PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control and Phil Angelides


JesseXXX
09-27-2006, 3:16 PM
Straight from his website...

Gun Control

Phil Angelides believes citizens have a legal right to own guns for their own safety, hunting, target practice and collecting. California’s strong laws barring dangerous weapons, requiring background checks, and regulating gun safety have saved lives and kept guns out of the hands of criminals. Phil Angelides favors tougher penalties on using a gun to commit a crime and would support measures making it easier for police to track down and convict criminals who use guns in crimes.

Hmmmmm....?

50 Shooter
09-27-2006, 3:21 PM
That just means he's all for gun control and doesn't believe that anyone should be allowed to have them, police excluded.:rolleyes:

Don't even think for a minute that he won't pass even more gun laws here in Kali if he wins.

bwiese
09-27-2006, 3:41 PM
What Angelides supports is really a hidden code phrase meaning he supports laws like AB352 (the microstamping requirement for pistols) and SB357 (the marked ammo law).

Both died due to massive efforts and unity in the last month or so.

This sh*t will reappear and we have to be vigilant. For a start we can avoid an idiot like Angelides.

FatKatMatt
09-27-2006, 3:52 PM
I've read an article recently that said the Governator has a lead over Angelides, thank god. Anybody is better than him.

Wulf
09-27-2006, 4:18 PM
I dont for a second believe that Phil's true feelings re: guns, and self defence are any where near that good or constitutional. But I like seeing stories like this....for two reasons. One, it says that the political climate is not favorable for anti-gun canidates and gun control. Secondly, it reconfirms the fact that democrats are willing to whore themselves out on their core principals which is their achilies heel.

Dump1567
09-27-2006, 4:29 PM
He's got the typical Liberal Democrat platform.
I hate Bush too. Vote for me.

I like the way he's going to bring the NG back from Iraq. I guess he thinks Californians are dumb enough to think he has control over that.:rolleyes:

mblat
09-27-2006, 4:59 PM
He's got the typical Liberal Democrat platform.
I hate Bush too. Vote for me.

I like the way he's going to bring the NG back from Iraq. I guess he thinks Californians are dumb enough to think he has control over that.:rolleyes:


But Californians ARE DUMB enough....:rolleyes:

CALI-gula
09-27-2006, 5:18 PM
Bullcrap. It means he believes citizens have the right to own blackpowder muskets and not much else, ONLY affording them the allowance of guns that would have been found WHEN the 2nd Amendment was actually written. And if he can't get that through...

It means he believes citizens should go through hoops, hurdles, and registration schemes to include;
Several reams of paper, proving personal liability insurance and medical insurance for bodily injury and Third Party Property Damage in order to buy a firearm; proof of Insurance must name the State of California as an Additonal Insured on your policy for each firearm. Failure to maintain such insurance is justification for confiscation.
6 forms of ID, including a "Biometrics" passport.
Fingerprinting of all ten digits and blood DNA sample - hey, don't whine so much, it's just a needle, it's for your safety, really. (Saliva swab is deemed insufficient for some reason).
ALL guns become 1 per 30 day!
And in light of the former, a 30 Day waiting period since you are limited to 1 per 30 day anyway; really, it's for your spouse's safety - and to protect the kids at the local school. And you can't pick up your gun during banking hours.
Safety handling demonstrations of all guns including Airsoft, Paintball, Nail, Staple, Grease, Hot-Glue, Caulking, and Super-soakers.
Special 10% taxation on all aspects of firearms, their individual components, replacement parts, usage, accessories, ammunition, literature, thoughts about them, etc. 3% of these fees collected go towards the prevention of Global Warming caused by YOUR guns.
Mandatory in-home unannounced spot safety-inspections of your firearms and how you store them, for your safety - really, it's for your own good. And you have to store them disassembled - or else.
Annual mandatory firearm training for each model of gun you buy, including that model in different barrel lengths: $125.00 fee to take the 30-Minute course per model of firearm. 1% of these fees goes towards cleaning up the environmental hazards of depleted uranium in Iraq - you guessed it, caused by YOUR guns.
A ban on all calibers over .40 of an inch for both handguns and rifles.
A micro-serial-numbering of every part of the gun and its ammunition, (just how will Mr. Angelides number each grain of blackpowder ?)
Mandatory device on all firearms that injects your DNA sample into each and every bullet, taken and inserted at the time of discharge. This INCLUDES shotguns and for each and every ball of shot. Using rock-salt? Well, you better figure it out or its a felony to fire it without the DNA sample injections
A ban on any semi-auto rifles including .22LR; aren't they ALL just a few steps from being machine guns? You know, they all probably have the "capacity to accept an auto-sear"!!
Only those making $264,000 per year may buy more than one firearm per 30 days, so long as you live in a gated community.
And last but not least... are you REALLY a member of a well regulated militia, and do you REALLY have a just cause for owning a firearm?:D

.

jumbopanda
09-27-2006, 5:49 PM
reminds me of when john kerry tried to convince everyone that he was a "sportsman" by showing pictures of himself hunting.

anyway, arnold isnt perfect but he sure is a lot better than phil. i just wish we could have the old arnold back, the "i think we should close the borders" one, instead of the more PC version we have right now.

anotherone
09-27-2006, 5:58 PM
i just wish we could have the old arnold back, the "i think we should close the borders" one, instead of the more PC version we have right now.

Who says after he wins a second term we won't get the old Arnold back? He only gets two terms so after he's secured his second term he really doesn't have much to lose unless he has further political ambitions.

grammaton76
09-27-2006, 5:59 PM
Who says after he wins a second term we won't get the old Arnold back? He only gets two terms so after he's secured his second term he really doesn't have much to lose unless he has further political ambitions.

That would be kinda funny actually, if the first term was just setup for the second.

"Ja, I'm through being a gorlie-RINO!"

jumbopanda
09-27-2006, 6:06 PM
Who says after he wins a second term we won't get the old Arnold back? He only gets two terms so after he's secured his second term he really doesn't have much to lose unless he has further political ambitions.

arnold for president? :p

kennisonxgs
09-27-2006, 8:09 PM
Straight from his website...

Gun Control

Phil Angelides believes citizens have a legal right to own guns for their own safety, hunting, target practice and collecting.

Almost every anti's profile states something like that. Even John Kerry.

Outlaw Josey Wales
09-27-2006, 8:51 PM
Phil who?:D

Dont Tread on Me
09-27-2006, 9:46 PM
Democrats seam to believe that our RKBA will be preserved if we are limited to single shot black power pistols where the ball and powder must be kept in separate rooms.

Charliegone
09-27-2006, 10:15 PM
Democrat's seam to believe that our RKBA will be preserved if we are limited to black power pistols where the ball and powder must be kept in separate rooms.

Hell, I'd rather have a nail gun.:D

TKM
09-27-2006, 10:25 PM
Straight from his website...

Gun Control

would support measures making it easier for police to track down and convict criminals who use guns in crimes.

Hmmmmm....?

Just 'cause there's a name and address on a check made out to the Democratic Party of California doesn't mean that he will turn this information over to the police.

That's profiling, and that's wrong.

Charliegone
09-27-2006, 10:30 PM
Call his campaign. Tell them that you have a check sitting in front of you, in the amount of $500, and you are deciding whether to make it out to the Angelides campaign or the Schwarzenegger campaign. Tell them that you need the answers to a few questions, related to gun control. Ask them to explain the above statement. Then start drilling down to the details, with questions such as: If your candidate were elected Governor, would he sign or veto AB2714, or 352, or 357? What is the candidate's position on tightening or loosening SB23 and Roberti-Roos? In retrospect, was passing AB50 a good or a bad idea? Make sure you just ask questions, and don't give away your position (otherwise they'll tell you want you want to hear, just to please you and get your contribution). Most likely, the person who answers the phone won't know the answers (probably has never heard of 2714 and 352), so ask them to connect you to a policy analyst in the campaign. Most likely, you'll have to leave your phone number, and they'll call you back.

My experience is: they will call you back, and you will get a senior person in the campaign on the phone (warning: this person is likely to become a staffer in the Angelides administration, if Angelides is elected; if they are interested in gun law, they might even be the successor to the current deputy AG for the firearms divisision, namely the Mrs. A.M. we are not supposed to mention here). They will enter into a very serious discussion with you, and listen to your point of view. They will explain their point of view like civilized people. In the end, you might agree to disagree. In the case of the Angelides campaign and gun control, I will bet that the answers you will get from them will be highly unsatisfactory for a gun owner. Make sure you get the name of the high-level person you talked to.

There is one last important step in this: After having this discussion, decide whether to make the donation to Schwarzenegger or to Angelides. If you are interested in gun rights, I bet the decision will be pretty darn obvious. In that case, make a photocopy of the check which says "Schwarzenegger" on it, and then write a very polite letter to the person you talked to in the Angelides campaign. Introduce yourself as the person who had a nice discussion about gun law, and point out that the answers you received from the Angelides campaign did compell you to make a major donation to the Schwarzenegger campaign. It is important to do so in writing, because they need to see the photocopy of the check with "Schwarzenegger" on it (or in the case of the AG race, the check that says "Poochigan").

In my experience, you will get another phone call about a week later, when they receive the letter and the photocopy of the check. Remain firm, tell them that until they fix their idiotic stance on gun control, your contributions will go to their opponents. They will be genuinely disturbed by this, because they just lost a $500 contribution.

If enough of us did this, the democrats would be extremely eager in supporting gun rights. Today they do exactly the opposite, because they know which side their bread is buttered on - they get lots of such phone calls and campaign contributions, from the Brady bunch and such.

Remember: You get the best politicians money can buy. Spend your dollars wisely.

Oh, and a side remark: Angelides is (in my opinion) a desaster for gun rights. Bill Lockyer is obviously the same (in addition to his attitude, we have his horrible track record as AG, beginning with putting politically motivated incompetent lobbying insiders like Mrs. A.M. in charge). On the other hand, Jerry Brown's position seems much more reasonable (not ultra pro-gun, but middle-of-the-road), and his policy analysts are open to discussion and concede my points. If enough of us have these discussions with Brown's campaign, and convince them that there are lots of people interested in gun rights in this state, and those people are willing to open their wallets and support candidates who support gun rights, then we just might see the tenure of a reasonable democratic AG, for a change.

Hmmm interesting perspective, kind of what like I was thinking....people can change their minds, but it will prove to be difficult.

Dont Tread on Me
09-27-2006, 10:32 PM
Treelogger - I like your plan and it would work if only enough gun owners were to vote.

I just spent some time reading Phil's Website. The following is really all we need to know about his 2nd amendment plans.

"California Democrats like Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein ... have endorsed Phil Angelides for Governor of California."

bg
09-27-2006, 11:30 PM
I had no idea Grey Davis had a relative named
Angelides but it sure sounds like him, and you ALL
know what Davis brought to the table...:rolleyes:

anotherone
09-27-2006, 11:54 PM
arnold for president? :p

Arnold will never be able to run for President of the United States because he does not qualify. The President of the United States must be a naturally born United States citizen (e.g. someone born in the USA). Arnold is a naturalized U.S. citizen (he was born in Austria and immigrated to the United States).

This gets interesting when we get into certain technicalities. A US born child of two illegal immigrants can therefore be the President of the United States but an Austrian Immigrant who came here lawfully and has participated in US politics for at least two decades such as Arnold can't. Sometimes I marvel at the logic and sanity of these days.

jumbopanda
09-28-2006, 12:51 AM
Arnold will never be able to run for President of the United States because he does not qualify. The President of the United States must be a naturally born United States citizen (e.g. someone born in the USA). Arnold is a naturalized U.S. citizen (he was born in Austria and immigrated to the United States).

This gets interesting when we get into certain technicalities. A US born child of two illegal immigrants can therefore be the President of the United States but an Austrian Immigrant who came here lawfully and has participated in US politics for at least two decades such as Arnold can't. Sometimes I marvel at the logic and sanity of these days.

I know this. It was a joke and a reference to the goofy ideas people were having at one point about an amendment that would allow non-native citizens to run for president. There was a movie made about Arnold's life and his run for governor called See Arnold Run, at the very end of the movie, Arnold flips through a book of US laws and says to his wife something along the lines of, "I wonder what it takes to pass an amendment"

JeffCinSac
09-28-2006, 7:22 AM
I had this discussion with someone at work the other day.

There are only two types of people regarding the gun-control debate - those who think gun-control does little or nothing to reduce violent crime, and those who think gun-control is an effective tool for reducing violent crime.

The problem with people who think that gun-control is an effective tool for reducing violent crime is that the temptation is there, and strong, to think that if some gun-control reduces violent crime by a little bit, then more gun-control must reduce violent crime by even more!

When Phil Angelides says "I support the second amendment, but California's strong laws have reduced violent crime, blah blah blah," that's code for him telling us that he wants stronger laws to reduce violent crime even more.

That's unacceptable, because we all know that's not how it works.

bg
09-28-2006, 9:15 AM
A US born child of two illegal immigrants can therefore be the President of the United States. That is one of the biggest issues I have with the illegal
invasion issue. I feel that children born here in the U.S to
illegal immigrants, are themselves here illegally and
the laws even though little enforced, should be
changed to show so without any party here
illegally allowed any sort of benefit and/or local,
state, or fed help, save for a forced return back
from where they've come.

Sorry to get off topic.

MrTuffPaws
09-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Well, instead of having a bunch of people state what he believe in without any research, why doesn't someone actually call his office and ask what his standing on issues like microstamping are?

Or I guess we could just make up more BS without any thing back it up.....I heard he thinks it is just dandy to stomp puppies. Does he do it.....Noooo, but he still thinks it is just fine!

Satex
09-28-2006, 10:50 AM
The logic behind it is simple. It is designed to prevent a hostile takeover. This was written at the time when our friends across the pond weren't our friends. The intent of the law was to prevent the britons from sending a mole to the US, working his way the social ranks and ultimately gaining control of govt.
So the idea was that the "born American" law would prevent such a mole from taking over.

In the same way, if Arny is a European mole, he will never be able to gain control of the US govt.

Is this law relevant today? I don't know.



A US born child of two illegal immigrants can therefore be the President of the United States but an Austrian Immigrant who came here lawfully and has participated in US politics for at least two decades such as Arnold can't. Sometimes I marvel at the logic and sanity of these days.

CALI-gula
09-28-2006, 11:01 AM
... Bill Lockyer is obviously the same (in addition to his attitude, we have his horrible track record as AG, beginning with putting politically motivated incompetent lobbying insiders like Mrs. A.M. in charge). On the other hand, Jerry Brown's position seems much more reasonable (not ultra pro-gun, but middle-of-the-road), and his policy analysts are open to discussion and concede my points. If enough of us have these discussions with Brown's campaign, and convince them that there are lots of people interested in gun rights in this state, and those people are willing to open their wallets and support candidates who support gun rights, then we just might see the tenure of a reasonable democratic AG, for a change.

Bill Lockyer is termed out as AG. We should day goodbye to our "Eliot Spitzer" and hope he never runs for Governor (like Spitzer).

The answer to selection for Attorney General is Chuck Poochigian, plain and simple. We are talking about someone that is absolutely, without question, favorable to the 2nd Amendment without infringement. His REPEAT voting record shows it. Letters directly from him to many people during the fights against AB-50 and ammo tax bills, noting he was sure to vote against them, prove this.

I don't want "more reasonable" than Lockyer on 2nd Amendment Rights, because "more reasonable" sounds no different to me than the phrase "common sense gun control", which is not more reasonable at all.

Jerry Brown is a wild card and a whacko, on so many more issues other than 2nd Amendment Rights. Frankly, I think he is dangerous as an AG for many reasons. If you think Bill Lockyer's frivolous lawsuits and legal actions (most recently filing a suit against 6 automakers for causing Global Warming) just wait until the crap that Jerry Brown puts up. I fully expect to see Nabisco sued for making Oreo cookies because they make people fat - oh, wait, that's another one of Bill Lockyer's circus acts!! I don't know if I can come up with something more satirical than the real-life actions of Lockyer, except to note that Jerry Brown is surely mulling several whacky ideas for lawsuits against various entities as I write this! :eek:

VOTE FOR CHARLES POOCHIGIAN, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2006 !!!

.

JesseXXX
09-28-2006, 11:13 AM
I can hardly wait for the day aliens crash our Earth and bring mind-bending weapons.... I wonder what kind of dumb laws they'll come up with....:eek:

"the capacity to accept a detachable flux-capaciter".... or ..."Batteries limited to 1.1 Gigawatts of reserve power".....:D

M. D. Van Norman
09-28-2006, 12:21 PM
The lead issue in Brown’s TV ad is gun control, citing that Poochigian wants to “weaken laws against military-style assault weapons” or some such similar drivel. Angelides certainly wouldn’t veto any prohibitionist legislation that might make it to his desk.

jumbopanda
09-28-2006, 2:46 PM
I had this discussion with someone at work the other day.

There are only two types of people regarding the gun-control debate - those who think gun-control does little or nothing to reduce violent crime, and those who think gun-control is an effective tool for reducing violent crime.

The problem with people who think that gun-control is an effective tool for reducing violent crime is that the temptation is there, and strong, to think that if some gun-control reduces violent crime by a little bit, then more gun-control must reduce violent crime by even more!

When Phil Angelides says "I support the second amendment, but California's strong laws have reduced violent crime, blah blah blah," that's code for him telling us that he wants stronger laws to reduce violent crime even more.

That's unacceptable, because we all know that's not how it works.


I made a graph :)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6662/guncontrolet4.th.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=guncontrolet4.jpg)

Silverback
09-28-2006, 3:48 PM
If enough of us have these discussions with Brown's campaign, and convince them that there are lots of people interested in gun rights in this state, and those people are willing to open their wallets and support candidates who support gun rights, then we just might see the tenure of a reasonable democratic AG, for a change. :rolleyes:

I'm not paying "Moonbeam" to support something that is already mine. I voted for him once about 30 yrs ago. I haven't voted for him since and have seen nothing to change my mind. :mad: :mad: I do have a couple of fingers for him though! :D

CalNRA
09-28-2006, 4:48 PM
wasn't there somebody here that was spewing all that crap about "Jerry Brown won't be a bad choice"?

I don't understand how ANY gun owners in this state can be a Democrat. Oh yeah. because they are afraid of being associated with the NRA...right...

jumbopanda
09-28-2006, 4:57 PM
wasn't there somebody here that was spewing all that crap about "Jerry Brown won't be a bad choice"?

I don't understand how ANY gun owners in this state can be a Democrat. Oh yeah. because they are afraid of being associated with the NRA...right...

id be more afraid of being associated with democrats. im not terribly conservative, but i just hate libs with a passion :mad:

DrjonesUSA
10-02-2006, 3:50 PM
Angelides is an extreme leftist and of course has leftist views on guns and gun control.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant, stupid, lying, or some combination thereof.

Anyone who doesn't vote for Arnold this fall is retarded.

luvtolean
10-02-2006, 4:00 PM
wasn't there somebody here that was spewing all that crap about "Jerry Brown won't be a bad choice"?

Actually, Poochigian's old site had a Brown quote that said Brown wasn't against guns.

That site is now gone, and a MUCH more professional looking one is up, but all the sophmoric Brown bashing is gone.

I don't understand how ANY gun owners in this state can be a Democrat. Oh yeah. because they are afraid of being associated with the NRA...right...

I know many liberal gun owners. Being liberal doesn't mean you tow the party line. There are many issues other than guns regarding our politicians...I even know local politicians who are liberal and massively pro-gun.

JFK was a NRA lifer...

Being a republican doesn't mean I believe in their (our?) whole platform, or that I even like our pres. (cuz I don't)

The country is in dire need of a viable third party.


To get back on topic, Angelides sucks. Thankfully, it doesn't look like there is much danger of him getting in this election.

JeffCinSac
10-03-2006, 8:04 AM
Jumbo Panda:

Fantastic. The graph is perfect. Mind if I show it to some fence-sitters?

-J

jnojr
10-03-2006, 8:59 AM
There are only two types of people regarding the gun-control debate - those who think gun-control does little or nothing to reduce violent crime, and those who think gun-control is an effective tool for reducing violent crime.

Exactly!

There are the fringe elements, too... those who really do believe in the abolishment of the private ownership of firearms (which are also the ones who believe that, with enough laws and government, all of humanity will come together singing Kumbaya My Lord, all past disagreements forgotten), just as the fringe "pro Second Amendment" types who make pipe bombs, hate anyone who isn't white and many who are, and who pull Timothy McVeighs.

But, in the day-to-day discussion, you're absolutely right.

We need to shift the argument away from the absolute rights issue and more towards showing the fallacy that gun control = less crime.

anotherone
10-03-2006, 10:56 AM
id be more afraid of being associated with democrats. im not terribly conservative, but i just hate libs with a passion :mad:

I used to be pretty indifferent to the dems. Heck they were even the majority party in Michigan where I spent a lot of my youthful years. But when I moved out to California and they started slowly chipping away at my property and rights I started getting angry. Now I vote a straight Republican ticket at this point because the Democrats have completely alienated me politically.

The Democrats have taken the attitude that folks like myself who enjoy hunting, going to church on Sundays, and wanting to instill good Christian values in our children are obstacles to their socialist utopia. I was asking my Nephew the other day what he hoped Santa would bring him under the Christmas Tree this year and do you know what he told me? He said, "They told us in shool that we should call it a Holiday Tree so we don't offend non-Christians" WTF?

AxonGap
10-03-2006, 2:24 PM
The anti-gun camp depends on the publics’ ignorance by using visual imagery and stereotypes to get its message across. When unspeakable acts such as what happened yesterday at that Amish school occur, invariably attention will be focused on gun control to vent anger and loss. You can’t vent anger on a murderous coward with severe mental illness particularly one who takes the easy way out (suicide) so we all must have some kind of scapegoat to explain what happened. Inanimate instruments of death and the culture that breads it is the easiest target. Here is how the tables get turned:

1) All hunting rifles such as a Winchester lever action rifles or non-tactical shotguns are usually identified as “Assault Weapons” by "professional sources" (Columbine HS) then silently downgraded to hunting status when the dust settles.

2) ALL SKS’s are assault weapons

3) All handguns become Saturday night specials (or AW’s depending on how sensational the media wants to make it)

4) ALL AR15’s and civilian AK’s magically become fully automatic machine guns.

5) All law abiding gun owners morph into some kind of nose pickin “Bubba” red-neck (As portrayed in the mockumentary “Bowling for Columbine”)

6) If not Bubba, you are obviously some kind of “closet killer” plotting to go on a violent rampage (a pedophile gets better treatment)

7) Anti-gun politicians will always be the firearms expert and use bogus technical doubletalk as if they grew up in an armory

8) Guns always equate to violence %98.99 of the time unless it is being utilized by a trusted source like an LEO or soldier (hunting is synonymous w/ violence)

9) It’s always the gun’s fault, not the perpetrator, unless you’re an LEO or soldier then it’s the gun AND your fault!

10) Guns kill, people don’t!

11) Gang bangers become unwitting victims of a failed society (your problem) swayed by the allure of guns.

12) The adult or child ruthlessly shot by the gang banger is a “victim of gun violence” never a “victim of gang violence” at the hand of a murderous killer

13) The second amendment is of no value to a civilized altruistic society.

14) The NRA supports gun violence

15) The .50 caliber BMG is only used to shoot down airliners, school buses, and squad cars.

16) Etc. etc. etc.