue basis) that he supports the judge's decision that the constitution requires that PC12050 be issued on a shall-issue basis, they would STILL vote for Whitman. I call it "Liberal Derangement Syndrome". He could go completely as pro-gun as Texas Governor Rick Perry and they STILL wouldn't vote for him. It's ridiculous.

Sgt Raven
03-19-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm not supporting either in this race and come election time I've voting (R) without a doubt.

You can't have it both ways, if you're voting 'R' then you're supporting Whitman, period. :rolleyes:

Theseus
03-19-2010, 10:49 AM
HOFFMANG FOR GOVERNOR!!!!

k1dude
03-19-2010, 10:59 AM
California has too many contractual burdens to ever overcome the budget crisis without massive tax increases. The ONLY way to get out from under those ridiculous burdens that the Democrats approved is to declare bankruptcy. Neither candidate has the cojones to take the state into bankruptcy. It would be political suicide. But that's exactly what this state needs.

Arnie had great hopes for correcting the fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats before taking the reigns - only to find the state had it's hands tied contractually to unions, MediCal, and zillions of bond issues the voters approved (Guaranteed not to raise taxes! Free money! Grows on trees!). There was VERY LITTLE he could do to change anything outside of bankruptcy. So I suspect both candidates will pass massive tax increases to avoid bankruptcy. The only other question that remains is what additional damage can either candidate do to this state outside of the budget issue? What other inane laws and policies will be passed by the future governor that will likely negatively impact most productive California residents? I suspect issues like water, environment, jobs, crime, illegals, healthcare, and gay rights will dominate the term. Who is more likely to screw those issues up?

Gun should be a distant issue in the upcoming term. But if Sacramento has shown us anything, is they ignore critical issues and focus on feel good ridiculous issues. So expect guns to be on the forefront. Especially with the McDonald decision coming soon. Sacramento will focus on it to distract the public from the REAL issues of the day.

I see this election as choosing between the lesser of two evils. Only, who is the more evil? Who can hurt us more? Not only on the single issue of gun rights, but our pocketbooks, which is even more important at this trying time.

REH
03-19-2010, 11:04 AM
Meg would run into the exact same problem as Arnie: the Governor can't dictate squat in CA. It's not a business where the CEO can make unilaterally make decisions (Arnie learned this the hard way).
Right & wrong don't matter to the CA Legislature, but rather what will get me $$ or votes? Change or reform in this state happen only two ways: it suits the purpose of the special interests that own Sacramento or via the ballot box (IE: Prop 13).

The problem with the ballot box is that the propositions tend to be written in such a manner as to require or prohibit specific items (spending, bonds, etc). The end result is that while the goal of passing the proposition is met, the state has less and less flexibility to adjust to changing conditions.

JB is allot more political savy then Meg. That is another reason he has a better chance of getting us out of the $$$ mess than Meg. And a big +++ for his pro 2 Amendment position.

OleCuss
03-19-2010, 11:05 AM
One problem is that as I understand it, bankruptcy is not a legal option for the state. They can default on their obligations but that isn't quite the same thing.

chessknt
03-19-2010, 11:05 AM
Yep. INCLUDING BAD GUN BILLS.

If we may end up with a bad AG replaicng brown (fairly high risk) we need to have some holes at least partway plugged.

Just because we see the light at the end of the tunnel in the court system does not mean legilsators won't keep throwing bad gun bills just to see if they stick. Fighting each one of those cost $$$ and time and opportunity cost.

Single payer will never be dismantled by a court challenge like a gun bill can be. If we go single payer its never getting undone unless CA has a political reversal and since my career depends on it I have to vote that way.

As much as Arnold sucked at being governor, he did kill single payer his entire time in office. Given the new resurgence on a federal level, the legion of single payer advocates are just lying in wait to take over our healthcare system. Most people arent thinking about it this election, but it WILL happen if JB becomes governor.

bwiese
03-19-2010, 11:11 AM
Single payer will never be dismantled by a court challenge like a gun bill can be. If we go single payer its never getting undone unless CA has a political reversal and since my career depends on it I have to vote that way.


I'd hope few(er) people would trade job decisions for (gun)rights.

That's how we got to where we are.

You can always get another job.

There's also no such thing as a "career" these days. You'll be changing jobs 10-15 times til you retire.

Pvt. Cowboy
03-19-2010, 11:19 AM
Arnie had great hopes for correcting the fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats before taking the reigns - only to find the state had it's hands tied contractually to unions, MediCal, and zillions of bond issues the voters approved (Guaranteed not to raise taxes! Free money! Grows on trees!).

This week, Jerry Brown went on record telling the unions to launch their attacks (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/03/jerry-brown-urges-unions-to-attack.html) on his Republican opponent.

California's indebtedness to the unions is ruining the state at all levels: From Sacramento down to the metro areas like San Francisco and Los Angeles. The UC student tuition increases can be linked directly to the Calpers union pensions with no degrees of separation. The old retired liberals could at least be honest with the young college liberals about that, I think. I don't even know why someone would go to college and expect to work in California when they could take a GED and go work at the Bureau of Weights and Measures for twenty years and have a $90,000/year pension for the rest of their lives.

... Of course, it's easier to blame it all on Republicans who haven't been a political force in Sacramento in over thirty years.

You'd think that the insanity would have worn off by now and Californians would be facing the cold hard reality of how it's come to be that the state continues to teeter on the brink of collapse, but it seems that they need another term or two of Governor Santa Claus on mescaline (Jerry Brown) before the spell wears off.

A vote for Jerry Brown is a vote for continued Sacramento insanity. Meg Whitman will give up the office to Jerry Brown in a walk come November. If everything goes right, at least your Off-List Lower Bullet Button popgun will be sort of safe depending on whatever cop you happen to encounter.

Good luck to you guys over there. I mean it.

k1dude
03-19-2010, 11:30 AM
One problem is that as I understand it, bankruptcy is not a legal option for the state. They can default on their obligations but that isn't quite the same thing.

The bankruptcy prohibition are just words. You can deny you're in bankruptcy when you are. You can scream at the top of every hill you aren't in bankruptcy, but it doesn't change the facts.

When California defaults on it's obligations, those investors will look to a judge for a legal remedy. When the suits are filed and there's no money in the coffers to pay the awards - that's bankruptcy whether you like it or not. The judge will force the state into receivership and take the reigns. He would likely overturn most contractual obligations recognizing they are strangling the state.

I'm no lawyer and don't know the details, but that's how it seems it would work to a layman like myself.

chessknt
03-19-2010, 11:31 AM
I'd hope few(er) people would trade job decisions for (gun)rights.

That's how we got to where we are.

You can always get another job.

There's also no such thing as a "career" these days. You'll be changing jobs 10-15 times til you retire.

Go talk to some med students, medicine is a career. 8 years of training and 200k avg debt isnt something you just switch out of.

We got to where we are because gun use has fallen out of the public eye and is widely feared, not because jobs were traded for guns.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 11:45 AM
It's clear to me that we have painted ourselves into the corner of wondering who will restrict our rights more, and which rights we are willing to forego in order to SLOW the restrictions of others. The whole point of liberty is long gone, now we're just quibbling over the price, not whether any of this SHOULD be in the first place.

radioburning
03-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to down play his pro gun stance and prop up his former "Moon Beam" reputation to play to the democrats, and others that are prone to vote on the left.

He won't really need to, most California Dems, and I'm not saying this as an insult, will see the (D) next to his name and vote accordingly. Especially with all the bad press A(R)nie's gotten over the past two years.

One thing I will say about JB is, he's made statements clearly in support of the 2nd in a state where that doesn't do him much good to do so. If this was Texas, I'd say he's playing smart. But this is California, and every politician in the state knows you'll never lose votes by keeping your mouth shut about people's right to bear arms.

As far as I'm concerned Meg Whitman=lots of new laws about "those shoulder things that go up" and "cop killer bullets".

bwiese
03-19-2010, 11:55 AM
We got to where we are because gun use has fallen out of the public eye and is widely feared, not because jobs were traded for guns.

We got to where we are because people aren't single-issue voters.

chessknt
03-19-2010, 11:58 AM
We got to where we are because people aren't single-issue voters.

Well I am. I vote for my future, which relies on my career. I value 2a rights, but getting paid **** after working my *** off so everyone can be entitled to my services for free is worse than having to fill out a form and wait 10 days imo.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-19-2010, 11:59 AM
It's clear to me that we have painted ourselves into the corner of wondering who will restrict our rights more, and which rights we are willing to forego in order to SLOW the restrictions of others. The whole point of liberty is long gone, now we're just quibbling over the price, not whether any of this SHOULD be in the first place.

:iagree:

k1dude
03-19-2010, 12:02 PM
It's clear to me that we have painted ourselves into the corner of wondering who will restrict our rights more, and which rights we are willing to forego in order to SLOW the restrictions of others. The whole point of liberty is long gone, now we're just quibbling over the price, not whether any of this SHOULD be in the first place.

+1!

wildhawker
03-19-2010, 12:02 PM
You're right in terms of the private sector. However, the expansion of government or quasi-governmental staff positions equates to union jobs that do not turn over as often as do private sector jobs. "Office Technician" is a real job title.

With people looking for something close to a sure thing, and the unions representing their jobs as an unending gravy train (in which they are partially correct), I wouldn't be shocked to find jobs as the single biggest issue on peoples minds this election. Who is going to promise more? There's your winner.

Guns are so far from the top that we have to hope JB can sell the folks that he's the right person to lead California out of the mess... even if the Governor has little to do with it anyway.

BTW:

http://volokh.com/2010/02/09/republican-voters-often-have-ignorant-and-irrational-views-and-so-do-democrats/
Republican Voters Often Have Ignorant and Irrational Views — And so do Democrats
Ilya Somin • February 9, 2010 5:10 pm

This recent Daily Kos-sponsored poll showing that large proportions of self-identified Republican voters hold irrational and extremist views has gotten a lot of attention recently. In the above-linked post, Markos Moulitsos writes that the results are “startling.”

There are some methodological problems with the survey (see here and here). In my view, the most important is that it probably oversamples the most committed Republicans. Strong partisans are more likely to hold extreme views, such as the “birther” belief that Obama wasn’t really born in the US (endorsed by 36% of Kos’ respondents). Some 83% of the Kos respondents say they are likely to vote in the 2010 elections, which is a much higher proportion than in the general population; Committed partisans are far more likely to turn out (especially in midterm elections) than lukewarm ones.

Despite such flaws, I think that many of the Kos findings are roughly accurate. The mistake is not the conclusion that partisan Republicans hold many irrational views, but the implicit assumption that this problem is confined to one side of the political spectrum.

I. Ignorance and Irrationality are Common Among Democratic Voters Too.

One can easily find parallel examples for Democrats. Thus, Kos makes much of the finding that 23% of Republicans in the survey say they want their state to secede. But a 2008 Zogby/Middlebury College poll found that support for secession was vastly more common among liberals than conservatives. In that poll 32% of liberals claimed that their state has a right to secede (compared to only 17% of conservatives), and a whopping 33% of African-American respondents (an overwhelmingly Democratic group), said that they would support a secession movement in their state. I suspect that supporters of the opposition party are always disproportionately likely to express support for secession when they are angry at an incumbent administration of the opposite party (as Republicans are today, and Democrats were in 2008). I don’t think that support for secession is necessarily ignorant or stupid. To the extent that it is problematic, it’s not a problem limited to Republicans.

Kos also points out the 36% of Republicans in his study who seem to endorse birtherism and the 22% who say they aren’t sure. Birtherism is indeed ridiculous. Yet a 2007 poll found that 35% of self-identified Democrats believe that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and 26% say they don’t know if he did.

Other examples of ignorance and irrationality by Democratic voters are not hard to come by. For example, some 32% of Democrats believe that “the Jews” deserve a substantial amount of blame for the financial crisis (compared to 18% of Republicans). In November 2008, some 59% of Obama voters did not know that the Democrats then had control of Congress.

II. Voter Ignorance and Irrationality are General Flaws of Modern Government.

The truth is that voter ignorance and irrationality are general shortcomings of modern democracy, not pathologies that afflict only the dim-witted rubes on one side of the political spectrum. As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. here, here, and here), voters have incentives to be “rationally ignorant” about politics because the extremely low chance that any one vote will be decisive means that there is little payoff to acquiring additional knowledge. For similar reasons, they also have incentives to do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do have. Thus, voters tend to discount any information that goes against their preconceptions while overvaluing anything that seems to confirm them. This explains both Republican susceptibility to birtherism and Democratic receptivity to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The problems of voter ignorance and irrationality are exacerbated by the size, scope, and complexity of the modern state, which is so enormous that even the best-informed voters can’t keep track of more than a small fraction of its activities, or rationally evaluate the available data about them.

If you are genuinely concerned about voter ignorance and irrationality, the best solution is to work to reduce the range of decisions made by the political process. When people act in the market and civil society, they have much better incentives to make well-informed decisions, though of course it’s impossible to eliminate ignorance completely. Reducing the size and complexity of government would also diminish the number of issues rationally ignorant voters have to keep track off, thereby enabling them to monitor government more effectively.

For committed partisans, it’s always fun to denounce the other side’s voters. And there’s no shortage of data proving that many of them are ignorant and irrational. Unfortunately, partisan activists tend to ignore the inconvenient truth that their own party’s voters are just as bad.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691129428

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916963

I'd hope few(er) people would trade job decisions for (gun)rights.

That's how we got to where we are.

You can always get another job.

There's also no such thing as a "career" these days. You'll be changing jobs 10-15 times til you retire.

bigstick61
03-19-2010, 12:16 PM
We got to where we are because people aren't single-issue voters.

And rightfully so. There is really a lot to consider in a candidate, not just one issue. One can assign different levels of importance to different issues, but in the end all things have to be considered. It would not be right to do otherwise. Voting for someone who is disastrous in almost every area but happens to support one thing you feel is important and MAYBE will do something about it just doesn't seem to be a prudent choice. I really don't think we'll be getting much from the State government on guns, anyways; it seems like the courts are the best avenue. It's not as if the governor rules by decree or something.

Aces and 8s
03-19-2010, 1:43 PM
I honestly cant believe that you are all turning a blind eye to Brown and all of his other BS just because of his 2A views. His support of AB32 (global warming bill) is absolute crazy talk and BS that would kill many businesses in California and wreck our economy. Brown is an idiot and so is anyone else that suppports AB32.

www.suspendab32.org/

berto
03-19-2010, 1:55 PM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to down play his pro gun stance and prop up his former "Moon Beam" reputation to play to the democrats, and others that are prone to vote on the left. Conversely, maybe we could somehow derail Meg Whitman as a "Big business" corporate shill. It does have possibilities.

JB has no credible primary opposition. The only person who can throw darts at his pro-2A stance in a meaningful way is the republican candidate.

bigstick61
03-19-2010, 1:56 PM
The way I kind of look at it, to use a more extreme example just to highlight what some seem to propose, is what if you were Rhodesian and still living over there. Say Robert Mugabe wants to keep going with "land reforms," his newly proposed "business reforms," ethnic cleansing of minorities, printing more money, restricting the economy more, etc. BUT he supports the RKBA and at some point has shown that he is willing to make some changes there if it can get through Parliament. Would you vote for him just on that account? Even with everything else? JB is obviously not Comrade Bob, but he still proposes things that would be damaging to our State and while it won't slide as far as Mugabestan, it can still go a good ways down and that is something I do NOT want to see.

bulgron
03-19-2010, 2:45 PM
The way I kind of look at it, to use a more extreme example just to highlight what some seem to propose, is what if you were Rhodesian and still living over there. Say Robert Mugabe wants to keep going with "land reforms," his newly proposed "business reforms," ethnic cleansing of minorities, printing more money, restricting the economy more, etc. BUT he supports the RKBA and at some point has shown that he is willing to make some changes there if it can get through Parliament. Would you vote for him just on that account? Even with everything else? JB is obviously not Comrade Bob, but he still proposes things that would be damaging to our State and while it won't slide as far as Mugabestan, it can still go a good ways down and that is something I do NOT want to see.

In your scenario, is there a viable alternative candidate who isn't interested in the ethnic cleansing?

Because I don't actually see anyone in the California Governor's race that is actually capable of restoring fiscal sanity to Sacramento.

In the absence of a strong candidate who might do the right thing by California on an economic front, I'll just go ahead and vote based on 2A.

SgtDinosaur
03-19-2010, 2:52 PM
I am a single issue voter. If more than one candidate supports the 2cd Amendment then I'll look at other issues. This has always worked out so that I vote Republican, but only because so many Dems are anti-2A (not to mention smarmy, mealy-mouthed socialists that I really want to punch in the face). You should have seen the look of disgust on my face when Barbara Boxer grabbed my hand and shook it while slapping a sticker on my chest at the Sonoma County Fair in 1992. Years ago I did vote for some Dems that I liked, though.

macadamizer
03-19-2010, 5:17 PM
The way I kind of look at it, to use a more extreme example just to highlight what some seem to propose, is what if you were Rhodesian and still living over there. Say Robert Mugabe wants to keep going with "land reforms," his newly proposed "business reforms," ethnic cleansing of minorities, printing more money, restricting the economy more, etc. BUT he supports the RKBA and at some point has shown that he is willing to make some changes there if it can get through Parliament. Would you vote for him just on that account? Even with everything else? JB is obviously not Comrade Bob, but he still proposes things that would be damaging to our State and while it won't slide as far as Mugabestan, it can still go a good ways down and that is something I do NOT want to see.

This analogy is so far off of the mark it is useless. A dictator with essentially unfettered control over his country is much, much different from a governor of a state who is limited to signing or not bills that come to him via a legislature, and is further limited by the entire federal apparatus. It's not even close enough to be apples and oranges.

Skidmark
03-19-2010, 5:30 PM
I honestly cant believe that you are all turning a blind eye to Brown and all of his other BS just because of his 2A views. His support of AB32 (global warming bill) is absolute crazy talk and BS that would kill many businesses in California and wreck our economy. Brown is an idiot and so is anyone else that suppports AB32.

www.suspendab32.org/

Brown is the best-prepared, and best-qualified, candidate running for the office. Arnold has shown us what amateur hour looks like, and it's not pretty.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 5:38 PM
Arnie was WAY prettier when he was an amateur. He only got ugly after he fihured it out. It seems like he thought "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Remember his first round of voter initiatives? The ones we slapped down at the polls? Not saying I've ever stood behind the guy, but to think that experience shafting the public makes a ruler better is silly, IMNSHO.

rabagley
03-19-2010, 6:40 PM
The governor has very little to say about much of anything. In California, the proposition system means that we are one of those "lucky" groups that actually has a democracy (a.k.a. two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner).

If anyone here wants to know who to blame for the completely and utterly screwed up situation in California, blame whoever argued for the proposition system and the voters of the State of California.

Glock-matic
03-19-2010, 7:11 PM
Once people get the idea in their head the Jerry Brown would support the legalization of pot, he will steam roll Whitman. Right or wrong, that s the current state of California politics.


John

OleCuss
03-19-2010, 7:15 PM
Don't forget, though, that typically we've got our beloved politicians urging us to vote for the bonds, or the mandatory expenditures, etc.

I think the net effect is that if we didn't have the proposition system our politicians would have figured out how to screw things up just as badly.

Personally, I'll virtually never sign the petitions and I almost always vote against the propositions (especially if they want to spend or allocate funds).

Aces and 8s
03-19-2010, 7:34 PM
I don't smoke pot but they should legalize it. But that's not enough for me me to want that crazy mofo Brown as governer again.

magsnubs
03-19-2010, 7:49 PM
Here's my flow chart. Does it restrict freedom (of ANYONE)? Yes it does, vote no. Does it increase taxes? Yes it does, vote no. Does it increase spending? vote no.

I believe that our liberty is way too far gone already, the government (all four of mine) taxes us way too much, and spends way too much. All three by a really wide margin. This makes voting much easier for me, although I am usually on the losing side.

mblat
03-19-2010, 8:22 PM
Honestly - it doesn't matter. All those races depend on how pissed of average Joe will be come November at Obama.

Average Joe doesn't vote reason, average Joe votes emotion. If he would vote reason Jerry Brown would had not chance in hell of getting elected in California one more time. Correct me if I am wrong, but he is the one who allowed to unionize government workers? 80% (if not more) of our current CA mess is direct result of this decision.

He may be better on gun rights..... And Meg is bad enough in order not to get my vote. But I will not vote for pro-big-government "earth is warming" religious fanatic even if he was life NRA member and had promise "shall-carry".

I guess it is repeat of presidential election for me - no voting for R or D.

bigstick61
03-19-2010, 10:54 PM
The governor has very little to say about much of anything. In California, the proposition system means that we are one of those "lucky" groups that actually has a democracy (a.k.a. two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner).

If anyone here wants to know who to blame for the completely and utterly screwed up situation in California, blame whoever argued for the proposition system and the voters of the State of California.

Yes, that is a big part of the problem, and it has certainly done wonders for our constitution. Truly, democracy is part of the problem with California in a broader sense. Our electorate is terrible, and every part of the government is beholden to it, meaning we really have no checks and balances. Our government and State constitution are terrible.

hoffmang
03-19-2010, 11:51 PM
This is simple.

Do you think Mr. Brown or Mrs. Whitman will veto more anti-gun bills?

Please remember that Mrs. Whitman oversaw the introduction of the hostile firearms policies at ebay and paypal and has gone on record supporting AW bans.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
03-20-2010, 1:14 AM
This is simple.

Do you think Mr. Brown or Mrs. Whitman will veto more anti-gun bills?

Please remember that Mrs. Whitman oversaw the introduction of the hostile firearms policies at ebay and paypal and has gone on record supporting AW bans.

-Gene

Some people don't care, Gene. They'll vote economics over guns, as if one's job is more important than the ability to carry in as many places in California as possible. Meg Whitman would probably sign every anti-gun bill the Legislature passes. Chelene Nightengale is completely un-electable and is part of a party thinks the all powerful state government can declare gays "sexual offenders in the eyes of god", and the rest of the slate just flat out blows chunks.

People vote against their best interests all of the time, even at the risk to the lives of themselves and their families.

bwiese
03-20-2010, 1:39 AM
S. Chelene Nightengale is completely un-electable and is part of a party thinks the all powerful state government can declare gays "sexual offenders in the eyes of god",

Chelene Nightengale is an offender in the eyes of sanity. She starts out with a few sane nibbles and then spins down the drain.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-20-2010, 6:47 AM
In your scenario, is there a viable alternative candidate who isn't interested in the ethnic cleansing?

Because I don't actually see anyone in the California Governor's race that is actually capable of restoring fiscal sanity to Sacramento.

In the absence of a strong candidate who might do the right thing by California on an economic front, I'll just go ahead and vote based on 2A.


Actually, JB ain't that bad when it comes to fiscal matters. Not that it matters as the PRK is gonna go down & fairly soon anyway. That being the case, I'm gonna vote for the candidate who gives me the best chance of surviving 'shaking out' to come.

That's JB.


The Raisuli

chessknt
03-20-2010, 8:33 AM
Some people don't care, Gene. They'll vote economics over guns, as if one's job is more important than the ability to carry in as many places in California as possible. Meg Whitman would probably sign every anti-gun bill the Legislature passes. Chelene Nightengale is completely un-electable and is part of a party thinks the all powerful state government can declare gays "sexual offenders in the eyes of god", and the rest of the slate just flat out blows chunks.

People vote against their best interests all of the time, even at the risk to the lives of themselves and their families.

How is voting for your job not in your best interest?

OleCuss
03-20-2010, 12:28 PM
Earlier in this thread I pointed out that if presented with the choice of Whitman vs. Brown I'd probably have to choose Brown. I realized afterward that the reasoning I presented didn't even touch on 2nd Amendment issues.

Upshot is that I, too, am not a single issue voter except in the sense that I will always choose the one I think most advances the cause of liberty.

Whitman will likely do worse on the economy and almost every other aspect of liberty than will Brown. Whitman is talking the better game but I think she will be wholly ineffective in bringing the necessary change.

And then you add in the fact that Brown would actually understand an oath of office which requires that he uphold the Constitution - and would mean it as he took the oath? Whitman wouldn't.

Barring unforeseen developments I expect to vote against Whitman - and that will mean that Brown will likely get my quite reluctant vote.

Aegis
03-20-2010, 2:44 PM
I disagree with JB on many issues, but he will get my vote.

No matter who the governor is, the legislature is the problem. Regardless of how many good ideas JB, Whitman or any of the other candidates have, the legislature will continue to destroy the state. With that in mind, I support JB who has at least made efforts to restore the 2A rights to law abiding citizens in CA.

magsnubs
03-20-2010, 6:51 PM
We CAN pray for a huge upset, ala MA's Scott Brown.

yellowfin
03-20-2010, 8:27 PM
+1 for JB.

Meg Whitman is pumping out the advertisements like no other. :(Would even the dumbest of people really want another big money (R) running the state after Schwartzeneggar? Except possibly the really bad people, of course, who made him their puppet...hmm...would the DeLeon types support Whitman in hopes of a repeat of the same?

yellowfin
03-20-2010, 8:36 PM
This analogy is so far off of the mark it is useless. A dictator with essentially unfettered control over his country is much, much different from a governor of a state who is limited to signing or not bills that come to him via a legislature, and is further limited by the entire federal apparatus. It's not even close enough to be apples and oranges.

Not at all different if you're referring to the governor of New Jersey or the mayors of New York City and Chicago.

hoffmang
03-20-2010, 8:57 PM
How is voting for your job not in your best interest?

If you aren't creative enough to get or create another job, you may want to look in the mirror.

-Gene

GuyW
03-20-2010, 9:04 PM
If you aren't creative enough to get or create another job, you may want to look in the mirror.

-Gene

Dead wrong.

There are many skilled tradesmen / craftsmen who's job skills, whether they work for themselves or others, can only be used in certain economic environments, especially construction and ag work. The loons in CA seem helbent on shuting down construction of all descriptions, as well as starving out ag.

Need I drag out the old quote about societies who value philosophers more than plumbers?

There's a big wide world out there outside of computers and IT....

This state and country are $%^ed up because people have bought the lie that we don't need to produce hard goods, but just shuffle papers...
.

mblat
03-21-2010, 5:01 PM
If you aren't creative enough to get or create another job, you may want to look in the mirror.

-Gene

Absolutely correct. And when it comes to this particular discussion what is your point?
It seems to me that 20%+ of California population currently "not creative enough". Should they be voting against their self-interest, or you are planning to suggest some school that will teach them to be creative?

B Strong
03-21-2010, 6:22 PM
I know many knee-jerk Republicans that are voting for Whitman.

There are Yellow Dog voters in every bunch.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 6:26 PM
I predict Whitman will be our next Gov. She scares me, but hopefully we pick up some good seats in the legislature and offset her.

smogcity
03-21-2010, 8:06 PM
I've got to admit...After tonights health care takeover in Washington, I've made a vow to never vote for a Dem again. I'll probably ease up years from now, but not in time for this election.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 8:12 PM
Too bad they dont have a Tsar to kill!

bwiese
03-21-2010, 8:18 PM
I predict Whitman will be our next Gov.


Yeah she can spend money.

She scares me, but hopefully we pick up some good seats in the legislature and offset her.

Dream on... a few dems might lose a few seats but not many.

hoffmang
03-21-2010, 8:40 PM
I love the "I can't get a job" whine. Please be honest with others and yourself and tell the truth. What you're saying is that you can't get a job that pays as much as you think you're worth. There are plenty of jobs - just potentially below what you think you should be paid.

-Gene

scr83jp
03-21-2010, 8:42 PM
Yeah she can spend money.



Dream on... a few dems might lose a few seats but not many.Only thing I know about her was cancelling all gun part sales on ebay,I had 8 years of gov moonbeam messing everything up in calif,he was no friend of gun owners or the nra & he was despised by law enforcement with his appopintment ie Rosey Bird heading the supremes.I'll never vote for him or anyone from the northern area of calif we already have too many problems from boxer,feinstein & pelosi!

bwiese
03-21-2010, 8:51 PM
he was no friend of gun owners or the nra


Please do not speak for me or the NRA.

he was despised by law enforcement with his appopintment ie


Outside that, he's had quite a good relationship with LE and was highly regarded by on-the-street line cops in Oakland during his mayoral term.
His administration was barely discernable, if at all, from that of a typical pro-biz/anti-crime Republican.

Shotgun Man
03-21-2010, 9:29 PM
Jerry Brown is running unopposed on the dem ticket, right?

So why can't he go on record as being more pro-gun than Meg Whitman? That would create a wedge issue on the republican side.

Does he fear that all the LA and SF dems would vote for MW?

Wow, the Bradies will be supporting Whitman.

magsnubs
03-21-2010, 9:40 PM
It's gonna be a bad year to have a (D) after your name.

N6ATF
03-21-2010, 9:44 PM
Jerry Brown is running unopposed on the dem ticket, right?

So why can't he go on record as being more pro-gun than Meg Whitman? That would create a wedge issue on the republican side.

Does he fear that all the LA and SF dems would vote for MW?

Wow, the Bradies will be supporting Whitman.

Legitimate fear. MW banned lawful firearms transactions privately, give her the power to do so publicly? Party reversal, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

nraendowment
03-22-2010, 1:42 AM
The Democrats in Washington just gleefully voted to repeal America with their Socialistic Health Care "Reform." The only good Democrat politician is an unemployed one.

greasemonkey
03-22-2010, 7:24 AM
You should search the 2A forum on here and read up on JB and Whitman, Meg is absolutely not friendly to Constitutional rights/limitations. JB's actions as AG have proven over and over his respect for the law. Being in a small business an the Ag industry, I'm much more inclined to support someone who plays by the established rules rather than tries to figure out how to impose feel-good rules(as Meg has done).

Want a (D) that respects his oath to uphold the law or another wealthy big-name (R) who'll pander to anyone to save face, even if it means overstepping boundaries to restrict our rights.

The Democrats in Washington just gleefully voted to repeal America with their Socialistic Health Care "Reform." The only good Democrat politician is an unemployed one.

Fatman
03-22-2010, 1:13 PM
I typically do not post my comments or thoughts on internet forums. I do not want to hijack this thread, but the topic seems to have come down to Jerry Brown vs. Meg Whitman. Nobody has mentioned Dale Ogden at all! I am frustrated that people do not look beyond republican and democratic parties when it comes time to look for a candidate to support and vote for. I know people are going to say candidates other then those from the big 2 will not get enough support to get elected. We have to start sometime. I hear people say the lesser of two evils about who we have to vote for seemingly every election. We can send a message to both parties if we choose. Thanks for taking the time to read, hijack off.

magsnubs
03-22-2010, 1:37 PM
I stated that I would be voting for Dale, back in post #24. I vote Libertarian almost always. I will however vote Republican to unseat a particularly evil Dem, like Boxer, especially since now her neck is out there waiting.

Boehner almost won me back with his speech last night, however. I found it impressive, but I know that given the riens, it'll be more of the same statist BS. It's way easier to sound good when you're opposing the ascension of your rival evildoers, than when you are doing the evil yourself.

Fatman
03-22-2010, 3:02 PM
Sorry Mags I missed your post.

hoffmang
03-22-2010, 7:42 PM
The libertarian party continues to be the only party that can lose an unopposed election. I'd love it if they could get something together, but its better right now to focus on who to support that has a realistic chance of wielding the veto pen.

-Gene

magsnubs
03-22-2010, 8:27 PM
I understand the pragmatic approach, but as a libertarian I gain nothing from either party. One will give on this and take on that, and the other will undo the first and the latter. As I said before, that's not always so, but it is more often than not.

Nick5811
03-25-2010, 10:17 PM
I'm glad to hear that Jerry Brown is a supporter of people's rights, whether I agree with his political agenda or not. I'd rather retain my rights and vote for the Big D than waste my vote on some Libertarian candidate with no chance of winning.

The way I see it, wasting my vote on a candidate that has no chance is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils. It just takes a vote away from the better option (like the whole Obama/McCain thing).

I'm sure Palin would have fought to keep our gun rights....

HondaMasterTech
03-25-2010, 10:34 PM
On the subject of Meg Dimwit;

From what I've seen on television, her strategy is to inform people that she ran eBay and that Steve Poizner is a liar. That is not much of a respectable campaign if you ask me.

Skidmark
06-11-2010, 6:49 PM
Bumped for current relevance, now that Whitman has purchased the republican primary.

CavTrooper
06-11-2010, 7:11 PM
JB may be the best candidate for the 2A, but he is going to BURY the state in every other aspect.

California is doomed and there is no good choice for representation... but at least you will have your guns.

Afterburnt
06-11-2010, 8:12 PM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.

If they cant get that right what else would you expect?

Afterburnt
06-11-2010, 8:13 PM
JB may be the best candidate for the 2A, but he is going to BURY the state in every other aspect.

California is doomed and there is no good choice for representation... but at least you will have your guns.

maybe you are gonna need em?

advocatusdiaboli
06-11-2010, 8:29 PM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to down play his pro gun stance and prop up his former "Moon Beam" reputation to play to the democrats, and others that are prone to vote on the left. Conversely, maybe we could somehow derail Meg Whitman as a "Big business" corporate shill. It does have possibilities.

Been reading Jerry's campaign manager's strategy book eh? I think that is what he'll do. The real problem is Meg can out spend him by a huge margin and money buys elections with a population that makes up their mind based on sound bites and not an actual and thoughtful analysis of the issues. And California voters are more superficial than most--ever eager to jump on the next great cause.

hasserl
06-11-2010, 8:32 PM
he filed an influential pro-Second Amendment brief with the US Supreme
Court.

The brief is not strongly pro 2A, it is more of a brief asking the court for clarification on application of the 2a and limits on gun control legislation. It can and probably should rightly be viewed more as a probe to see how far gun control can be pushed and not run afoul of the 2A. If you doubt me, read it for yourself. As far as statements about him being an able lawyer, I suppose so, but you couldn't tell by that brief, any first year law student could have written that.

C'mon guys, I see a lot of name dropping and a lot of parading of a brief, but I see very little substance.

Gerry Brown is responsible for the problems we have now with public employees unions and unsustainable, unfunded pension liabilities. He is also responsible for the dilapidation of the infrastructure in this state and the deplorable conditions of our freeways. As governor he drastically cut spending on roadways and freeways because he believed in slow growth. And as AG he has used the Global Warming Solutions act to slow and prevent road and freeway construction over the past few years. Electing this man to the position of governor is suicidal for this state. Calling him pro 2A is a stretch of th imagination, as I've posted in other threads on this, please post evidence that he is supportive of 2A, something other than the brief, which does not show support and is not evidence he would support the 2A as governor. You've got to do better than that, don't be irrational.

thayne
06-11-2010, 8:38 PM
The brief is not strongly pro 2A, it is more of a brief asking the court for clarification on application of the 2a and limits on gun control legislation. It can and probably should rightly be viewed more as a probe to see how far gun control can be pushed and not run afoul of the 2A. If you doubt me, read it for yourself. As far as statements about him being an able lawyer, I suppose so, but you couldn't tell by that brief, any first year law student could have written that.

C'mon guys, I see a lot of name dropping and a lot of parading of a brief, but I see very little substance.

Gerry Brown is responsible for the problems we have now with public employees unions and unsustainable, unfunded pension liabilities. He is also responsible for the dilapidation of the infrastructure in this state and the deplorable conditions of our freeways. As governor he drastically cut spending on roadways and freeways because he believed in slow growth. And as AG he has used the Global Warming Solutions act to slow and prevent road and freeway construction over the past few years. Electing this man to the position of governor is suicidal for this state. Calling him pro 2A is a stretch of th imagination, as I've posted in other threads on this, please post evidence that he is supportive of 2A, something other than the brief, which does not show support and is not evidence he would support the 2A as governor. You've got to do better than that, don't be irrational.
I guess you didnt see the letter he sent with it? I dont have a link but im sure someone else does

thayne
06-11-2010, 8:40 PM
JB may be the best candidate for the 2A, but he is going to BURY the state in every other aspect.

California is doomed and there is no good choice for representation... but at least you will have your guns.

Yep and we may need them when SHTF. I dont see meg saving the state from collapse either.

advocatusdiaboli
06-11-2010, 8:55 PM
I'm voting for JB.

I like him in many ways, especially his pro-2A brief he filed in McDonnald. That takes some guts.

My only reservation about him is that I would like to see the Democratic party machine in this state be smashed, and having any-who-isn't-a-D in office would help that. But I'm willing to overlook that reservation, because obviously we've had Arnie and he hasn't done much to crush the Democratic party machine here, so Jerry vs. Meg probably wouldn't make much difference one way or the other.

And anyway, I like Jerry's qualities.

This ^^^ and many others here for me. Yeah, Jerry's not perfect but he's 2A and I value that most right now. Plus he understands CLint Eastwood:"A man has to know his limitations." Jerry does and he'll work with the rest of us while Meg "I'm a Billionaire and I can Buy What I want To" Whitman will try to buy the governorship and who knows where she degrade to from there. Let's keep the idle rich looking for ego strokes in their next big acquisition of power or wealth out of our lives as much as possible. They, once they have achieved it, are only temporarily satiated before their next conquest, but we, on the other hand, have to live it for years. This is our life.

hawkeye
06-11-2010, 10:17 PM
Whitman's supporters,

Remember, any anti-gun legislation that passes under her control and restricts our rights even farther is brought to us by you.

I would rather have Jerry who is Pro-Gun, pro global warming, than a wealthy elitist who will say anything to get to be Governor.

...and just because they have a fr*ken (R) in the back of their name, doesn't say s**t about what she'll actually do in office.

smallshot13
06-11-2010, 10:46 PM
I am truely saddened by the lack of depth in wisdom of one issue politics exhibited here. When California raises taxes after you get what you wish for, then diverts all that additional revenue away from infrastructure investments, and into environmental restoration, public lands acquisition, and welfare entitlement programs; when every last nickel is extracted from the private sector economy and squandered in the public sector, and when you will suddenly realize that you may very well need your gun to protect what little you have left, do you really think that the government machine in this state is not going to realize it before you do, and come and sieze that gun, (which by 'reasonable restriction', you had to put in the back of the closet because reasonable restrictions on purchasing or manufacturing ammunition of any kind was not really too high a price to pay), JB or no JB?? Whitless is a terrible choice to have to make, but at least with her there is a chance that there will remain a private economy in 4 or 8 years, about the time we will begin to see positive gains from winning McDonald incorporation. [lack of sentence structure is intentional]

Now I can take a deep breath and smell the stinking political dung heap that is CA, partly brought about by short term, one issue voting decisions assisted by those who have posted here.

thayne
06-11-2010, 11:04 PM
Now I can take a deep breath and smell the stinking political dung heap that is CA, partly brought about by short term, one issue voting decisions assisted by those who have posted here.

So you're blaming us for something we havent even done yet and for causing events that havent happened yet?

What makes you think meg will be any better. The last RINO we had hasnt helped the economy at all. Like I said before; I have never voted for a democrat in my life, but I fully intend on voting for Brown. If you want to place blame for that, blame the republican party, or the sucker voters who put her in this position. She wont be good for the economy or my rights.

Its all about the lesser or two evils this election. more so than ever before.

smallshot13
06-11-2010, 11:26 PM
So you're blaming us for something we havent even done yet and for causing events that havent happened yet?

What makes you think meg will be any better. The last RINO we had hasnt helped the economy at all. Like I said before; I have never voted for a democrat in my life, but I fully intend on voting for Brown. If you want to place blame for that, blame the republican party, or the sucker voters who put her in this position. She wont be good for the economy or my rights.

Its all about the lesser or two evils this election. more so than ever before.

I cast no blame sir, only cited the sad mess that this state is in, partly because of past votes from people who would not look beyond their particular and current hot issue. I too want to retain our rights, but nothing JB has ever done suggests to me that he is a sincere supporter of those rights. He is a politician through and through, born and raised, and dedicated to the idea of government of the people, by the government and for the government. To me, his recent public image as a supporter is won more by the desire of those who would support him than his simple amicus brief, which asserted the need for 'reasonable restrictions'. I will work as hard as I am able in attempt to educate M W on what that right really means, not the physical manifestation of the gun itself, but the rights that its unencumbered ownership secures. Please join me in that effort, and if that has not been successful, then we will cast our seperate votes in November, as is our right, and live with the results.

gazzavc
06-11-2010, 11:29 PM
Making the decision between Whitman and Brown is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end..........................

thayne
06-11-2010, 11:30 PM
I cast no blame sir, only cited the sad mess that this state is in, partly because of past votes from people who would not look beyond their particular and current hot issue. I too want to retain our rights, but nothing JB has ever done suggests to me that he is a sincere supporter of those rights. He is a politician through and through, born and raised, and dedicated to the idea of government of the people, by the government and for the government. To me, his recent public image as a supporter is won more by the desire of those who would support him than his simple amicus brief, which asserted the need for 'reasonable restrictions'. I will work as hard as I am able in attempt to educate M W on what that right really means, not the physical manifestation of the gun itself, but the rights that its unencumbered ownership secures. Please join me in that effort, and if that has not been successful, then we will cast our seperate votes in November, as is our right, and live with the results.

You should read more here. I thought the same just a week ago. I should have saved all the links, but from what I've seen I believe he's our best bet. The letter he wrote SCOTUS would not and has not made him popular with a lot of his supporters. I seriously doubt he'd alienate him self from his core supporters to get a few conservatives to vote for him.

Meplat
06-12-2010, 12:35 AM
You should already have your guns and ammo. Don't give them up for economic reasons. Our economy is toast, no one can save it. Certainly not Whitman. Brown will hasten its collapse. So be it. The powers that be are actively, and purposely, destroying our economy. They are making a big mistake by not getting the guns first. If it is going to happen anyway that is the order I would prefer. Brown plays into that perfectly. We are going down, don't give up your life vest just to plug one of 1,000 holes in the boat!

Brown is so pro global warming CRAP that I can't stand it. He will cost a million jobs in CA and if I don't have a job I can't afford a gun. I don't like any of them at this point.
JB also got all the state workers into unions and you know how that has cost the state. We are nearly bankrupt.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/11/1854735/the-state-worker-california-state.html

Meplat
06-12-2010, 12:45 AM
Um... so what is it that we're trading for 2nd amendment support again? Maybe I'd like him to man up and say that the smelt can go **** themselves.....

With some fish that is actually possible!:p

advocatusdiaboli
06-12-2010, 1:23 AM
Look folks you only have two choices (yeah that sucks but that's what we get with a two party primary system and why passage of 14 was so damn important--but I digress).

You have Jerry who is 2A strong and a lib-tard on other things though open to reason;

and you have:

Meg who is a weasel working her way through the issues trying to not get any on her while deftly( through money and nothing else) avoiding key issues with other than sound bites.

I'd rather have the devil I know in Brown and count on the legislature to keep him honest than Whitman. Lesser of two evils and all that.

SP1200
06-12-2010, 1:42 AM
The brief is not strongly pro 2A, it is more of a brief asking the court for clarification on application of the 2a and limits on gun control legislation. It can and probably should rightly be viewed more as a probe to see how far gun control can be pushed and not run afoul of the 2A. If you doubt me, read it for yourself. As far as statements about him being an able lawyer, I suppose so, but you couldn't tell by that brief, any first year law student could have written that.

C'mon guys, I see a lot of name dropping and a lot of parading of a brief, but I see very little substance.

Gerry Brown is responsible for the problems we have now with public employees unions and unsustainable, unfunded pension liabilities. He is also responsible for the dilapidation of the infrastructure in this state and the deplorable conditions of our freeways. As governor he drastically cut spending on roadways and freeways because he believed in slow growth. And as AG he has used the Global Warming Solutions act to slow and prevent road and freeway construction over the past few years. Electing this man to the position of governor is suicidal for this state. Calling him pro 2A is a stretch of th imagination, as I've posted in other threads on this, please post evidence that he is supportive of 2A, something other than the brief, which does not show support and is not evidence he would support the 2A as governor. You've got to do better than that, don't be irrational.

Anyone have a link to the brief. I've searched but not found it.

Aleksei Vasiliev
06-12-2010, 4:45 AM
The brief is not strongly pro 2A, it is more of a brief asking the court for clarification on application of the 2a and limits on gun control legislation. It can and probably should rightly be viewed more as a probe to see how far gun control can be pushed and not run afoul of the 2A. If you doubt me, read it for yourself. As far as statements about him being an able lawyer, I suppose so, but you couldn't tell by that brief, any first year law student could have written that. http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7537/amicus.png

This isn't pro-2A?

SP1200
06-12-2010, 4:56 AM
^ Is that the brief? The one i remember reading was much longer.

Aleksei Vasiliev
06-12-2010, 5:23 AM
^ Is that the brief? The one i remember reading was much longer.It's a small part of the whole brief (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/NRA_v._Chicago_Final_Amicus.pdf).

Havoc70
06-12-2010, 6:24 AM
Then there's little gem near the end:

Further guidance on these issues is needed in California, which has been a national leader in passing common-sense legislation to regulate firearms. The Unsafe Handgun Act, for example, aims to reduce handgun crime and promote handgun safety. Cal. Penal Code § 12125 et seq. It prohibits the manufacture or sale of any “unsafe handgun” in California, including those that lack certain safety features such as a chamber-load indicator. Cal. Penal Code § 12126(c). This law has furthered important governmental interests while not interfering with the ability of our state’s residents to purchase and possess a wide range of handguns: Over 1,300 handguns have been certified by California as meeting the law’s requirements. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/. Nonetheless, California is presently defending the law against a federal constitutional challenge. Peña v. Cid, 2:09-cv-01185- FCD-KJM, 2009 (U.S. Dist., E.D. Cal.).

See, this scares the hell out of me as he clearly sees what we have to date as reasonable. To the poster that said this is picking up the clean end of a turd, hit the nail on the head.

hoffmang
06-12-2010, 9:32 AM
Then there's little gem near the end:



See, this scares the hell out of me as he clearly sees what we have to date as reasonable. To the poster that said this is picking up the clean end of a turd, hit the nail on the head.

It's a sop to his base. They hated that he filed in the first place - it's like having a major donor to LCAV sign on to a CGF brief. He gets to point at that to say, "see, I'm ok with your sensible stuff."

He mostly thinks the stuff is silly. He's obligated to defend it as an AG. Even if we'd have gotten Eastman (who is super pro-gun and also filed a McDonald amicus) as AG, he'd have to oppose us in Peña.

-Gene

hoffmang
06-12-2010, 9:40 AM
Let me let the other side tell you what they think of Jerry Brown on guns (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-23/bay-area/17182106_1_jerry-brown-gun-violence-prevention-high-court):


Julie Leftwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, said this isn't simply about Brown defending the Second Amendment - it also marks a dramatic turnabout from the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Lockyer, a staunch gun control advocate.

"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

Brown's pro-gun stand has also left some San Francisco officials scratching their heads. They're awaiting a ruling in the Chicago case to see how it might affect two local gun-rights lawsuits.

"I'm just gratified that the attorney general in his filing has acknowledged that California has been a national leader in passing commonsense legislation to regulate firearms," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

You can second guess the pro gun of us saying he's demonstrably good. It's hard to disagree with the dissapointment on the other side. Also, the en-banc 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave Leftwich hell during oral arguments for disagreeing with Mr. Brown's position in his McDonald Amicus. You can hear those arguments here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003933).

-Gene

hasserl
06-12-2010, 9:41 AM
Whitman's supporters,

Remember, any anti-gun legislation that passes under her control and restricts our rights even farther is brought to us by you.

I would rather have Jerry who is Pro-Gun, pro global warming, than a wealthy elitist who will say anything to get to be Governor.

...and just because they have a fr*ken (R) in the back of their name, doesn't say s**t about what she'll actually do in office.

And the same for JB, any anti-gun legislation he signs is brought to us by you. If you truly think he is not going to sign anti-gun legislation sent to him by the legislature, you are naive beyond belief.

ScottB
06-12-2010, 10:11 AM
And the same for JB, any anti-gun legislation he signs is brought to us by you. If you truly think he is not going to sign anti-gun legislation sent to him by the legislature, you are naive beyond belief.

That's a good point. When they are playing for the same team, once the Legislature/Congress gets one in the end zone, the Executive is under enormous pressure to put the points on the board.

I think it clear that Brown is not pro-2A so much as not rabidly anti-2A. He's been in politics long enough to know where the land mines are. I don't see personal conviction to the level that will cause him to buck his party and his base.

Imagine long gun registration appearing on Governor Brown's desk, passed by both houses on a party line vote. How does he say "no"? What is the penalty for a veto and what is the reward for signing?

Hard for me to imagine. Whitman at least has the partisan card, though that's hard for me to imagine too.

4th and long. What to do?

Punt.

Havoc70
06-12-2010, 10:21 AM
What you say makes sense, Gene. And I' not so much second guessing folks "in the know", I know he's done a lot as AG and I know he has to pander to his base. Brown still gets my nod, it's just that a small part of me wonders what he may do to further pander, if that makes sense. The fact, though, that he does view he 2A as a fundamental civil right is a huge plus in his favor. It's more than we've seen from Meg, for sure.

hasserl
06-12-2010, 10:25 AM
Then there's little gem near the end:



See, this scares the hell out of me as he clearly sees what we have to date as reasonable. To the poster that said this is picking up the clean end of a turd, hit the nail on the head.

IMO it's worse than that, if you read the brief it is not a strong pro gun document at all, but instead is a document asking the court for clarification on application of the 2A to the states and how far the states can go in regulating guns. It is actually rather neutral, and in fact at the very beginning of the brief it states that it is not intended to prejudice either party, and if it was supportive of gun rights, and supportive of application of the 2A to the states it WOULD prejudice one party.

To think that this document is being used to support the candidacy of a flaming left wing wacko is amazing. I am beginning to think there is something else going on here, and that isn't very comforting.

hasserl
06-12-2010, 10:27 AM
That's a good point. When they are playing for the same team, once the Legislature/Congress gets one in the end zone, the Executive is under enormous pressure to put the points on the board.

I think it clear that Brown is not pro-2A so much as not rabidly anti-2A. He's been in politics long enough to know where the land mines are. I don't see personal conviction to the level that will cause him to buck his party and his base.

Imagine long gun registration appearing on Governor Brown's desk, passed by both houses on a party line vote. How does he say "no"? What is the penalty for a veto and what is the reward for signing?

Hard for me to imagine. Whitman at least has the partisan card, though that's hard for me to imagine too.

4th and long. What to do?

Punt.

Ahhh, finally, some common sense. Thank you! Please people, start thinking this through and stop being used as political pawns.

foxtrotuniformlima
06-12-2010, 10:34 AM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.

Yes it does and here is why.


Pick any other belief you have and ask your self the following question:

If a law is passed that infringes on my ability to express that belief, what is the possibility that if I ignore the law I will go to jail and forever lose that ability to express that belief?

For just about every other political position I can think of, as they apply to me, the result is me not going to jail. Or it is a national issue and locally not relevant.

So let's talk about taxes. The Gov doesn't really do anything expect sign or veto the budget. It is the legislature that is responsible. yes, he can veto but as it sits now, the dems do not have enough to jam it through. So from a tax stand point, one is no better than the other. We found that out with Arnold.

We also found out that the Gov is our last line of defense against anti-2nd A legislation. We found that the guy we thought would be on our side was not.

Jerry Brown appears to be on our side. He has my vote.

hoffmang
06-12-2010, 10:59 AM
Ahhh, finally, some common sense. Thank you! Please people, start thinking this through and stop being used as political pawns.

You're not being used as a pawn, you're being asked to soldier for the Second Amendment.

On balance and from past actual actions I would expect we have a better chance of Brown vetoing e.g. long gun registration as compared to Whitman.

Brown would say it costs too much because he's cheap.

Whitman would say she's protecting the sensibilities of soccer mom's who want to know where all the scary guns are.

-Gene

dwtt
06-12-2010, 2:13 PM
Am I the only one seeing the same things being said by the Meg supporters now and the Obama supporters in 2008?

They both will disregard the preservation of 2nd A. rights for some perceived ideological purity in their candidates.

Meg supporters are blaming Jerry Brown for California's current problems and say electing Meg will fix things.
Obama supporters blamed Bush for America's problems and said electing Obama will fix these problems.

We know now how well Obama has been able to revive the economy, create jobs, and keep America safe, so who thinks Meg will be just as short on delivering results and long on promises?

thayne
06-12-2010, 2:29 PM
That's a good point. When they are playing for the same team, once the Legislature/Congress gets one in the end zone, the Executive is under enormous pressure to put the points on the board.

I think it clear that Brown is not pro-2A so much as not rabidly anti-2A. He's been in politics long enough to know where the land mines are. I don't see personal conviction to the level that will cause him to buck his party and his base.

Imagine long gun registration appearing on Governor Brown's desk, passed by both houses on a party line vote. How does he say "no"? What is the penalty for a veto and what is the reward for signing?

Hard for me to imagine. Whitman at least has the partisan card, though that's hard for me to imagine too.

4th and long. What to do?

Punt.

So what happened with Arnold and the 50 bmg ban, and now the ammo law? what make you think meg will be any different? I think she would be worse. Brown, at his own political peril, asked SCOTUS to rule in favor of mcdonald and for 2a inclusion. That alone tells me brown is way better than whitman.

hawkeye
06-12-2010, 3:10 PM
And the same for JB, any anti-gun legislation he signs is brought to us by you. If you truly think he is not going to sign anti-gun legislation sent to him by the legislature, you are naive beyond belief.

I honestly think that Meg Whitman would do more damage to RKBA than JB would. I say go with the lesser evil.

In the future, you may see Meg Claim to be a supporter of the RKBA but remember when Hillary Clinton sent out those letters saying she was pro-gun and Obama was anti? Like she would be a better choice?

In any case, actions speak louder than words... and those actions are what I believe in.

ScottB
06-12-2010, 3:22 PM
So what happened with Arnold and the 50 bmg ban, and now the ammo law? what make you think meg will be any different? I think she would be worse. Brown, at his own political peril, asked SCOTUS to rule in favor of mcdonald and for 2a inclusion. That alone tells me brown is way better than whitman.

non sequiter

I don't see how one follows the other. Nothing I said endorses Whitman.

But some people think we are going to get a better 2A regime under Brown and I am skeptical. I don't think Whitman is any better. I do think we are screwed either way. I am old enough to remember Brown's first stint as governor. Maybe he will not torment us with anti-gun crap originating from his office, but I think the heat will be on him to sign stupid bills in order to get things he wants more. Apart from the gun issue, Brown embraces a host looney left ideas that will leave us all wondering why we voted for him (and, reluctantly, I probably will).

The real problem and the power in this state is, and always has been, in the Legislature and I see no significant changes to the passenger list of that clown car. Maybe redistricting will be less criminally gerrymandered than last time, but then again maybe Prop 14 will negate any gains there.

My point is just don't get your hopes up that this state will be run any better or even any different under Brown than it has been for that past decade. Sorry to be a pessimist realist

thayne
06-12-2010, 3:59 PM
non sequiter

I don't see how one follows the other. Nothing I said endorses Whitman.

But some people think we are going to get a better 2A regime under Brown and I am skeptical. I don't think Whitman is any better. I do think we are screwed either way. I am old enough to remember Brown's first stint as governor. Maybe he will not torment us with anti-gun crap originating from his office, but I think the heat will be on him to sign stupid bills in order to get things he wants more. Apart from the gun issue, Brown embraces a host looney left ideas that will leave us all wondering why we voted for him (and, reluctantly, I probably will).

The real problem and the power in this state is, and always has been, in the Legislature and I see no significant changes to the passenger list of that clown car. Maybe redistricting will be less criminally gerrymandered than last time, but then again maybe Prop 14 will negate any gains there.

My point is just don't get your hopes up that this state will be run any better or even any different under Brown than it has been for that past decade. Sorry to be a pessimist realist

The heats already been on him. http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-11-23/bay-area/17182106_1_jerry-brown-gun-violence-prevention-high-court

OleCuss
06-12-2010, 5:02 PM
You know? I don't get why people think JB is going to cave in to the legislature on the RKBA.

JB has been AG for a number of years and during that time has treated RKBA issues in a manner that most of the Demorats in the legislature do not like. He did that at a time when he was pursuing election for governor. Understand, when you are running for governor you typically want your party to be out there fundraising for you and campaigning for you - so you don't want to alienate them. Despite that, JB did very important things to protect the RKBA.

Now consider after JB is elected and no longer is needing his party to raise funds for him or to campaign for him. I fail to see how he would be more accomodating to the crazies in his party than he was when he needed them more.

And yes, I know about the bargaining and such that occurs in the course of drafting and passing legislation and meeting policy objectives. I still think that JB will be surprisingly immune to that kind of pressure.

I'm really somewhat puzzled at the extent to which JB owns the Demorat party at this time. There just isn't anyone out there who is willing and able to challenge the guy and that means that he owns them more than they own him.

Based on my own assessment of the current and likely future political realities and what little we've been told by those who've met and had serious discussions with JB - I'm pretty confident that JB as governor will mean very little to no stupid gun laws will be passed.

I'm hoping Barkoff and others like him can lock Whitman into a pro-RKBA commitment and make the governor's race something close to a no-lose proposition.

sholling
06-12-2010, 7:42 PM
It looks like Jerry is drifting off into fantasy land again and comparing Whitman with Nazis.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/12/jerry-brown-calls-meg-whitman-nazi-media-mostly-mum

Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. "I've only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I'm saving up for her." It's true - his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman's very deep pockets. "You know, by the time she's done with me, two months from now, I'll be a child-molesting..." He let the line trail off. "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me." Then he went off on a riff I didn't expect.

"It's like Goebbels," referring to Hitler's notorious Minister of Propaganda. "Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That's her ambition, the first woman president. That's what this is all about."

bwiese
06-12-2010, 7:48 PM
He was not making reference to Nazis per se but Goebbel's domination of the press with the Big Lie, and thus is a reasonably fair accusation.

Meg does not have the advantage of a state-owned press, she can just buy all the ink and paper for it.

Look how we gunnies complain about media bias - same kinda gig.

ScottB
06-12-2010, 7:58 PM
That's too much historical nuance for the torches and pitchforks crowd. The talking heads know to just toss out the nazi card and it gets their ears and eyeballs attention at least long enough for the next commercial break

CaliforniaLiberal
06-12-2010, 11:23 PM
Has anyone seen Jerry's official Governor's Portrait hanging in the Capitol? Very abstract, interesting, deep.

Will he get another portrait if he serves another term? I think he's changed a lot in thirty years and it would be interesting to see another portrait. Wonder if the original artist is still working.

lioneaglegriffin
06-13-2010, 12:38 AM
i lol'd

fatirishman
06-13-2010, 12:21 PM
To me, the most interesting thing about his brief was that he didn't try to defend the AWB - whether we like it or not, it does seem to me that the "safe handguns roster" is probably defensible as a consumer product safety regulation, whereas the AWB is intellectually (and hopefully, soon to be legally) indefensible. This strikes me as a bit of a card tip, since in the DC case, Alan Gura went out of his way to distinguish the handgun ban from an AWB ban. FWIW, I will almost certainly vote a nearly straight L ballot - while I still can - but the record seems to me to support Brown as being likely much better on gun issues (and, frankly, given his tenure in Oakland, very possibly better on fiscal issues, but that is another post).

bwiese
06-13-2010, 1:39 PM
To me, the most interesting thing about his brief was that he didn't try to defend the AWB - whether we like it or not, it does seem to me that the "safe handguns roster" is probably defensible as a consumer product safety regulation,

The problem is the *implementation*, as demanded via statute, of the CA Roster bans 50%? 75% of all handguns on the market for nonsubstantive or trivial reasons.

And other consumer products do not (or will not) have elevated constitutional protection [other than writing implements, laser printers and megaphones/PA systems].

In particular, it bans Dick Heller's revolver affirmed by USSC that Dick Heller has a fundamental, enumerated right to have. The idea ordinary firearms that are 'not dangerous and unusual' can't be sold if they're the wrong color.

Technical research also backs up the assertion the Rostering has nothing to do with safety: we have info the guns that the Roster was intented to 'control' (read: ban) flew thru the drop tests with flying colors.

The problem with CA's 'safe handgun' laws - combined with an incorporated RKBA - is that it's a "negative-by-default". It is probably legal in the converse if the DOJ were granted budgets to buy guns and sample/test them for failure - but that would be financially ugly for the state/budget.

Even outside all RKBA issues, the Roster also has significant problems in regards to Fed law (Magnusson-Moss, and other warranty laws) by creating a monopoly in replacement parts [otherwise you lose Rostering if you, say, install/replace a Wilson hammer on a Rostered Springfield Armory 1911 pistol.]

bulgron
06-13-2010, 1:40 PM
To me, the most interesting thing about his brief was that he didn't try to defend the AWB - whether we like it or not, it does seem to me that the "safe handguns roster" is probably defensible as a consumer product safety regulation, whereas the AWB is intellectually (and hopefully, soon to be legally) indefensible. This strikes me as a bit of a card tip, since in the DC case, Alan Gura went out of his way to distinguish the handgun ban from an AWB ban. FWIW, I will almost certainly vote a nearly straight L ballot - while I still can - but the record seems to me to support Brown as being likely much better on gun issues (and, frankly, given his tenure in Oakland, very possibly better on fiscal issues, but that is another post).

I think the safe handgun roster is indeed defensible as a product safety law, if it is actually used that way. But requiring perpetual fees to keep an already tested product on the roster would seem to be indefensible, as is the requirement for new fees for versions of products already tested when they differ only in trivial cosmetic ways.

But if we get those two aspects of the safe handgun roster thrown out, I don't know how many gunnies in California are actually going to care about the law. Given the size of the California firearms market, I imagine most handgun manufacturers will be happy to put up with a one-time safety test, so long as the fees aren't re-occurring. Likewise, I don't know how interested the State of California is going to be in continuing the program if they can't use it as a backdoor handgun ban.

N6ATF
06-13-2010, 5:17 PM
One wonders whether the manufacturers will find it cost-effective to form a coalition and sue for the extortion fees back, post-incorp/roster.

Mute
06-13-2010, 7:14 PM
I don't see how anyone can say the CA Roster is defensible as a "safety" law when certain classes of people are exempt from its application. Do these not "safe" weapon suddenly become "safe", just by being in the right hands? It's ridiculous that anyone can defend this is as a consumer safety law.

N6ATF
06-13-2010, 7:58 PM
Simple. Every time a law purports to protect "the people" or "consumers", replace it with "criminals". Every time. That's the only class of people the government cares to protect.

Sunday
06-13-2010, 8:01 PM
Too bad only poisner and whitman had TV commercials there was another great choice . But I am voting for Jerry . Anybody that did Linda R. is good enough for me.

willm952
06-13-2010, 8:16 PM
Brown is so pro global warming CRAP that I can't stand it. He will cost a million jobs in CA and if I don't have a job I can't afford a gun. I don't like any of them at this point.
JB also got all the state workers into unions and you know how that has cost the state. We are nearly bankrupt.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/11/1854735/the-state-worker-california-state.html

Yup, he sure did allow state workers to unionize. The state is negative $500 billion if you look at all the outstanding debts to be paid, the majority of which are tada, state pensions. They collect 90% of their final year's salary. Freaking 90%. I met this guy at Frontsight last year who told me he had taken 13 classes with them. I was like how could he have that much time and money for all that? Then I found out he's a retired prk firefighter.

WTF is that? States can't declare bankruptcy so don't know what prk will do or what we'll have to pay.

But Whitman? Has anyone else noticed all these rich business people running for office lately? Fiorina, Whitman? Who can complete with their campaign spending?

Ahh, this election is another crapshoot. JB it is. At least we'll have some gun rights restored. Aw repeal and ab 962 repealed would be great.

cmaynes
06-13-2010, 10:12 PM
Brown has balls- he's old and he is a real maverick.

I hope the old girl bets the farm and goes away in financial ruin.

dfletcher
06-13-2010, 10:50 PM
I think the safe handgun roster is indeed defensible as a product safety law, if it is actually used that way. But requiring perpetual fees to keep an already tested product on the roster would seem to be indefensible, as is the requirement for new fees for versions of products already tested when they differ only in trivial cosmetic ways.

But if we get those two aspects of the safe handgun roster thrown out, I don't know how many gunnies in California are actually going to care about the law. Given the size of the California firearms market, I imagine most handgun manufacturers will be happy to put up with a one-time safety test, so long as the fees aren't re-occurring. Likewise, I don't know how interested the State of California is going to be in continuing the program if they can't use it as a backdoor handgun ban.

I think testing to in effect make certain the gun goes "bang" when it should may be defensible but anything that strays from that basic requirement should be removed.

Banning guns that were made prior to the list would continue to be a problem, I think that is wrong and should be addressed.

New additions to the list (LCI, mag disconnect and microstamping) have nothing to do with functional safety or product liability and I hope would be removed. I don't think they're defensible given the law's original intent, but I'm sure the state will make a go of defending it under public safety, state's interest.

Of course I still can't comprehend "Hi Point = OK, old Smith revolvers = not OK" :(

Satex
06-13-2010, 10:59 PM
Democratic Governor with a Democratic controller legilator equals bad news. Gun rights isn't the only issue. Deciding for a governor isn't a one issue decision.

JimWest
06-13-2010, 11:26 PM
Democratic Governor with a Democratic controller legilator equals bad news. Gun rights isn't the only issue. Deciding for a governor isn't a one issue decision.

Couldn't agree more. Unless Brown comments to another bicyclist while jogging, " We need to get rid of these nonsensical assault weapons laws," I shall not be sipping any Brown Coolaid. I was beginning to feel like a fiddle reading these first threads, really feeling played. But regardless, come November, it'll be Whitman. Money talks, old politicians babble.

Skidmark
06-14-2010, 7:38 AM
Democratic Governor with a Democratic controller legilator equals bad news. Gun rights isn't the only issue. Deciding for a governor isn't a one issue decision.

What's a controller legilator?

JimWest
06-14-2010, 9:33 AM
What's a controller legilator?

It's a legilator that controls stuff. Sheesh, don't you guys know anything!

Gray Peterson
06-14-2010, 9:57 AM
Democratic Governor with a Democratic controller legilator equals bad news. Gun rights isn't the only issue. Deciding for a governor isn't a one issue decision.

Except voting for Meg Whitman is tantamount to voting for someone who wanted to culturally cleanse the very presence of firearms from EBay (even for holster demonstration purposes), and also banned the use of paypal with ANY firearms transactions or else your account gets frozen and you never get your money out of your account.

Meg Whitman essentially made it to where GPal was necessary (Thanks artherd!).

Meg Whitman tried to annihilate any presence of firearms at all from one of the most socially popular bidding sites ever created. Firearms bid were already prohibited before Whitman, she made it worse.

A vote for Whitman would mean gun owners are slitting their own throat.

loather
06-14-2010, 10:00 AM
What's a [Democratic] controller legilator?

A horrible typo for 'Democrat-controlled legislature'

For those of you hell-bent on voting for Whitman: I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I told you so," when she ruins what's left of our state economy and signs every new anti-gun bill into law.

fatirishman
06-14-2010, 10:45 AM
Hmm. Perhaps my point was slightly unclear - I do think that the purpose of the roster is to 1) add another (albeit minor) rather pointless irritant between a person and his ability to exercise his right to gun ownership and 2) to lock up one of the largest market in the country in the hands of a few producers, fattening the bottom line of the already established and connected. Rather, my point was that I suspect that the roster, without some evidence of bad faith at any rate, is probably legally defensible under most standards of review; Brown stuck to that as opposed to striking out further to defend "regulations" (a word that does seems to rather veil the extent of the threat behind felony imprisonment) which are politically popular in this state. IOW, I don't expect JB to share my views on the right to arms any more than I expect him to share my views on the legalization of all victimless crimes - but he may well still be on our side as regards many of these laws, if for no other reason, the phrase "assault weapon" is politically inflammatory and analytically useless, and JB steered clear of it. Take it for what you will.

fatirishman
06-14-2010, 11:02 AM
P.S. As regards the AWB, I think there are some pretty severe procedural due process issues without even getting into the substance; to wit 1) as regards the features ban and the original ban, the legislature relied on "evidence" that is clearly and demonstrably false 2) the procedures used by the legislature for the series and features ban reveal no intelligible principles - while I am unaware of any cases holding state legislatures to that standard, it is pretty much the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" and 3) the evidence regarding the motive for all three bans as being based upon animus is much stronger than the evidence for the same basis in Romer. That, though, is an argument to be fleshed out on another day.

hasserl
06-14-2010, 1:10 PM
A horrible typo for 'Democrat-controlled legislature'

For those of you hell-bent on voting for Whitman: I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I told you so," when she ruins what's left of our state economy and signs every new anti-gun bill into law.

Vice-versa for you JB supporters.

bulgron
06-14-2010, 1:34 PM
Vice-versa for you JB supporters.

We're screwed either way on the state economy, so there's no point in I-told-you-so's no matter who wins.

I'm voting for Brown because I don't think it matters who will be Governor in terms of the state economy, but I do think that Brown will be better than anyone else on 2A rights. If Brown gets into office and starts signing a bunch of anti-2A legislation into law, then you can send me your I-told-you-so's. But right now, based on the best information available to me, Brown is far and away the better choice where 2A rights are concerned.

Also, something to consider: when the state's finances finally explode for real and California declares bankruptcy, and there's all kinds of hate & discontent being expressed state-wide over the financial melt-down in our public finances, do you want that to happen with a Republican Governor or a Democrat?

Ultimately, this is the fault of Democrats and their broken fiscal policies. So if the state has to go through dark economic times (and I'm convinced that its coming no matter what), I want it to happen when the Dems have a lock on the legislature and there's a Dem in the Governor's office. At least that will make it blindingly clear who is to blame for this mess.

hasserl
06-14-2010, 1:47 PM
That seems a bit of pretzel logic to me.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-14-2010, 4:39 PM
He was not making reference to Nazis per se but Goebbel's domination of the press with the Big Lie, and thus is a reasonably fair accusation.

Meg does not have the advantage of a state-owned press, she can just buy all the ink and paper for it.

Look how we gunnies complain about media bias - same kinda gig.


Yup.


The Raisuli

SAN compnerd
06-14-2010, 8:05 PM
Well we saw first hand how ineffective a Republican (RINO) was when matched against the uber liberal state legislature and so even if MW is elected, any strong attempts she makes to cut the budget and curb spending will by muted by the legislature as they have pretty much proven that they are not willing to take the necessary steps to reign in the spending in this state.

I just don't see any other outcome to the state budget crisis. That said, I think JB will protect our 2a rights and that may be the best we can hope for in this state at this time. Beside that it would be rather fitting to see JB the get blame for the collapse of the Ca economy. Mister "we need more welfare recipients" deserves it.

JimWest
06-15-2010, 6:52 AM
We're screwed either way on the state economy, so there's no point in I-told-you-so's no matter who wins....

Also, something to consider: when the state's finances finally explode...do you want that to happen with a Republican Governor or a Democrat?

...At least that will make it blindingly clear who is to blame for this mess.

Pretzel logic perhaps, but even a pretzel configuration can be described with mathematical certainty. When California hits bottom, that's when things may well change. I've thought many times it would be good to drive a nail in its coffin. For now, I'm not married to Meg Whitman either.

dieselcarpenter
06-15-2010, 10:12 AM
Botom line for me is I hope CGF is right about Brown.

But think on this, Brown is a politician, right? He will follow his base and their money, he has to.

Who is his base? Democrats, left wing liberal's, prgressives. Among these are unions, greenies, and the anti-gun crowd etc...

He will tow the line of the left controled legislature (and unlikely to change do to jerrymandering) if he is to get anything accomplished just like our current (liberty) terminator.

I hope your all correct,

I cannot in good concience (since I am not a single issue voter, [take a link out of the chain, the system fails as a whole it is all combined]) vote for either Brown or Whitman, I have vowed to never again choose the lesser of two evils, I only vote FOR candidates now, win or lose I wont have any regrets. I have heard Nightingale locally and she may not have a snowballs chance but its either her or no one.

nso1
06-15-2010, 3:24 PM
Also, something to consider: when the state's finances finally explode for real and California declares bankruptcy, and there's all kinds of hate & discontent being expressed state-wide over the financial melt-down in our public finances, do you want that to happen with a Republican Governor or a Democrat?

Ultimately, this is the fault of Democrats and their broken fiscal policies. So if the state has to go through dark economic times (and I'm convinced that its coming no matter what), I want it to happen when the Dems have a lock on the legislature and there's a Dem in the Governor's office. At least that will make it blindingly clear who is to blame for this mess.

I like to call this the "Captain of the Titanic" approach to voting. I agree that either way we're screwed and I'd rather have Brown at the helm so he steers us straight into the iceberg.

bulgron
06-15-2010, 3:38 PM
I like to call this the "Captain of the Titanic" approach to voting. I agree that either way we're screwed and I'd rather have Brown at the helm so he steers us straight into the iceberg.

No. The Captain of the Titanic actually tried to miss the iceberg.

Cobrafreak
06-30-2010, 12:35 PM
Absolutely my vote goes to Jerry Brown. Gun rights first and foremost.

NorCalMama
06-30-2010, 12:42 PM
A horrible typo for 'Democrat-controlled legislature'

For those of you hell-bent on voting for Whitman: I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I told you so," when she ruins what's left of our state economy and signs every new anti-gun bill into law.

WHY oh why do people knee jerk assume those of us who THINK and therefore don't want Brown as governor, AGAIN are by default Whitman supporters?!?! Cause seriously, I loathe that woman! I also won't vote for someone who my grandparents, who are old and conherent enough to recall Moonbeam's first stint as governor, despise due to his impact on our state.

ETA: Granted, he is on the Democrat ticket, but the fact that Brown has UNION support and UNION money backing him should be a HUGE red flag to any thinking voter. I also want to note, as others have, guns are NOT the only nor are they even the most important thing to keep in consideration. How can I say such apparent blasphemy? Well, because we have an administration who is catering more and more to foreign governments. IF we get to a point where ALL we have left is the 2nd Amendment and our arms to protect ourselves, I really feel it will be in vain because I won't put it past this current President to call on foreign government's to send their militaries to fight against US citizens. Then where are we? We need to be aware of where our gubernatorial candidates stand on ALL issues because yes, they really do matter and impact us. *sigh* It's like "preaching" to a brink wall, I know.

advocatusdiaboli
07-01-2010, 12:12 AM
WHY oh why do people knee jerk assume those of us who THINK and therefore don't want Brown as governor, AGAIN are by default Whitman supporters?!?!

Well then Old Boy you have a choice then haven't you? You can vote for an anti-2A candidate and be secure in your anti-gun state or you can vote for a pro-RKBA man with the idea the rest of the government will hold his liberal fiscal leanings in check as I will.

I know it's a subtle game but you need to play to win the best you can without letting emotion cloud your judgement or you get taken.

Midtown Gunner
07-01-2010, 8:30 AM
I think the safe handgun roster is indeed defensible as a product safety law, if it is actually used that way. But requiring perpetual fees to keep an already tested product on the roster would seem to be indefensible, as is the requirement for new fees for versions of products already tested when they differ only in trivial cosmetic ways.

Law Enforcement is allowed to buy guns that are not on the list. Do you think this is because we care less for the safety of LEOs?

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 8:58 AM
For those of you hell-bent on voting for Whitman anyone other than Brown: I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I told you so," when Whitman ruins what's left of our state economy and signs every new anti-gun bill into law.

Corrected it for you.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 8:59 AM
Law Enforcement is allowed to buy guns that are not on the list. Do you think this is because we care less for the safety of LEOs?

No, it is because LEO's are highly trained and can be trusted to fire an unsafe gun safely.

ScottB
07-01-2010, 10:42 AM
No, it is because LEO's are highly trained and can be trusted to fire an unsafe gun safely.

I hope that was meant as sarcasm. There are so many things wrong with that statement

hill billy
07-01-2010, 10:45 AM
I hope that was meant as sarcasm. There are so many things wrong with that statement

I'd bet my next paycheck it was. Check your meter, it might be on the fritz.

Glock22Fan
07-01-2010, 10:47 AM
I hope that was meant as sarcasm. There are so many things wrong with that statement

Of course it was sarcasm. To me, it was so obviously so that I thought it didn't need the emoticon, better said with a straight face.

gorblimey
07-01-2010, 11:26 AM
Well, there we have it from the inside. Other issues may rightfully give folks the heebie jeebies but Brown is clearly the best viable option for 2A.


I think you're right on Brown and 2A, though in the grander scheme of things it's Hobson's choice all the way. In my view, this is the pattern that will play out on the national scene.

They've given us a reprieve from the continued treasonous governmental assault on 2A, calming down enough of the opposition at this critical time whereby they can get their hands deeper into our pockets.

They'll threaten, and then back down from, blanket amnesty, but the other side of that "compromise" is that the RINOs will support a national biometric ID. Both sides of the aisle despise that endangered specie, the independent and self-sufficient American, as antithetical and challenging to their supermacy and doctrine. The national ID is an essential component of the soon to be relevant strategy for dealing with active dissent.

The limited "rights" the government deigns to reaffirm now, it can always take away later. We're clearly in a condition of "rule of man" rather than "rule of law", so on a long enough scale all these legal machinations are nothing but fluff. The constitutional republic of old is dead, and the mob-o-cratic nation state is damn near dissolved in the acidic sludge of globalization.

Some related thoughts from a very astute fellow:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/03/parasitic-predation.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/07/journal-the-decline-of-the-middle-class.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/15/john-robb-interview.html

advocatusdiaboli
07-02-2010, 12:11 AM
Well folks, bottom line is this: thanks to our addiction to the bicameral legislature and two-party system, we end up with only two choices.

So it's Brown or Whitman--no other vote will matter and will be wasted. Blunt trauma but that's the reality. So justify...

Bizcuits
07-02-2010, 8:22 AM
This state loves stars, thats why we have Arnold, had Reagen and will have Meg. However I will be voting for Jerry.

USMC JW
07-02-2010, 8:46 AM
This choice is a classic one for me. Whitman is the more "conservative" of the two. I likely agree more with her philosophy than Brown's...except on guns. The Second Amendment is my most important issue, but not my only issue. Do i vote for the liberal who supports my gun rights, or the more conservative who hates guns? I'm glad we still have a few months to decide...

As important as gun rights are to all of us this state is practically bankrupt and has driven off or drowned out countless numbers of businesses through their excessive big government and regulations. Even if Jerry is more 2nd amendment friendly than Meg what realistically does that mean to all of us? Do you think he's really so passionate about gun rights that he is going to stand up to the liberal legislature and prevent the liberal looneys from proceeding with their anti-gun agenda? Is he going to overturn the handgun list or push for a shall issue? I have serious doubts that he would do any of this. Voting him in and gambling on any of this means we don't get the candidate who is much more vocal about taking us back from this welfare, nanny, and illegal friendly state that we have become. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should vote...just be sure you understand what you are voting for and the impact of that vote in the big picture.

PatriotnMore
07-02-2010, 9:24 AM
In as much as I agree with your statement, with some exceptions, that does not mean we cannot have a national re-awakening, that does not mean we cannot return to our founding principals and government.

We have lost much due to our laziness, and perhaps we will lose much more before the spirit of freedom alive within every man awakens and says, enough.

The start of proper change for CA begins in the home, then the legislature, then the Governor. A house divided cannot stand, this State is very divided, and until we get control of the big business and bankers, the border and illegal immigration, spending, social programs, unions their votes and money, access by these special interest groups to our leaders to influence them and their vote, we are in deep trouble. All this, and we have not even touched on business, especially small business, and what is needed to entice, and bring business here, and make starting a new business make dollars and cents, which brings jobs back, and jobs to this state.

Our problems here and nationally are many, but until we stop acting divided, we will never affect meaningful change, and be in a constant mess. America was strong when we were Americans, even the immigrants were in a hurry to become, act, and contribute to the spirit and principals in which we were founded.

We have national government which has been hijacked into thinking like some global, one world, new world order, without our permission. We have bankers like the Fed buying and controlling those elected to be our leaders. Our leadership does not even care what we think beyond the act of getting our vote, which satisfies the requirement of the constitution.

Our constitution is being violated and made illegal with the stroke of a pen, presidential executive orders, and laws which thumb their nose, such as the patriot act.

They are openly telling us what they are going to do, and doing it, all the while the best advice we can muster is a vote for the right person, will change things, yet we cannot even see beyond D's and R's in this country, we cannot even grasp that these two parties are the same and use issues to endlessly argue about to confuse and dangle shiny objects in front of the masses to confuse them.

Changing these parties from the inside out will take decades, and we don't have decades. If the American public does not learn to vote and think outside the box, we are going to end up exactly where are currently being taken.

I think you're right on Brown and 2A, though in the grander scheme of things it's Hobson's choice all the way. In my view, this is the pattern that will play out on the national scene.

They've given us a reprieve from the continued treasonous governmental assault on 2A, calming down enough of the opposition at this critical time whereby they can get their hands deeper into our pockets.

They'll threaten, and then back down from, blanket amnesty, but the other side of that "compromise" is that the RINOs will support a national biometric ID. Both sides of the aisle despise that endangered specie, the independent and self-sufficient American, as antithetical and challenging to their supermacy and doctrine. The national ID is an essential component of the soon to be relevant strategy for dealing with active dissent.

The limited "rights" the government deigns to reaffirm now, it can always take away later. We're clearly in a condition of "rule of man" rather than "rule of law", so on a long enough scale all these legal machinations are nothing but fluff. The constitutional republic of old is dead, and the mob-o-cratic nation state is damn near dissolved in the acidic sludge of globalization.

Some related thoughts from a very astute fellow:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/03/parasitic-predation.html

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/07/journal-the-decline-of-the-middle-class.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/15/john-robb-interview.html

goodlookin1
07-02-2010, 10:59 AM
I agree, but it's not just this state that is divided, but the entire country. I honestly dont see anything being fixed for good apart from a major split. The ideological lines are drawn in which neither side will cross. You meet in the middle and you wind up with exactly the problems you have now. I long for true freedom away from the liberals, but I know that wont happen as it is right now.

I think you're absolutely right: Mark 3:25 says

If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Eventually our split ideology will cause our collapse, and there's no telling what will happen from there. We're only as strong as we are united. The "divide and conquer" slogan comes to mind, and we are surely divided: Morally, economically, socially, politically and religiously. On the whole, we celebrate diversity, not uniformity. We celebrate the unique vs the common. We celebrate individualism, not the collective whole. We are no longer for a common cause of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but rather what benefits us as individuals the most, and commonly at the expense of others. We no longer have a standard moral compass to which we adhere, but only what comes from a man's heart, and it is continually corrupt.

Our state is broke and broken. We are being humbled daily by the economic indicators. It's very obvious that the liberalism that has infested this state for decades just doesnt work. They've had their day. Voters need to truly change and realize that the fix isn't going to come from the current crop of candidates.....they're all rotten. We need to go back to our roots, back to what made this country strong; back to fundamentals; back to morals; back to having a sense of pride in our country and what it once stood for......away from Big Government, away from entitlement, away from greed, away from robbing Peter to pay poor Paul, away from rewarding the lazy and stealing from the hard working. Our founders warned against our current policies, and now we are reaping what we have been sowing.

Grr...enough of my tirade.

[/RANT]

451040
07-02-2010, 11:39 AM
... or you can vote for a pro-RKBA man with the idea the rest of the government will hold his liberal fiscal leanings in check ...

:rofl2:

jgaffney
08-30-2010, 11:45 AM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.
What good is a strong support of the 2nd Amendment if the State's economy goes into the ditch? Having a Democrat governor and a Democrat legislature is like throwing the reins on the horse's back. At least with an incompetent Republican (like Schwartznegger) we have some restraint on the Democrats.

Personnaly, I think the SecState should list the candidates as "Dumb and Dumber."

Code7inOaktown
08-30-2010, 1:11 PM
As important as gun rights are to all of us this state is practically bankrupt and has driven off or drowned out countless numbers of businesses through their excessive big government and regulations. Even if Jerry is more 2nd amendment friendly than Meg what realistically does that mean to all of us? Do you think he's really so passionate about gun rights that he is going to stand up to the liberal legislature and prevent the liberal looneys from proceeding with their anti-gun agenda? Is he going to overturn the handgun list or push for a shall issue? I have serious doubts that he would do any of this. Voting him in and gambling on any of this means we don't get the candidate who is much more vocal about taking us back from this welfare, nanny, and illegal friendly state that we have become. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should vote...just be sure you understand what you are voting for and the impact of that vote in the big picture.

Sure thing, thanks for the advice. I'm going to vote for the governor that is likely to get us further along toward restoring California to a state that respects the right to bear arms. To me, that's far more important a civil right than the other issues.

Code7inOaktown
08-30-2010, 1:14 PM
What good is a strong support of the 2nd Amendment if the State's economy goes into the ditch? Having a Democrat governor and a Democrat legislature is like throwing the reins on the horse's back. At least with an incompetent Republican (like Schwartznegger) we have some restraint on the Democrats.

Personnaly, I think the SecState should list the candidates as "Dumb and Dumber."

You know, I have to say, I am really surprised that people here would vote for the candidate that is less friendly toward the second amendment. He freaking PERSONALLY wrote the brief for McDonald. You know, possibly the most important SCOTUS ruling in a long time on 2nd amendment rights.

OleCuss
08-30-2010, 1:42 PM
Brown needs to start believably start talking about cutting spending and not raising taxes. Without some movement in this area he may lose my vote - and I really don't like Whitman.

Whitman is at least showing some signs that she knows something about our economic state and the worst sign was when Dan Walters put out a column effectively saying that the Democrats are holding off on the budget in hopes that they can get a simple majority vote as sufficient to pass a budget from the ballot this November and Jerry Brown to increase spending.

The Democrats believe Jerry Brown will increase spending and taxes. They know him better than I do and it's getting increasingly difficult to imagine voting for him.

bwiese
08-30-2010, 4:42 PM
The Democrats believe Jerry Brown will increase spending and taxes. They know him better than I do ....

There are several segments of the D party that HATE Jerry Brown, but have to vote for him because he's "not Whitman" and "not Republican".

JB is regarded as a corporate conservative in these circles - SEIU has no love for him.

OleCuss
08-30-2010, 5:29 PM
Thank you Bill, I'm no fan of Whitman, but I need to hear some of this stuff from Brown.

Dan Walters is really plugged in up in Sacramento (although I've known him to miss a thing or two) and when he says that Brown is going to allow the big spenders go to town (not precisely what he said) I tend to pay attention.

If the SEIU doesn't like him then there is still some hope. . .

I'm still on the Brown bandwagon but I've got to admit that I'm into the sorta wavering section. That's because I'll never be a single issue voter - when it comes to the RKBA Brown is clearly a far superior choice to Whitman.

Code7inOaktown
08-30-2010, 6:13 PM
Botom line for me is I hope CGF is right about Brown.

But think on this, Brown is a politician, right? He will follow his base and their money, he has to.

Who is his base? Democrats, left wing liberal's, prgressives. Among these are unions, greenies, and the anti-gun crowd etc...

He will tow the line of the left controled legislature (and unlikely to change do to jerrymandering) if he is to get anything accomplished just like our current (liberty) terminator.

I hope your all correct,

I cannot in good concience (since I am not a single issue voter, [take a link out of the chain, the system fails as a whole it is all combined]) vote for either Brown or Whitman, I have vowed to never again choose the lesser of two evils, I only vote FOR candidates now, win or lose I wont have any regrets. I have heard Nightingale locally and she may not have a snowballs chance but its either her or no one.

You are right. He is a politician. An old politician. He doesn't have very many races left to run. In fact, this will likely be his last race. Do you think he's going to care what his base thinks? If he did, would he have personally written the amicus curiae for McDonald? Please note that he did so against the wishes of his staff who are pros and probably don't care about the law, but did not want him to offend his base.

Code7inOaktown
08-30-2010, 10:43 PM
Brown needs to start believably start talking about cutting spending and not raising taxes. Without some movement in this area he may lose my vote - and I really don't like Whitman.

Whitman is at least showing some signs that she knows something about our economic state and the worst sign was when Dan Walters put out a column effectively saying that the Democrats are holding off on the budget in hopes that they can get a simple majority vote as sufficient to pass a budget from the ballot this November and Jerry Brown to increase spending.

The Democrats believe Jerry Brown will increase spending and taxes. They know him better than I do and it's getting increasingly difficult to imagine voting for him.

I don't believe any sitting governor of California really has the power to do what you want. Remember Arnie thinking he was going to save "billions" by cutting spending? He got into office and, oh, everything is earmarked and untouchable by the Governor. All he could is pathetic symbolic gestures of saving money like closing state parks and rest areas. Big whoop.

There really nothing any governor can do at this point except make everybody feel happy and distracted until the economic engine starts to pull us out of this mess.

daves100
10-03-2010, 6:53 PM
Whitman was CEO when ebay ended the sale of gun parts.

Paul S
10-03-2010, 8:07 PM
As important as the state chief executive can be......
How can so many folks (but not all I must note) give the state legislature a pass on its actions. For years the shenanigans of the Assembly and Senate have provided amusement to citizens of other states.

We have a democratically controlled state legislature which has been incapable of husbanding the tax dollars of this state. It is also incapable of saying no to every feel good piece of legislation regardless of its fiscal impact on the state.

Republicans...oh good grief...while allegedly fiscal watchdogs (the republican mantra) the have for several years now simply played the role of spoiler with little or nothing constructive to offer as solutions to the state's fiscal crisis.

The unintended consequence of term limits has been a legislative attitude of "I'm going to get mine and all I can before I term out."

Yes indeed...the whole election is one gigantic Hobson's choice. :(

ptoguy2002
10-03-2010, 8:32 PM
Gun rights isn't the only issue. Deciding for a governor isn't a one issue decision.
For some people it is.

xrMike
10-04-2010, 10:12 AM
For some people it is.Thankfully, for most people, it's not.

With Brown as governor, the only solace your guns will bring you is when you are forced to sell them in order to make your rent or house payment.

Unless you're a government or union employee -- no worries about job loss there.

bwiese
10-04-2010, 10:26 AM
Thankfully, for most people, it's not.


That's why they're called gunrights supporters.

They vote guns first.

The other 'gun aware' voters are saying there are things they put in front of gun rights - which is why we've ended up this way in CA.

Every other pressure group votes their issue first/only - gays, pets, etc. When gunnies don't, they dilute their weight.


With Brown as governor, the only solace your guns will bring you is when you are forced to sell them in order to make your rent or house payment.


Funny, many of us are justifiably not worried about that.

And equating any 'fix' or any 'disaster' applied to the economy thru the Governor's office is pretty moot. The problem is in the legislature and I doubt eMeg has any skill set or reinforcements/effective threats to deal with them in any productive way.

socal2310
10-04-2010, 1:27 PM
Give me a break people. This state is going to go off a cliff. The brakes have been disabled and the steering wheel is welded in place. Wouldn't it be nice to have Democrats at the helm when it happens?

We have two options:

1.) The Democratic legislature continues spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave and passing anti-gun legislation and the Republican governor signs the anti-gun stuff and vetoes the spending bills. The state goes bankrupt anyway with Republicans pointing at the Democratic legislature and the legislature pointing at the Republican governor.

2.) The Democratic legislature continues spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave and passing anti-gun legislation and the Democratic governor vetoes the more onerous anti-gun stuff and may well veto the spending bills. The state goes bankrupt anyway and the Republicans say, "I told you so."

I much prefer option two.

It's not that I particularly love Republicans, it's that their purported (though rarely actual) fiscal conservatism will seem more prudent in contrast to what has gone before.

Ryan

N6ATF
10-04-2010, 2:41 PM
So you're voting for Whitman then, who cannot/will not do anything to help the economy, except the criminal economy, by signing every victim disarmament bill that hits her desk?

Jerry Brown might be a donkey sex maniac, but at least he doesn't want the law-abiding to all be powerless victims like Whitman.

Ford8N
10-04-2010, 2:51 PM
The economic train in this state has no brakes and is heading down hill. The Governor can do nothing as he is in the caboose and the legislature are the engineers.


I VOTE FOR MY GUNS.

xrMike
10-04-2010, 2:54 PM
So you're voting for Whitman then, who cannot/will not do anything to help the economy, except the criminal economy, by signing every victim disarmament bill that hits her desk?No, not sure yet. I'm not a Whitman fan either. In fact I might totally waste my vote (if such a thing were possible in a democratic republic) and vote for neither one. But I CANNOT vote for Jerry Brown and still look at myself in the mirror in the morning...

Jerry Brown might be a donkey sex maniac, but at least he doesn't want the law-abiding to all be powerless victims like Whitman.I like the donkey sex maniac reference -- we both know where that originates from... And yes, Jerry Brown IS most definitely the donkey sex maniac in this election. :D

bulgron
10-04-2010, 3:16 PM
The economic train in this state has no brakes and is heading down hill. The Governor can do nothing as he is in the caboose and the legislature are the engineers.


I VOTE FOR MY GUNS.

Ditto. The governor's race will do absolutely nothing to help or hinder the state's economy. Our state government's fiscal problems are entirely the result of the out of control legislature. It's bad enough that at this point I believe only bankruptcy can fix the problem.

Since the governor cannot affect the state's fiscal problems, but the governor CAN have an affect on this state's gun laws, I'm going to vote for Brown. He is definitely the lesser of two evils.

Sutcliffe
10-04-2010, 4:25 PM
What did it for me was Whitman blaming HER misdeeds in hiring illegal aliens on Brown. There's a word most people would use to describe her. Can't use it without violating forum policy though.

hoffmang
10-04-2010, 5:55 PM
No, not sure yet. I'm not a Whitman fan either. In fact I might totally waste my vote (if such a thing were possible in a democratic republic) and vote for neither one.

Personal POV: Please vote for anyone but Whitman. Thank you!

-Gene

mbrown
10-04-2010, 11:14 PM
I may not vote for Whitman, but I certainly won't vote for Brown. I am a bit disappointed by so many of my Calguns brethren voicing their support for Brown. He (along with the Dems in the legislature) will completely burn down what remains of our state. I believe that if you think he'll be good (or better than Whitman) for our gun rights, you are naive about and fooled by Brown.

I remember when some of my fellow Calgunners posited that Ruth Ginsburg would vote our way on the Heller case. How'd that work out for you?

I don't want to go against some of the prominent members who've posted on this thread, but I will anyway. The public employee unions are killing us and hold tremendous power over the state. Their greed knows no bounds. Contrary to what others have written, Jerry Brown is their guy. They see tremendous opportunities ahead to expand their powers and ensure their ability to bilk the taxpayers. We can't continue paying what these unions cost us and remain solvent and prosperous. It's just not possible.

Evidence of the SEIU's love for Jerry Brown:

http://www.seiuca.org/SEIU_CA_Workers_Endorse_Jerry_Brown_for_Governor_. aspx

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121919-seiu-announces-5-million-campaign-for-jerry-brown

scottoyster
10-04-2010, 11:16 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5071671#post5071671

mbrown
10-04-2010, 11:30 PM
What did it for me was Whitman blaming HER misdeeds in hiring illegal aliens on Brown. There's a word most people would use to describe her. Can't use it without violating forum policy though.

I'm no defender of Whitman, but I'm in the payroll business (and know something about employment law) and I'm not sure what the misdeeds are she committed. The labor laws (both federal and state) are stacked heavily against employers. The woman signed a fraudulent Form I-9 stating she was legally eligible to work. It is illegal for an employer to deny somebody a job on the basis that they are a suspected illegal. The letter that Ms. Whitman received from the SSA states right in the body that you cannot terminate employment based on that letter. This is standard boilerplate language which appears in these documents. Employers are in an extremely difficult spot. They're pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't. Proving that a given employee is an illegal is nearly impossible.

blackberg
10-04-2010, 11:44 PM
And equating any 'fix' or any 'disaster' applied to the economy thru the Governor's office is pretty moot. The problem is in the legislature and I doubt eMeg has any skill set or reinforcements/effective threats to deal with them in any productive way.


This is what people have to realize.

-bb

turbogg
10-04-2010, 11:45 PM
I am NOT a Jerry fan, but at this point between Meg & Jerry, I'll probably hold my nose, shake my head in disbelief and vote for Jerry.

That is essentially what I'll be doing as well.

Dragunov
10-04-2010, 11:52 PM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.The second amendment is the only SURE protection you have to effectively defend your other beliefs when it comes down to it. I guess that makes it TOP priority in my book.

hoffmang
10-04-2010, 11:56 PM
I remember when some of my fellow Calgunners posited that Ruth Ginsburg would vote our way on the Heller case. How'd that work out for you?

5-4 our way. Being vote four is easy. Being vote 5 the wrong way is hard. Think about it.

-Gene

N6ATF
10-05-2010, 12:52 AM
I may not vote for Whitman, but I certainly won't vote for Brown. I am a bit disappointed by so many of my Calguns brethren voicing their support for Brown. He (along with the Dems in the legislature) will completely burn down what remains of our state. I believe that if you think he'll be good (or better than Whitman) for our gun rights, you are naive about and fooled by Brown.

For the record, once again, here are the concrete things that Jerry Brown as done as the California AG that we like as gun owners in this state:

(Borrowed from Gene's posts)

1. Iggy Chin is gone.
2. Division of Firearms is now Bureau of Firearms reporting to Narcotics.
3. Redefinition of "detachable magazine" scraped.
4. Underground reg by Alison leaving old regs up dropped.
5. DOJ instructed to not lobby for gun bills in Sacramento - can lobby against based on costs.
6. BoF retasked to chase people who are known prohibiteds with guns in AFS - much reduced FFL, gunshow, common gunowner prosecutions (no time or money left.)
7. BoF told to stop making things up in response to official information requests.
8. The Attorney General of California asked the Supreme Court to overturn a gun ban and enforce a right to keep and bear arms against California.
10. State of California failed to side with D.C. in Heller.

Whitman banned guns & gun parts and screwed eBay and PayPal's profit margins HARD in the process. Definitely better for gun rights and business than brown. :rolleyes:

As to everything government-related but not directly related to the anti-victim disarmament philosophy of Jerry Brown, or the pro-victim disarmament philosophy of Meg Whitman, my feelings are encapsulated in this quote:
That's right, Yugi! Now burn everything! Burn it to the ground!

Mulay El Raisuli
10-05-2010, 8:29 AM
The economic train in this state has no brakes and is heading down hill. The Governor can do nothing as he is in the caboose and the legislature are the engineers.


I VOTE FOR MY GUNS.


QFT.


Personal POV: Please vote for anyone but Whitman. Thank you!

-Gene


And since the only meaningful vote left is JB, that's who I'm gonna vote for.


The Raisuli

HowardW56
10-05-2010, 8:58 AM
QFT.





And since the only meaningful vote left is JB, that's who I'm gonna vote for.


The Raisuli


:iagree:

M1A Rifleman
10-05-2010, 9:16 AM
Unfortunately, there is more to THIS election than guns. Jerry's not for me.

domino
10-05-2010, 9:33 AM
I remember as a kid when we didnt like a pitch or we didnt like something we asked for a do over - I think this is what Cali needs, a do over. Either that or the state should be split into 2 states, north CA and South CA, please let san fran be in So Cal. lol.

But as far as Govenor goes, well I have to say I am split too, all the things that Meg says about what and how she is going to fix the state , reminds me a lot of someone who ran for president and was elected in 08, a lot of lip service and not a lot of promise after all. I guess this is what happens when you elect a community organizer as a president. So why would meg be able to fix cali, when you have people like steinberg and the likes holding up a budget? I was reading the election pamphlet that I got in the mail, the independents want to limit the legislature to every other year, wow that would actually save money and actualy be more about the people. Looking through history it appears to me that a politician was someone that actually represented the poeples will, not their own intrests, in fact they didnt have a lifetime politicians when we first started out, they were common folks like you and I, but as time went on it became a game about money power and greed. look where we are today.

Brown on the other hand did write a brief to SCOTUS, like he said in the debate last week, he is morally opposed to the death sentence but would carry them out due to th will of the people. I think Jerry has changed from what he used to be, and he is much more in tune with the regular person, Im not saying he is going to fix our state, or anything, I would surprised if he can, but as from what I have seen with him, he is a 2A supporter, I just worry about other issues such as education for my children adn their future.
This is a tough one for sure and I really wish there was a choice on the ballot that says none of the above , but I guess there is kind of this choice and that is voting for one of the other parties.

I think I want to see another debate for sure before I make up my mond, but so far Brown has my vote just with the 2A stance, but I swear if my taxes go up one more time I am going to have to move to a new state.

SupportGeek
10-05-2010, 10:25 AM
That's why they're called gunrights supporters.

They vote guns first.

The other 'gun aware' voters are saying there are things they put in front of gun rights - which is why we've ended up this way in CA.

Every other pressure group votes their issue first/only - gays, pets, etc. When gunnies don't, they dilute their weight.


I strongly agree with this sentiment.
If you support gun rights, you will vote that interest.

If you vote against your gun rights, its clear you really aren't a supporter at all.
I dont like the 2 dominant parties much at all in the political spectrum, any vote not for FOTM Meg is the best possible vote IMO

GrizzlyGuy
10-05-2010, 10:46 AM
I strongly agree with this sentiment.
If you support gun rights, you will vote that interest.

If you vote against your gun rights, its clear you really aren't a supporter at all.
I dont like the 2 dominant parties much at all in the political spectrum, any vote not for FOTM Meg is the best possible vote IMO

I support gun rights, and that's why I will be voting for the candidate with this "radical" pro-gun-rights position (http://www.daleogden.org/):

Gun Rights: I am a strong supporter of the 2nd and 9th amendments and believe in both the right to keep and bear arms, with little or no restrictions, and the right to self-defense under the 9th amendment. Included in the right to self-defense is the right to wear bullet-proof vests or body armor when one chooses to do so. There are no “special” people in the United States. If the President can wear body armor, so can anyone else.

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” — Cockrum v. State [1859]

I plan to appoint a voluntary commission to help me pardon those convicted of victimless crimes, like gambling and marijuana possession (and there are many thousands), and gun possession not connected with a violent crime. I would also issue an executive order to all state and local law enforcement agents that the second amendment applies in California, just like it does in the other 49 states and D.C., and that they should (1) not arrest or prosecute anyone for exercising his or her right to bear arms; (2) that anyone arrested or prosecuted for such will be pardoned by me; and (3) that the laws identifying some arms as assault weapons are unlawful infringements on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed, not granted, by the US Constitution (I am open to strengthening such an order and would seek legal and other assistance before issuing such an order).

Finally, I would prosecute any law enforcement agents who violate the rights of California citizens, including, but not limited to, unconstitutional gun control laws, asset forfeiture, and excessive force used in drug busts. I would do everything in my power to disband all SWAT teams; they have become a menace. We live in a police state where federal, state, and local law enforcement agents are a greater threat to our life, liberty, and property than common criminals. Ending the war on drugs would eliminate a lot of crime, and we could cut our various police forces and government attorneys offices in half or better. I would rather have 15-20% of the citizens on the street armed and disarm the police.

domino
10-05-2010, 11:20 AM
I do have to admit tho I like Jerrys comercial with Megs nose growing, lol, But on a more serious note, I can understand Jerry wanting to be govenor, he has been in plotics his entire life. I just have a hard time understanding why anyone would

1. want to even be the govennor of this state, seriously , what a cluster
2. why would a person want to spend 120 million on their own campaign just to get a position that pays so much less? Stepping stone for a presidential election one day?

There is more to Meg, to me anyway, that she is trying this out as a test bed for future political endevors. I know I sure as hell wouldnt drop that kind of coin for a crappy position with this state, she ought to know she wont be able to fix or change that much in this state. If I had that kind of dough I sure as hell wouldnt be living here lol, maybe Arizon, TX but not here lol. Is this just to advance her poise in California? I think it is. I think she will end up on both sides of the debate on many things, abortion, gun control, you name it, i think she will go with whatever will appeal to voters at that time. After reading more of this topic both here, online, in the paper, I too now have to vote based on 2A rights and principals and that is why Jerry will get my vote, I see him more to the left and then to the right, I would like to think I would be voting for a constitutionalist more than a liberal or a conservative.

gorblimey
10-05-2010, 1:09 PM
[]

I certainly hope I don't have to explain who Don Kates is, but if you don't know who he is you should assume that the only reason the Second Amendment wasn't nullified in the 1970's and 1980's is almost solely due to him (and his parrot.)
[]
-Gene


Now that's what I call rights, folks. Writ large, with a capital R. Shall not be infringed! (except when nullified or otherwise prohibited by law or denied arbitrarily by rogue agencies and agents) If only we can get more of these rights, that'll make everything all-right.

gaa9iw85tW8

Satex
10-05-2010, 4:13 PM
I don't care what Don thinks about Brown. Same goes for Hoffmag & Bwise.
They are all using the singular approach to elections.
Yes, I care about 2A rights, but I care more about the financial viability of this state. The executive branch in CA has been rendered irrelevant by the legislature and the voters. A governor isn't going to change 2A laws. If he decides on biased enforcement he'll get slapped across the face like the CADOJ did with the OLL movement.
I do however want to make sure the legislature and executive branches are at odds. Brown will be a rubber stamp to the agenda controlled legislature. With Meg, we *may* get some pushback.

Meg doesn't impress me, but she is getting my vote.

Gray Peterson
10-05-2010, 4:34 PM
I don't care what Don thinks about Brown. Same goes for Hoffmag & Bwise.
They are all using the singular approach to elections.
Yes, I care about 2A rights, but I care more about the financial viability of this state. The executive branch in CA has been rendered irrelevant by the legislature and the voters. A governor isn't going to change 2A laws. If he decides on biased enforcement he'll get slapped across the face like the CADOJ did with the OLL movement.
I do however want to make sure the legislature and executive branches are at odds. Brown will be a rubber stamp to the agenda controlled legislature. With Meg, we *may* get some pushback.

Meg doesn't impress me, but she is getting my vote.

Voting for an anti-gunner makes you anti-gun.

bandook
10-05-2010, 4:52 PM
Here is the question, does my belief in the 2nd Amendment trump my other beliefs? I don't have an answer to that yet, I guess we'll have to see what both candidates put out there as the election nears.

Just because she's running on the Republican ticket doesn't mean she has conservative values.

Which of your other beliefs are shared by Meg?
Anti-immigrant?(she's not - at least in practice)
Fiscally Conservative? (if she throws her own money around recklessly, can we expect any better when its our money)
Also, contrary to what people think, she did not start eBay.

Has anyone asked - WHY is she running - especially as she couldn't be bothered to even vote earlier.
Looks like she's been put out to pasture by the industry and has decided to buy a governorship to fill her spare time.

I think a Senate seat is next on her shopping list.

bandook
10-05-2010, 5:11 PM
I don't care what Don thinks about Brown. Same goes for Hoffmag & Bwise.
They are all using the singular approach to elections.
Yes, I care about 2A rights, but I care more about the financial viability of this state. The executive branch in CA has been rendered irrelevant by the legislature and the voters. A governor isn't going to change 2A laws. If he decides on biased enforcement he'll get slapped across the face like the CADOJ did with the OLL movement.
I do however want to make sure the legislature and executive branches are at odds. Brown will be a rubber stamp to the agenda controlled legislature. With Meg, we *may* get some pushback.

Meg doesn't impress me, but she is getting my vote.

I'm with you on single issue politics. But, what makes you think that she's going to have any impact on the financial viability of the state.
Do you know that the Governor has control over only a tiny piece of the budget.
The guy running the state today started from scratch and became a mega-millionaire. Meg was born rich (and got richer - money makes more money).
So one would think that Arnold, who actually made his money the hard way would do better with the fiscal hole we have in CA.

I suspect Meg wouldn't even know where to start with a cash strapped state. She's always been able to throw money at a problem to fix it. California can't afford a Meg Whitman.

mblat
10-05-2010, 5:13 PM
Voting for an anti-gunner makes you anti-gun.

I wish it would be that simple....

Satex
10-05-2010, 9:21 PM
But, what makes you think that she's going to have any impact on the financial viability of the state.
Do you know that the Governor has control over only a tiny piece of the budget.


Meg is a hobby politician, not a career politician. We all know what happens with career politicians...

The governor's position in CA is very weak. In reality, a governor cannot fix the state, but he can squabble with the legislature via use of Veto power, and to a very limited extent, policy. With Jerry Brown we know there won't be squabbling as he will happily sign everything the legislature will send his way.

Meg, as a hobby politician will want to appear strong, especially since she has been label a RINO, like Arny. She will squabble left and right in an attempt of pretending to be an effective governor. I believe that is one of the last checks and balances that we have against our out of control legislature.


I suspect Meg wouldn't even know where to start with a cash strapped state. She's always been able to throw money at a problem to fix it. California can't afford a Meg Whitman.

California can't afford Brown - the Legislature's rubber stamp.

Dragunov
10-05-2010, 10:38 PM
I wish it would be that simple....It is that simple.