PDA

View Full Version : Governor Jerry Brown. Gun Owner.


Pages : [1] 2

Mr310
04-06-2011, 6:03 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407,0,6441988.story

;)

bodger
04-06-2011, 6:06 PM
He wouldn't say what guns he owns, but the dog is a Corgi.

And Jerry's handler Elizabeth Ashford says he may have been speaking in "hyperbole" about the firearms.

Jeez, can they straddle the fence or what.

noob_tube
04-06-2011, 6:13 PM
So three guns = small arsenal now? I wonder what my 6 guns are considered lol

Mr310
04-06-2011, 6:14 PM
So three guns = small arsenal now? I wonder what my 6 guns are considered lol

A pre-dawn ATF raid in your future?
















J/K ;)

Maddog5150
04-06-2011, 6:21 PM
holy ****. thats dangerous. Thats why I'm glad I turned in all my arsenals at a gun buy and got a five dollar gift card to hot topic. I mean, if three is an arsenal, what buisiness does anyone, especially civillians, needs weapons for anyways? :shifty:

PsychGuy274
04-06-2011, 6:23 PM
I had no idea that three guns are an arseonal. Apparently I could supply a military :43:

Mr310
04-06-2011, 6:25 PM
I had no idea that three guns are an arseonal. Apparently I could supply a military :43:

The Swiss Guard? lol

TNP'R
04-06-2011, 6:26 PM
Nice! I only have 5 but I guess I have an arsenal now, I feel special.

gadjeep
04-06-2011, 6:42 PM
Sounds like a good start. Bill Wiese should send him a copy of the flow chart and invite him to a build party. :D

Josey Wales
04-06-2011, 7:22 PM
Damn! Three guns is an arsenal? Our last trip out I must have brought an armoury. (And I still left a few at home!)

blakdawg
04-06-2011, 7:26 PM
Hmm, that means that a few days ago I had an arsenal in my pants.

PandaLuv
04-06-2011, 7:32 PM
he probably meant that he had a water gun, a bb gun and a paintball gun.
Corki is not a dog.

Mr310
04-06-2011, 7:40 PM
Terrible, this are so dangerous.
To have an arsenal is really special.


bar stools (http://www.regencyshop.com/Bar-Stools/c33/index.html)

I like your style. From now on, I'll write in Haiku.

It is stools you sell.
Bar stools at that.
I think I'll pass.

pyromensch
04-06-2011, 7:42 PM
he is seriously, under -gunned, and under -dogged

Josey Wales
04-06-2011, 7:45 PM
he is seriously, under -gunned, and under -dogged

...under balled and under brained.

Palmaris
04-06-2011, 7:49 PM
Here is article from LaTimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407,0,6441988.story
Is he pro or anti?

I don't understand this portion, can someone explain to me what he try to say:
Brown suggested that it's ridiculous for opponents of his plan to transfer thousands of felons from state prisons to county jails to lampoon it as the "get a dog, buy a gun" bill. It's perfectly natural for people to have those items in their homes anyway, he said.

If this duplicate please delete.

ElvenSoul
04-06-2011, 7:50 PM
Can he buy off roster? Did he have to take a HSC?

G60
04-06-2011, 7:52 PM
Quite an 'arsenal'.

Blackhawk556
04-06-2011, 7:52 PM
Some people say he is good because he personally wrote an amicus for Chicago case while other says he will tax you to death. So you decide. Feinstein had a ccw before and look at her now, if she could, she would have everyone turn in their guns.

Bhobbs
04-06-2011, 7:54 PM
3 guns = an arsenal? Don't let them in my house. They would have a stroke and I just started collecting.

taperxz
04-06-2011, 7:57 PM
Good for us and good for him! He target shoots and is ready to protect himself when all else fails. Isn't that the point?

tmncali
04-06-2011, 7:57 PM
Quite an 'arsenal'.


Do I detect a bit of Sarcasm?:D

hawk1
04-06-2011, 8:07 PM
Yeah and Feinstein has at least one. Tell me what that's done for us...:rolleyes:

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 8:08 PM
California Gov. Jerry Brown tells cops, 'I've got 3 guns'

Jerry Brown mentions that he own three guns — and one dog — while talking to a law enforcement group. A spokeswoman declines to specify the types of guns he owns.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-04/60708784.jpg

By Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento — —

Gov. Jerry Brown, who routinely confounds those tempted to write him off as a stereotypical left-wing intellectual, did so again Wednesday, telling a roomful of cops that he's the proud owner of a small arsenal. ...

Read the rest. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407,0,6441988.story)

-Gene

glockman19
04-06-2011, 8:12 PM
In 2009, while attorney general, Brown filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with the National Rifle Assn.'s attempt to overturn a gun ban in Chicago. Brown wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court that he feared "California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes."



I think the "In their homes" was added by the author...I ahven't read his brief.

Tripper
04-06-2011, 8:12 PM
COHA had duck dinner with him recently, he apparently likes to hunt ducks, they seem to think he is gun friendly
COHA=CA Outdoor Heritage Alliance
The largest caucus in the ca legislature
Composed of gun friendly congressman, they support anyone, dems and repub, that supports hunting, a good organization for gun folk to support, they lobby on the side of hunters, and have been doing pretty good
Worthy of our support they are
Tripper

Mr310
04-06-2011, 8:12 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture that he owns a Barrett M82, a Mac-11 that he only holds sideways, and a Cricket-gun.

pyromensch
04-06-2011, 8:12 PM
...under balled and under brained.

OK, now you make me have to look at this video. i thought i could get away with a comment

CalBear
04-06-2011, 8:13 PM
Anything over 1 weapon is being called an arsenal, and maybe even 1 is these days. The way they cast gun owners in the media is ridiculous.

wash
04-06-2011, 8:20 PM
This "arsenal" isn't news to the right people (who always knew he was more gun friendly than Meg).

pyromensch
04-06-2011, 8:25 PM
got the picture, the video didn't run, just the adds. but now i know who it is coming from.
history repeats itself...again
he waited almost 40 yrs, for a new generation of voters, that had now knowledge, of his past, and an older generation of voters, that could not absorb knowledge, to run again. and now we have to endure another, whatever, during the "worst" economic climate, that this nation has encountered. (the depression was worse, but the population was smaller, and not as electronically, or socially, dependant).

Liberty1
04-06-2011, 8:30 PM
California Gov. Jerry Brown tells cops, 'I've got 3 guns'

Jerry Brown mentions that he own three guns — and one dog — while talking to a law enforcement group. A spokeswoman declines to specify the types of guns he owns.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-04/60708784.jpg

By Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times
April 7, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento — —

Gov. Jerry Brown, who routinely confounds those tempted to write him off as a stereotypical left-wing intellectual, did so again Wednesday, telling a roomful of cops that he's the proud owner of a small arsenal. ...

Read the rest. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407,0,6441988.story)

-Gene

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418007

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 8:32 PM
:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418007

Mine's prettier? :o

The dupe wasn't there when I was constructing the nice excerpt... :D

-Gene

G17GUY
04-06-2011, 8:34 PM
They dropped the brief bomb, soccer moms all over California are killing kittens.

Liberty1
04-06-2011, 8:34 PM
Mine's prettier? :o

The dupe wasn't there when I was constructing the nice excerpt... :D

-Gene

It took me so long to do that on my droid I was afraid I'd dupe de' dupe.

hawk1
04-06-2011, 8:34 PM
I see your dupe and raise you one better...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417961

misterjake
04-06-2011, 8:36 PM
Is this good for us?

Depends. Remember, many that own guns think their lives are more important than you and would be more than happy to trample on our constitutional rights.

glockwise2000
04-06-2011, 8:42 PM
Wow 3 guns are an arsenal now? Is this good or bad. LA Times has reported that owning 3 guns was something bad. I could see a raid in the future.

Liberty1
04-06-2011, 8:42 PM
I see your dupe and raise you one better...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417961

At 1903 hours, very good! One of my favorite numbers too!

CalBear
04-06-2011, 8:42 PM
Is this good for us?

Depends. Remember, many that own guns think their lives are more important than you and would be more than happy to trample on our constitutional rights.

IMO JB probably firmly believes the RKBA is constitutionally protected. He did file the amicus brief, after all. He's also not a complete political shill for his party, which is good. The question is how much is he willing to OK in terms of gun control. One positive is since he has knowledge of firearms, he'll be more likely to spot ridiculous bills when they land on his desk.

misterjake
04-06-2011, 8:44 PM
IMO JB probably firmly believes the RKBA is constitutionally protected. He did file the amicus brief, after all. He's also not a complete political shill for his party, which is good. The question is how much is he willing to OK in terms of gun control. One positive is since he has knowledge of firearms, he'll be more likely to spot ridiculous bills when they land on his desk.

Politician 1st, Gun owner 2nd.


Only if it will help him.

Skidmark
04-06-2011, 8:44 PM
Jerry Brown. Not only is our Governor a gun owner's friend, but he's also a friendly gun owner.

tonelar
04-06-2011, 8:49 PM
Yeah and Feinstein has at least one. Tell me what that's done for us...:rolleyes:

Agree. In fact, the "Feinsteins" have upstairs and downstairs safes in their Palm Springs home.

In fact, the most influential antis are merely against the idea of the rest of us being armed. This "i got mine" attitude is what i find most disturbing.

paul0660
04-06-2011, 8:54 PM
I absolutely friggin guarantee that he is a Glock Fanboy. I am pretty sure of that.

Saigon1965
04-06-2011, 8:57 PM
Nah - 1911 for Jerry -

trashman
04-06-2011, 8:57 PM
IIRC, a couple of years ago Jerry posted in a "25 things about me" on Facebook that he owned a Colt .38 that his father gave him.

--Neill

Baconator
04-06-2011, 9:00 PM
Airsoft and painball guns.

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 9:06 PM
I expect he's a revolver guy.

He's more our friend than many here would assume.

-Gene

stix213
04-06-2011, 9:06 PM
If 3 guns is an arsenal, half of Calgunners have their own personal national guard armories.

Blackhawk556
04-06-2011, 9:07 PM
I bet he owns a OLL with a permanent flash suppressor to make it 16", 30 round mag,U15? Stock, with a bullet button just to be on the safe side ;-)

Colt-45
04-06-2011, 9:07 PM
I think Governor Jerry Brown owns:

1. Browning m1919
2. A registered AW
3. A Glock 18

:43:

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 9:08 PM
I bet he owns a OLL with a permanent flash suppressor to make it 16", 30 round mag,U15? Stock, with a bullet button just to be on the safe side ;-)

He may not have bought one yet, but he knows all about them...

-Gene

Blackhawk556
04-06-2011, 9:09 PM
^^^^Wait it can't have the flash suppressor right?? (Sorry can't edit on phone)

Blackhawk556
04-06-2011, 9:16 PM
@colt-45......you got it, glock 18:-)

E Pluribus Unum
04-06-2011, 9:17 PM
He may not have bought one yet, but he knows all about them...

-Gene

Do you think that Jerry could apply for, and obtain, a dangerous weapon permit and a high capacity magazine permit? :)

Colt-45
04-06-2011, 9:20 PM
Agree. In fact, the "Feinsteins" have upstairs and downstairs safes in their Palm Springs home.

In fact, the most influential antis are merely against the idea of the rest of us being armed. This "i got mine" attitude is what i find most disturbing.

The "I have guns and only I should have guns because I'm special" crowd is a with a dangerous mentality. To me those people are more dangerous to RKBA than the flat out anti-gun crowd because they actually know guns and how they function.

Good for us and good for him! He target shoots and is ready to protect himself when all else fails. Isn't that the point?

Maybe he can get a CCW and he can save the State of California the salary of a bodyguard? They don't come cheap especially to the governor.

hornswaggled
04-06-2011, 9:21 PM
I expect he's a revolver guy.

He's more our friend than many here would assume.

-Gene

Agreed. Model 19 he inherited, I'm sure of it.

Colt-45
04-06-2011, 9:22 PM
@colt-45......you got it, glock 18:-)

Since he's special he can probably get his hands on one. But not us :(

Colt-45
04-06-2011, 9:26 PM
"Small arsenal" he didn't choose the best of words, I'm sure he meant a small gun collection.

hoffmang
04-06-2011, 9:31 PM
Do you think that Jerry could apply for, and obtain, a dangerous weapon permit and a high capacity magazine permit? :)

I actually expect that the current AG would deny him.

-Gene

Ubermcoupe
04-06-2011, 9:39 PM
Interesting... :D

HUTCH 7.62
04-06-2011, 9:42 PM
3 guns and a dog????:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5: I got 23 guns and a three legged dog.:cool:

GrayWolf09
04-06-2011, 9:45 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture that he owns a Barrett M82, a Mac-11 that he only holds sideways, and a Cricket-gun.

Love your sig line. :rofl2:

InGrAM
04-06-2011, 9:54 PM
This guys got 3 guns AND a corgi? wow, brown.... just wow.... To bad his corgi doesn't have *****! on my lil pup.

Mr310
04-06-2011, 10:18 PM
Love your sig line. :rofl2:

Haha. Appreciate it. And thanks for being the first one to notice it! :D

Ike Arumba
04-06-2011, 10:34 PM
I'll bet he has a huge stockpile of ammunition, too - maybe even 50 bullets!

oaklander
04-06-2011, 11:34 PM
As has been subtly pointed out, you guys are missing the point.

The Governor of the most anti-gun state in the Union is telling folks he owns guns. Our Governor is smart enough to know what he said, and what effects it will have.

I think that people are oversimplifying his personal "stance" on guns.

St. Ignatius Loyola was a former soldier, and I suspect that "self defense" is esteemed in the Jesuit order, even if not explicitly stated. The influence HAD to have some effect on Governor Brown.

Again, try to think about things like they are a chess game, and not a checkers game. Remember that our Governor is an extremely smart person, with his own experiences and motivations - we do not do ourselves any favors when we oversimplify things down to a "cartoon level." The more we understand the Governor, his motivations and philosophy, and his current administration, the more effective we will be.

I'm a single-issue voter. I don't actually care about anything else, other than our gun rights - and in that accord, I do not think we have any substantial complaints against him.

Let's take the old "moonbeam jokes" over to OT, but this thread is about current issues -- and not ancient history.

bwiese
04-07-2011, 12:09 AM
COHA had duck dinner with him recently, he apparently likes to hunt ducks, they seem to think he is gun friendly
COHA=CA Outdoor Heritage Alliance
The largest caucus in the ca legislature
Composed of gun friendly congressman, they support anyone, dems and repub, that supports hunting, a good organization for gun folk to support, they lobby on the side of hunters, and have been doing pretty good
Worthy of our support they are
Tripper

Tripper,

Thank you for posting this.

COHA is indeed a friend of gun rights in CA. Unlike leadership of some other CA gun groups, COHA 'gets it' and sees the long term. Gene and I have had the honor of meeting several COHA leaders at the NRA convention in Phoenix. COHA works in coordination with CRPA and NRA in CA.

Teamwork!

bwiese
04-07-2011, 12:11 AM
JB did mention on his website (i.e, during campaign) that he owned a Colt revolver that was his dad's. I believe that gun is a Colt 32 snubby.

mag360
04-07-2011, 12:36 AM
time for an SB23 and roberti roos repeal!:13:

dizzy
04-07-2011, 4:32 AM
Gov. Schwarzenegger is a gun owner as well, but that is not a real indication on how he votes on 2A issues.

I wonder if Brown CCWed when he was mayor of Oakland.

nukechaser
04-07-2011, 5:38 AM
Pistol, rifle and shotgun, perhaps? Maybe he's a closet 3-gun competitor? ;)

cdtx2001
04-07-2011, 5:58 AM
"Target Practice" huh? Why practice on targets if you're not gonna....?

And I'm not surprised with the LA Times calling 3 guns an arsenal. And if he had more than 2 bullets it would be a stockpile.

I'm not going to say how many guns or how much ammo I have, but I do have "almost enough".

But really, what game is JB playing by stating this in public?

edwardm
04-07-2011, 6:06 AM
See item #21.

http://www.jerrybrown.org/25

So now we only have two to wonder about. :)

dizzy
04-07-2011, 6:17 AM
See item #21.

http://www.jerrybrown.org/25

So now we only have two to wonder about. :)

"13. I’ve been duck hunting with Chief Justice Warren, but not with Vice President Cheney."

LoL

Ripon83
04-07-2011, 6:26 AM
Just because he has stated a few things to our favor hardly makes him our friend. If his party pushes thru anti gun legislation it would have ti be an extreme act for him to oppose it.

He has a Colt 38 from dad, a pocket 25 berretta, and a trap shot gun for show.

I expect he's a revolver guy.

He's more our friend than many here would assume.

-Gene

daveinwoodland
04-07-2011, 6:32 AM
ar·se·nal (ärs-nl)
n.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
2. A stock of weapons.
3. A store or supply: an arsenal of retorts.

johnny_22
04-07-2011, 6:34 AM
He wouldn't say what guns he owns, but the dog is a Corgi.

And Jerry's handler Elizabeth Ashford says he may have been speaking in "hyperbole" about the firearms.

Jeez, can they straddle the fence or what.

His other dog, recently deceased, was a very large dog (forgot the breed). I received a holiday card (too late for Christmas; for Lunar New Year) from Jerry with a picture of the dog inside. Made me like him even more; our Christmas cards always includes pictures of our dog and cats inside.

FeuerFrei
04-07-2011, 6:44 AM
3 guns = arsenal.
...therefore...
3 computers = server farm?

All you that voted for JB are on notice now.
We all "get" what you voted for. :rolleyes:
More gun rights hang in the balance...again.

Bobby Hated
04-07-2011, 6:46 AM
you right wingers need to realize that the GOP in cali is finished. you can either support pro-gun democrats or let them get replaced by anti-gun democrats.

i think the best strategy for us is to get as many pro-gun democrats in as possible so that we have enough votes to overthrow the handgun list, and the ccw, aw, suppressor, and hi cap bans. because the GOP wont have a majority in this legislature in our lifetimes.

im a liberal democrat, but as far as im concerned f feinstein, f maig and f the franchise tax board.

jerry is a gun owner, a hunter and proud to say so. we should all write him letters thanking him and encouraging him to support gun rights and the right to self defense. and we should find pro-gun dems to run in dem districts so we build up the votes to protect our rights.

FeuerFrei
04-07-2011, 6:51 AM
I think Governor Jerry Brown owns:

1. Browning m1919
2. A registered AW
3. A Glock 18

:43:

Probably has one of these...when he bought it new at an old country store for $20.00. He's original owner.
http://www.thespiritoftheoldwest.com/NewImages/Handguns-Colt1862Navy-right.JPG

southernsnowshoe
04-07-2011, 7:10 AM
you right wingers need to realize that the GOP in cali is finished. you can either support pro-gun democrats or let them get replaced by anti-gun democrats.
.



Hmmmmmm, yeah, no way in hell.
You liberial democrats are going to bankrupt this state by spending other peoples money, just a matter of time. Thats why I don't even listen to the budget debate, it will take care of itself.

Without money, the entire charade that is the communist agenda of liberials just disappears. And the time is coming, soon, when this state and this nation run out of money. It will be at that time when all the liberals whos education has surpassed their intelligence, get a real world education, and find out where money really comes from, and that there is no such thing as an "entitlement program". not a sustainable one anyway.

LHC30
04-07-2011, 7:13 AM
From Dictionary.com:

ar·se·nal  [ahr-suh-nl, ahrs-nuhl]
–noun
1. a place of storage or a magazine containing arms and military equipment for land or naval service.
2. a government establishment where military equipment or munitions are manufactured.
3. a collection or supply of weapons or munitions.
4. a collection or supply of anything; store: He came to the meeting with an impressive arsenal of new research data.

zvardan
04-07-2011, 7:13 AM
I was wondering what all the fuss is about.

His agenda has been to cut spending and focus on the budget. This article leads to a direct and indirect path.

1) He's a gun owner, admittedly, so as not likely to infringe upon rights. Not saying it couldn't happen, but the outlook overall is positive

2) He's hellbent on fixing the budget, any laws of questionable efficacy requiring more spending are likely to be veto'd on his desk.

These are good times, believe it or not.

HK Dave
04-07-2011, 8:15 AM
Personally I am proud to have a pro gun governor. I'd help buy him a real arsenal if he went after the assault weapons ban here.

Bhobbs
04-07-2011, 8:21 AM
Ok so we established he owns firearms.

He can be 1 of two gun owners.

1) I am for gun rights
2) I am for gun rights but...

We know there are multiple anti 2A bills coming through now and will more than likely pass. When they reach his desk we will find out which one he is.

Bobby Hated
04-07-2011, 8:42 AM
actually what bankrupted his state is that in 1987 we had 5 prisons and now we have 27. social services are a fraction of what they were decades ago, and sadly half of that money goes to crooked armenians in glendale who drive mercedes and pay for groceries with ebt.

i dont know about you, but i dont want my money paying for dope fiends to slam their dope with free room and board. they can do it under fwy overpasses the way they did it in the 80's and save us $80k a head.

sorry off topic. back to jerry "3 gun" brown...

Dirtbozz
04-07-2011, 8:42 AM
Hmmmmmm, yeah, no way in hell.
You liberial democrats are going to bankrupt this state by spending other peoples money, just a matter of time. Thats why I don't even listen to the budget debate, it will take care of itself.

Without money, the entire charade that is the communist agenda of liberials just disappears. And the time is coming, soon, when this state and this nation run out of money. It will be at that time when all the liberals whos education has surpassed their intelligence, get a real world education, and find out where money really comes from, and that there is no such thing as an "entitlement program". not a sustainable one anyway.

Well said. The great California melt down is coming. Soon. Very soon.

Hopefully something good rises from the ashes. Maybe even the realization by the masses here that they should stop voting in the idiots that they keep sending to Sacramento.

We'll see. :D

tenpercentfirearms
04-07-2011, 8:42 AM
You will note the LA Times did not call it an arsenal. His staffer stated, "We don't discuss the governor's arsenal."

Personally I think this is a great thing. You have a staffer calling Governor Brown's gun collection an arsenal. You know that is making anti-gunners cringe. CRINGE!

Now if three guns is simply an arsenal, then I guess I have a depot.

"We don't discuss Mr. Morris's depot." That will be my new standard line to my students.

On Oaklander's Facebook someone suggested calling it a depository. You know how quick it took for me to mention I didn't want to have a gun suppository. Ewwww.

loose_electron
04-07-2011, 8:54 AM
As has been subtly pointed out, you guys are missing the point.

The Governor of the most anti-gun state in the Union is telling folks he owns guns. Our Governor is smart enough to know what he said, and what effects it will have.

I think that people are oversimplifying his personal "stance" on guns.

St. Ignatius Loyola was a former soldier, and I suspect that "self defense" is esteemed in the Jesuit order, even if not explicitly stated. The influence HAD to have some effect on Governor Brown.

Again, try to think about things like they are a chess game, and not a checkers game. Remember that our Governor is an extremely smart person, with his own experiences and motivations - we do not do ourselves any favors when we oversimplify things down to a "cartoon level." The more we understand the Governor, his motivations and philosophy, and his current administration, the more effective we will be.

I'm a single-issue voter. I don't actually care about anything else, other than our gun rights - and in that accord, I do not think we have any substantial complaints against him.

Let's take the old "moonbeam jokes" over to OT, but this thread is about current issues -- and not ancient history.

Oaklander - well stated, but that's the lawyer wisdom in you I suspect. Know that he owns guns and is a hunter says a lot. As a democrat, he also has the balls to tell the world that he is a gun owner. Jerry Brown is his own person, and hopefully that is a good thing.

As a politician, he also has the wisdom to realize that supporting the NRA position is something he would have to be able to stand behind for the rest of his political life. That says a lot as well.

The one new thing I wanted to point out - He has lived a long time in Oakland, and understands urban environments and self protection issues. That may be very useful if the CCW "shall issue" gets through the courts here.

The "arsenal" and other nuances of the article, came from the journalist and the staff member, and not from JB. Those people were not gun owners obviously.

Maybe we need to start a "Take a journalist/politician to the range day."

Think about it. Seriously...

zvardan
04-07-2011, 8:59 AM
"actually what bankrupted his state is that in 1987 we had 5 prisons and now we have 27. social services are a fraction of what they were decades ago, and sadly half of that money goes to crooked armenians in glendale who drive mercedes and pay for groceries with ebt.

i dont know about you, but i dont want my money paying for dope fiends to slam their dope with free room and board. they can do it under fwy overpasses the way they did it in the 80's and save us $80k a head.

sorry off topic. back to jerry "3 gun" brown... "

Or the crooked whites, mexicans, blacks, pinks, purples, blues...yeah, way to go, man.

Stonewalker
04-07-2011, 9:00 AM
Brown suggested that it's ridiculous for opponents of his plan to transfer thousands of felons from state prisons to county jails to lampoon it as the "get a dog, buy a gun" bill. It's perfectly natural for people to have those items in their homes anyway, he said.

Igoring the "in their homes" bit, this is a good move for the normalization of guns here in CA. So many people here are just plain afraid of guns because they are unfamiliar with them and they never see them in their everyday lives. Those were good words by Mr. JB.

oaklander
04-07-2011, 9:04 AM
LOL - yes - and the staffer was being ironic! I agree that this is a good thing. Dang, now I gotta check my FB!

You will note the LA Times did not call it an arsenal. His staffer stated, "We don't discuss the governor's arsenal."

Personally I think this is a great thing. You have a staffer calling Governor Brown's gun collection an arsenal. You know that is making anti-gunners cringe. CRINGE!

Now if three guns is simply an arsenal, then I guess I have a depot.

"We don't discuss Mr. Morris's depot." That will be my new standard line to my students.

On Oaklander's Facebook someone suggested calling it a depository. You know how quick it took for me to mention I didn't want to have a gun suppository. Ewwww.

loose_electron
04-07-2011, 9:07 AM
Hopefully something good rises from the ashes. Maybe even the realization by the masses here that they should stop voting in the idiots that they keep sending to Sacramento.

Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown An internet billionare on an ego trip vs. somebody who has spent their entire adult life getting things done thru the California political plumbing.

There were some capable republicans in the primaries, but Meg bought her way past them.

Politics is not business, too many people think a good businessman can be effective in the political arena. Rarely the case.

Chris M
04-07-2011, 9:08 AM
Anything over 1 weapon is being called an arsenal, and maybe even 1 is these days. The way they cast gun owners in the media is ridiculous.

Technically...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arsenal

"a collection or supply of weapons or munitions."

If you have 2 guns in your collection - you technically have an "Arsenal", by definition.

Even if you have no guns, but you have a display case of various ammunition cartridges - you have an arsenal.

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 9:13 AM
Here is article from LaTimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407,0,6441988.story
Is he pro or anti?

I don't understand this portion, can someone explain to me what he try to say:
Brown suggested that it's ridiculous for opponents of his plan to transfer thousands of felons from state prisons to county jails to lampoon it as the "get a dog, buy a gun" bill. It's perfectly natural for people to have those items in their homes anyway, he said.

If this duplicate please delete.

But during a 1992 presidential debate, he had promoted a moratorium on gun sales.

This sentence in that article seemed to cast a bit more doubt as to his 2A stance.

Uxi
04-07-2011, 9:16 AM
Far as I can tell so far, he's no different than the Governator. His answer to the budget is a special election for more taxes (despite that voters already said no last year) and regardless of whether he owns or carries or not, he hasn't done anything yet to enable the plebs to do so, nor buck any of the onerous regulation to that end. If he vetoes whatever crap the legislature puts forth this year and offers support to an AB357 equivalent, then he'll start getting some cred. Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors.

tenpercentfirearms
04-07-2011, 9:35 AM
Far as I can tell so far, he's no different than the Governator. His answer to the budget is a special election for more taxes (despite that voters already said no last year) and regardless of whether he owns or carries or not, he hasn't done anything yet to enable the plebs to do so, nor buck any of the onerous regulation to that end. If he vetoes whatever crap the legislature puts forth this year and offers support to an AB357 equivalent, then he'll start getting some cred. Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Ah spoken like someone who doesn't understand government and especially not the current government.

As the governor, he cannot do anything to repeal the laws on the books. That is entirely up to the legislature.

Now he could tell the legislature that he won't do anything else until they send him some pro-gun laws to sign. He does hold the power of the veto and he is a cheerleader of sorts.

However, many, many people in this state could care less about gun laws. They want our budget and financial problems fixed. So if Governor Brown held the budget process hostage over firearms, he would disappoint millions and millions of Californians.

The key you are missing in your analysis is Jerry Brown does not make legislation, the legislature does. Have you bothered to take a look at the make up of the California Legislature? They are extremely anti-gun. So even if they did respect Jerry Brown or at least want to appease him to get some of their own projects done, they would probably fight him on the gun issue because these people get elected by anti-gun libtards (no offense to you pro-gun libtards, you are good people...kind of. Not really, but we need all the support we can get).

So Governor Brown is really in no position to attack the legislature by supporting pro-gun bills. It was not a campaign priority for him and it is not a priority for him now. So if you expect to see him do it, you are never going to get it and I weep for your false hopes.

However, it does make sense that basically anything that comes to his desk that increases government spending, he can easily veto with his message simply being, "We have no money for a new program."

I do not think Jerry Brown is anything like Governor S-howeveryouspellit. Brown doesn't need to pander to anyone in order to play the us vs. them game. He is already a Democrat so now he can just lead the democrats.

As has been stated time and again, time will certainly tell. Anti-gun bills will make it to his desk. We will see what he does with them. I trust Jerry Brown a whole lot more than I trust Arnold as far as gun rights go. My support for that statement? Name one thing Attorney General Brown did against gun owners during his 4 years in office?

The only one I can think of is telling coppers they can't have their personal assault weapons anymore (is that a long term negative or positive?).

Arnold? .50 BMG ban, AB962, lead ammo ban, microstamping. Those are just off the top of my head.

It is really popular in conservative circles to hate Jerry Brown, but his record on guns is pretty clear to date no matter how much Chicken Little cries.

Gray Peterson
04-07-2011, 9:44 AM
Hmmmmmm, yeah, no way in hell.


Bobby speaks truth. The current intineration of both the CA GOP establishment and "tea party" crowd is completely un-electable to statewide office in California. De-emphasizing the partisan nature of gun control issues is the only way gun rights survive in the legislative arena. Despite being supposedly anti-gun, SB610 (CCW reforms which had the politician good cause stripped out) passed out of the public safety 4-1, and it's possible that it would have been 5-0 if it was explained to the nay voter that liability insurance was already illegal and it would save the local governments AND the state legal fees to just pass this now.

Little stuff like the above isn't impossible to pass in California. Pain and pain avoidance is the only way to teach lessons to politicos, and it shouldn't matter which party they are in.

Uxi
04-07-2011, 9:45 AM
Oh I understand it all right. I know the governor doesn't have the ability to do legislation, but he could provide leadership. His economic policies are what I see as identical to the Governator (tax, borrow, gimmick). His personal life may or may not be more spartan and he may be a gun owner, but so was DiFi at one point and it says nothing about Moonbeam's public policy to that end. He hasn't shown any inclination to stand up to his party's interests on any other matters, which are diametrically opposed to RKBA, nor do I have any expectation of anything from Sacramento improving it. Only hope in this State for the RKBA is the courts WRT the 2nd amendment and improvements from the Federal side of it.

edwardm
04-07-2011, 10:00 AM
I think that people are oversimplifying his personal "stance" on guns.

St. Ignatius Loyola was a former soldier, and I suspect that "self defense" is esteemed in the Jesuit order, even if not explicitly stated. The influence HAD to have some effect on Governor Brown.



Without boring folks with the details of the Jesuits, their views on gun-control, and their pedagogical methods, I would just say that reading anything about a Jesuit education into JB's views on gun control could be 1) enlightening, 2) scary, or 3) a complete waste of time.

That said, JB is his own person (so far as being a politician allows that) with his own ethics and morals. My take is that he is no foe, but is a friend only so far.

CalBear
04-07-2011, 10:03 AM
De-emphasizing the partisan nature of gun control issues is the only way gun rights survive in the legislative arena.
Agreed. I think this is particularly true in CA, but is relevant nationwide. Gun rights should be de-politicized.

Uxi
04-07-2011, 10:20 AM
That said, JB is his own person (so far as being a politician allows that) with his own ethics and morals. My take is that he is no foe, but is a friend only so far.

I agree with that.

Agreed. I think this is particularly true in CA, but is relevant nationwide. Gun rights should be de-politicized.

Sure, I'd love for it to be so. So should things like a balanced budget, but when one side is vehemently opposed to reason on the issue, politicization is inevitable. I wish we had some sort of "blue dog" Democrat possibility out here, but it's either libertarian-style Republican "moderates" who end like the Governator or the real McClintock style doomed to Minority influence.

Foulball
04-07-2011, 10:26 AM
Maybe we need to start a "Take a journalist/politician to the range day."

Think about it. Seriously...

Funny you brought this up, I took one of Supervisor Gloria Molina's staffers shooting in February. She loved the AK. Want's one for herself now.

:43:

Gray Peterson
04-07-2011, 11:35 AM
Sure, I'd love for it to be so. So should things like a balanced budget, but when one side is vehemently opposed to reason on the issue, politicization is inevitable. I wish we had some sort of "blue dog" Democrat possibility out here, but it's either libertarian-style Republican "moderates" who end like the Governator or the real McClintock style doomed to Minority influence.

That's the difference between you and a lot of folks here: A balance budget is all well and nice, but what good is a balanced budget when one cannot carry to defend themselves and their families? What good is a balanced budget if the cops are hassling you over your OLL configuration?

oaklander
04-07-2011, 11:51 AM
I generally agree. The point that I was trying to make was that people have a habit of simplifying "public figures" down to cartoon levels.

As someone who is a limited-purpose public figure now, it's always interesting to me that people have all these ideas about who I am, etc. - based merely on what they see on the internet.

We have to remember that there's a real person behind JB's public persona, a real person who is the result of his own morals, ethics, values, etc. . .

My impression from talking with people who have talked to him, is that he is a highly moral person, and he is a person who believes in common sense gun rights. NOT common sense gun control.

So, we are in accord.

BUT - it's NEVER a waste of time to try and understand how people think. . .

Without boring folks with the details of the Jesuits, their views on gun-control, and their pedagogical methods, I would just say that reading anything about a Jesuit education into JB's views on gun control could be 1) enlightening, 2) scary, or 3) a complete waste of time.

That said, JB is his own person (so far as being a politician allows that) with his own ethics and morals. My take is that he is no foe, but is a friend only so far.

dfletcher
04-07-2011, 12:48 PM
Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Republican and former CA governor, used to go duck hunting with then Governor Pat Brown. During the 1962 campaign he made it a point of being photographed on hunts with him as a subtle sign of support for Brown over Nixon.

A few years back Earl Warren's son, himself now a federal judge, struck down the SF handgun ban and the late Governor's son will also no doubt be dealing with the gun issue in CA. Kind of interesting that "the kids" of these two get to deal with the subject.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2011, 12:51 PM
Bobby speaks truth. The current intineration of both the CA GOP establishment and "tea party" crowd is completely un-electable to statewide office in California. De-emphasizing the partisan nature of gun control issues is the only way gun rights survive in the legislative arena. Despite being supposedly anti-gun, SB610 (CCW reforms which had the politician good cause stripped out) passed out of the public safety 4-1, and it's possible that it would have been 5-0 if it was explained to the nay voter that liability insurance was already illegal and it would save the local governments AND the state legal fees to just pass this now.

Little stuff like the above isn't impossible to pass in California. Pain and pain avoidance is the only way to teach lessons to politicos, and it shouldn't matter which party they are in.

Such a wrongheaded notion, though. I would rather vote for a pro-gun minority Rep or Assembly person, than forever sign away this state's future to the rabid progressives, even if a very small plurality are pro-gun.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2011, 12:53 PM
Funny you brought this up, I took one of Supervisor Gloria Molina's staffers shooting in February. She loved the AK. Want's one for herself now.

:43:

Really? Cool.

That would be an interesting office conversation to eavesdrop in on!

Gloria: "So, what did you do over the weekend?"

Staffer: "Went shooting an AK 47. Damn, it was fun!"

Gloria: "Call the EMT's. I'm feeling faint!"

taperxz
04-07-2011, 12:58 PM
That's the difference between you and a lot of folks here: A balance budget is all well and nice, but what good is a balanced budget when one cannot carry to defend themselves and their families? What good is a balanced budget if the cops are hassling you over your OLL configuration?

There is also more to life than just firearms Gray. Not everyone is as passionate as you are about this subject. THATS NO KNOCK ON YOU!!! What you do and have done is invaluable to our second amend. rights!! I applaud you for your dedication. Again not everyone is as enthusiastic as some.:D

beauregard
04-07-2011, 12:59 PM
Jerry Brown next NRA spokesman?

That would actually be rather good for our 2nd amendment rights lobby.

CAL.BAR
04-07-2011, 1:08 PM
I wouldn't get too excited about this, they probably aren't RAW or even black rifles.

Ding126
04-07-2011, 1:11 PM
Hmmmmmm, yeah, no way in hell.
You liberial democrats are going to bankrupt this state by spending other peoples money, just a matter of time. Thats why I don't even listen to the budget debate, it will take care of itself.

Without money, the entire charade that is the communist agenda of liberials just disappears. And the time is coming, soon, when this state and this nation run out of money. It will be at that time when all the liberals whos education has surpassed their intelligence, get a real world education, and find out where money really comes from, and that there is no such thing as an "entitlement program". not a sustainable one anyway.

^^^

edwardm
04-07-2011, 1:16 PM
I agree. Getting inside his head and understanding his motivations, *AND* his reservations, is worthwhile. If he harbors ethics shaped by a Jesuit education, he's probably a bit split-brained on the gun issue.

Jesuits generally are accepting of things like ROTC and JROTC on their campuses. But they were also in favor (and quite happy) with the '94 Fed AWB. They believe in just wars for self-defense and to prevent atrocity, but have a Brady-esque view of the 2nd Amendment (very narrow). To them, "hunting" and "2nd Amendment" go hand-in-hand. The Jesuit Conference is part of CSGV, yet they did not put their name on CSGV's Heller amicus.

It's really rather confusing to try and understand the Jesuit (as a group) stand on arms, defense and gun control. I think they equivocate quite a bit, and my own experience with them would bear that out.

It is pretty clear to me that JB is not "anti-gun" in the classic sense. He has reservations that go further than probably most people here would like. But he seems not to be an absolute prohibitionist, either. What he considers "common sense" may not pass muster for me, but it won't pass muster for the Brady's, either. Whether it's a tightrope walk he is doing, or a form of equivocating, I really don't know. I don't know the man, I've never met the man, so I'm just not sure.

I'm still in the "give him a chance" camp, to be honest. I am not willing to call him out as a foe because he's not a foe (not yet, anyway). And to do so now just alienates someone that may be a valuable ally and asset.

One thing I see as a positive for JB is that compared with his last stint as governor, he's grown. His attitudes and perspectives have changed. That means he's got an open mind and open ears. Sure, perhaps an AR-15 is the devil incarnate to him right now (or maybe not). But subtle arguments can educate the man and show him that "You know, what you see as an 'assault weapon' is something that Mr. Smith over there regularly takes hunting to put meat on the table or to enjoy a nice Service Rifle match at his local gun club with friends and family, adults and kids."

Take the "lunatic" and the "fringe" out of "lunatic fringe" and I'm willing to bet he'd be reasonable. Maybe that doesn't mean a repeal of the CA AWB. But perhaps it does mean reforming the law to say "OK, fine. You want an AR/AK/whatever? We're going to put them in AFS, just like we do your pistols." It is NOT the best step, but it IS a step in the right direction.

And yeah, I'm one of those guys that actually believes it should be perfectly legal to go get yourself a select-fire firearm from a local dealer and use it responsibly until you run out of money for ammo. Suppressors? They only make good sense from a public health standpoint. Non-sporting shotguns? Good for home defense, so why not? The "not unsafe" handgun roster? That needs to finally go away (still waiting and hoping!). What makes a handgun unsafe is the operator, not the mechanism.

So, as I've said before, I do have reservations about the guy, but I will withhold judgment until I have a **very** good reason not to.

I generally agree. The point that I was trying to make was that people have a habit of simplifying "public figures" down to cartoon levels.

As someone who is a limited-purpose public figure now, it's always interesting to me that people have all these ideas about who I am, etc. - based merely on what they see on the internet.

We have to remember that there's a real person behind JB's public persona, a real person who is the result of his own morals, ethics, values, etc. . .

My impression from talking with people who have talked to him, is that he is a highly moral person, and he is a person who believes in common sense gun rights. NOT common sense gun control.

So, we are in accord.

BUT - it's NEVER a waste of time to try and understand how people think. . .

Exposed
04-07-2011, 1:46 PM
The fact that a Democratic governor in a liberal state with the strongest hold by the Brady Campaign is quoted as saying "It's perfectly natural for people to have those items in their homes anyway," by the L.A. Times is in a way, a mega WIN for us IMO!

Exposed
04-07-2011, 1:51 PM
Cheese and Rice! There are some long winded posters on this thread. My ADD can't keep up.

Ripon83
04-07-2011, 1:53 PM
You can bet he'd be the first one to say; "see its not that hard to give them up for the good of "man.""


The fact that a Democratic governor in a liberal state with the strongest hold by the Brady Campaign is quoted as saying "It's perfectly natural for people to have those items in their homes anyway," by the L.A. Times is in a way, a mega WIN for us IMO!

Exposed
04-07-2011, 2:20 PM
Way to condemn a man before he takes any kind of negative action Ripon. My present reality, based on the evidence at hand, Brown is a gun owner/hunter and not afraid to speak out about it. Until he commits any action or speaks to the contrary, I'm going to stick with that assumption.

Ripon83
04-07-2011, 2:21 PM
Sorry he's not done anything to warrant my trust: He's a Democrat.


Way to condemn a man before he takes any kind of negative action Ripon. My present reality, based on the evidence at hand, Brown is a gun owner/hunter and not afraid to speak out about it. Until he commits any action or speaks to the contrary, I'm going to stick with that assumption.

Exposed
04-07-2011, 2:32 PM
You're right. He's a democrat. All democrats are evil and not to be trusted. All republicans are good and holier than thou.

CessnaDriver
04-07-2011, 2:41 PM
Sorry he's not done anything to warrant my trust: He's a Democrat.


Agreed, Moonbeam is an admitted liar as well.

If he loves gun rights so much, let him champion CCW for all law abiding Californians to defend themselves.
I won't hold my breath.

But of course he has personal security to protect him.

E Pluribus Unum
04-07-2011, 3:45 PM
You're right. He's a democrat. All democrats are evil and not to be trusted. All republicans are good and holier than thou.

No... just holier than you... ;)


Generally, generalizations are too general.

Ripon83
04-07-2011, 3:55 PM
I did not say all; but I don't see the legislative charge in the Assembly or the State Senate against our gun rights being championed by Republicans? Those are almost exclusively Democrats and Jerry Brown is one of them. He's a life long professional politician - and that does equal liar. He might have you fooled into believing he'll defend the 2nd Amendment but I don't buy it. Not for one second.

Republicans suck wind at a lot of things, but defending the second amendment isn't one of them.


Sorry he's not done anything to warrant my trust: He's a Democrat.

CessnaDriver
04-07-2011, 4:00 PM
Jerry Brown is an admitted GRAND liar.......

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/10/jerry-brown-adm.html

PressCheck
04-07-2011, 5:30 PM
"Perhaps" he had an Epiphany after serving as Oaklans's Mayor!?

HondaMasterTech
04-07-2011, 5:45 PM
Right. Your awsome gun-loving governor also supports AB32, the most awful piece of tree-hugging legislation to ever cross the CA governors desk. CA is OWNED by C.A.R.B. It is a giant monster. And, it is hungry. It will eat California down to it's bone marrow. All that will be left are homeless welfare recipients.

sorry

12voltguy
04-07-2011, 6:54 PM
I HAVE 4 P/Us
so I have a FLEET of vehicles........

hoffmang
04-07-2011, 8:02 PM
Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene

Saigon1965
04-07-2011, 8:13 PM
Most on this board will want them burned - Quite single minded -

edwardm
04-07-2011, 8:14 PM
Like I said, I'll give the man a chance until he gives me good reason to not do so. The 'D' or 'R' is irrelevant. Or no more sensible than screaming bloody murder over an 'L' or an 'I' or whatever other party affiliation a politician might have.

I care about precisely one thing - results. This isn't Algebra I, I could give a rat's *** if you 'show your work' or not. Get the answer right, keep getting the answer right and we'll be good. So, I sit, and wait.

We need a 'whiskey-n-cigar' smiley. Heh.

Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene

anthonyca
04-07-2011, 8:15 PM
Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene

It's amazing how some people won't let a fact stand on it's own.

Saigon1965
04-07-2011, 8:18 PM
It's a conspiracy I tell you -

It's amazing how some people won't let a fact stand on it's own.

cfm117
04-07-2011, 8:25 PM
So three guns = small arsenal now? I wonder what my 6 guns are considered lol

A weapons cache

CalBear
04-07-2011, 8:38 PM
Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene
Seriously. I don't know how long it will take people to realize they need to separate gun rights from other political battles. It's a fundamental civil right protected by the bill of rights. People of all political affiliations should agree on that. There's no reason to alienate ourselves from potentially great allies on the left.

southernsnowshoe
04-07-2011, 9:28 PM
it shouldn't matter which party they are in.


On this we agree, but once the free money dries up, and the state is broke, the democrats won't be so appealing to the large voter base that they have which is only interested in receiving handouts.
Once people in this state are forced to work for a living and pay for their kids themselves, the idea of low taxes and limited government won't look so bad after all.
Moonbeam is still Moonbeam, can't be trusted to go against his party, no matter what "arsenal" he has. This is a man, who like alot of liberals, must remain in politics to have a means of making a paycheck.

santacruzstefan
04-07-2011, 10:16 PM
Seriously. I don't know how long it will take people to realize they need to separate gun rights from other political battles. It's a fundamental civil right protected by the bill of rights. People of all political affiliations should agree on that. There's no reason to alienate ourselves from potentially great allies on the left.

This, the issue shouldn't be caught up in partisan BS. No mainstream party would say blacks and women shouldn't vote, or the First Amendment no longer applies in modern society. So should they recognize the Second Amendment as important. I believe Brown does, thats why I voted for him. But time will tell...

Dirtbozz
04-07-2011, 10:48 PM
On this we agree, but once the free money dries up, and the state is broke, the democrats won't be so appealing to the large voter base that they have which is only interested in receiving handouts.
Once people in this state are forced to work for a living and pay for their kids themselves, the idea of low taxes and limited government won't look so bad after all.


Well put, and in my opinion, quite accurate. A new and a more free State will "rise from the ashes". :D

mag360
04-07-2011, 11:02 PM
we need to send him a gift from CGF.

http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/585.jpg

bullet buttoned 10/30 pmag Daniel Defense carbine.

Gray Peterson
04-07-2011, 11:10 PM
On this we agree, but once the free money dries up, and the state is broke, the democrats won't be so appealing to the large voter base that they have which is only interested in receiving handouts.
Once people in this state are forced to work for a living and pay for their kids themselves, the idea of low taxes and limited government won't look so bad after all.

What does any of that have to do with guns?

Moonbeam is still Moonbeam, can't be trusted to go against his party, no matter what "arsenal" he has. This is a man, who like alot of liberals, must remain in politics to have a means of making a paycheck.

Nice painting of a broad brush there, champ. You realize that there are 325K state employees, and even if you add teachers, all local government workers, and such, they probably add up to maybe a million at the most? There's 36 million people in California. Yet Kamala Harris won with 7 million votes or so.

The "most" part of your math doesn't add up, even if my figures guestimates.

CCWFacts
04-08-2011, 7:00 AM
His Amicus brief in Heller was a gift we should never forget. All of you who are bashing him are only showing lack of understanding of what that Amicus meant and how important it was. The fact that gun rights exist at all at a state level in the US is, in part, due to JB. The fact that those rights are legally protected at the Supreme Court level, meaning we will have them "forever", is also thanks to JB (in part).

He's also a reasonable and pragmatic guy who doesn't fall into a neat left-wing / right-wing category. To me, his only flaw was he got a lot of union backing, and that creates a conflict of interest, due to the fact that the state management (JB) must negotiate with those same unions.

Sam Adams
04-08-2011, 7:20 AM
His Amicus brief in Heller was a gift we should never forget. All of you who are bashing him are only showing lack of understanding of what that Amicus meant and how important it was. The fact that gun rights exist at all at a state level in the US is, in part, due to JB. The fact that those rights are legally protected at the Supreme Court level, meaning we will have them "forever", is also thanks to JB (in part).

He's also a reasonable and pragmatic guy who doesn't fall into a neat left-wing / right-wing category. To me, his only flaw was he got a lot of union backing, and that creates a conflict of interest, due to the fact that the state management (JB) must negotiate with those same unions.

I agree. I am not a Democrat or Republican. My interest and focus is the 2nd Amendment and RKBA. Jerry Brown was at the NRA National meeting (as a private citizen, not as speaker) last year in Charlotte,North Carolina. He is a NRA member and a pro 2A guy. No, I do not agree with a lot of his politics but the most important issue to me is the RKBA and he is with us on that issue.

SanPedroShooter
04-08-2011, 7:23 AM
Jerry Brown is an NRA member?

Uxi
04-08-2011, 7:30 AM
Most on this board will want them burned

C'mon, that's crazy. Tarred and feathered maybe, but not burned or killed. :43:



His Amicus brief in Heller was a gift we should never forget. All of you who are bashing him are only showing lack of understanding of what that Amicus meant and how important it was. The fact that gun rights exist at all at a state level in the US is, in part, due to JB. The fact that those rights are legally protected at the Supreme Court level, meaning we will have them "forever", is also thanks to JB (in part).


Which of the SCOTUS justices did that amicus convince? Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito were always going to our way.


He's also a reasonable and pragmatic guy who doesn't fall into a neat left-wing / right-wing category. To me, his only flaw was he got a lot of union backing, and that creates a conflict of interest, due to the fact that the state management (JB) must negotiate with those same unions.

Reasonable and pragmatic for 2nd amendment purposes, maybe. Just about every other category, he's as left as you get especially on public policy, environmental (AB23!), illegal immigration, etc etc etc. For the 2nd amendment purposes, I'm not opposed to any assistance he might give, but I despise his politics on just about every other facet it's hard to trust him.

Uxi
04-08-2011, 7:31 AM
Jerry Brown is an NRA member?

Is he in CRPA or has he donated to CGF?

SanPedroShooter
04-08-2011, 7:35 AM
I doubt it. But someone had posted that JB was an NRA member. I dont think thats true, but I was asking to see of any one knew for sure. If it was I would be impressed considering that anti gun academics think that 4,000,000 NRA members are "insurrectionists"...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417905

hasserl
04-08-2011, 8:24 AM
C'mon, that's crazy. Tarred and feathered maybe, but not burned or killed. :43:

Careful, I was just warned by a moderator that they don't like joking about felonies around here. And had a couple of jr moderator wannabee's chastise me as well. Humor isn't acceptable.

hasserl
04-08-2011, 8:31 AM
Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene

How many have actually read the brief? What does it say in support of gun rights?

From what I see it asks for clarification of lower courts decisions that appear contradictory, and it declares a need for guidance for the state. It does not present an argument in either direction, it only asks the court to make a decision and to provide clarification and guidance.

yellowfin
04-08-2011, 8:45 AM
If it was I would be impressed considering that anti gun academics think that 4,000,000,000 NRA members are "insurrectionists"...
We wouldn't have anything to worry about if we had all 4 billion of us. If we did that would mean we could fix the UK, China, Mexico, and anywhere else in the world that has anti gun laws, which we do need to do once we get this country where it needs to be.

edwardm
04-08-2011, 8:49 AM
How many have actually read the brief? What does it say in support of gun rights?

From what I see it asks for clarification of lower courts decisions that appear contradictory, and it declares a need for guidance for the state. It does not present an argument in either direction, it only asks the court to make a decision and to provide clarification and guidance.

I think the opening paragraph, "INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE" does a pretty good job of it, really:

[...]But unlike many states, California has no state constitutional counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

And the introduction:

...the Court should extend to the states Heller’s core Second-Amendment holding that the government cannot deny citizens the right to possess handguns in their homes, but also provide guidance on the scope of the States’ ability to reasonably regulate firearms.

Or part II under "Reasons..."

THESE PETITIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED TO AFFIRM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STATES AND TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE FIREARMS REGULATIONS.

I could go on and on, but remember that this was a Brief in support of granting cert. Calling on the Court to grant cert and extend Heller to the States via the 14th was something I would not expect from most of our past governors in recent memory.

Granted, JB is not a "select fire toys for all the good boys and girls!" kind of guy, but it is unrealistic to expect that of him. He espouses "common sense" regulations, which in and of itself is not an immediate failure on his part.

The work to be done, the work that MUST be done, is to shape the debate about what "common sense" means and to positively alter perceptions about "common sense" in our favor. He's probably the first person to sit in the Governor's office in Sacramento that is willing to listen and hear what people have to say. I could ask for more, I could demand more, but we got what we got and we have to work with that, for now.

edwardm
04-08-2011, 8:52 AM
C'mon, that's crazy. Tarred and feathered maybe, but not burned or killed. :43:

Which of the SCOTUS justices did that amicus convince? Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito were always going to our way.


Part of what you're not considering is the source of the amicus. The Court traditionally pays attention to who is asking it to grant cert and what that may mean in the broader view of hearing the matter and issuing an opinion. The Court probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at Montana or Wyoming asking for cert with a specific outcome, but all 9 justices couldn't help but notice California making noise, and the nature of that noise.

hasserl
04-08-2011, 9:08 AM
I think the opening paragraph, "INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE" does a pretty good job of it, really:


That is a statement of fact, it isn't an argument.


And the introduction:


OK


Or part II under "Reasons..."


Again, OK, but also note:

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,

Uh - hummmmmm


I could go on and on, but remember that this was a Brief in support of granting cert. Calling on the Court to grant cert and extend Heller to the States via the 14th was something I would not expect from most of our past governors in recent memory.

Granted, JB is not a "select fire toys for all the good boys and girls!" kind of guy, but it is unrealistic to expect that of him. He espouses "common sense" regulations, which in and of itself is not an immediate failure on his part.

The work to be done, the work that MUST be done, is to shape the debate about what "common sense" means and to positively alter perceptions about "common sense" in our favor. He's probably the first person to sit in the Governor's office in Sacramento that is willing to listen and hear what people have to say. I could ask for more, I could demand more, but we got what we got and we have to work with that, for now.

I think you need to, because what you posted is not a very strong support of gun rights. If that's it, that's not much persuasion. Whatever support it provides it also undercuts.

Uxi
04-08-2011, 9:10 AM
Part of what you're not considering is the source of the amicus. The Court traditionally pays attention to who is asking it to grant cert and what that may mean in the broader view of hearing the matter and issuing an opinion. The Court probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at Montana or Wyoming asking for cert with a specific outcome, but all 9 justices couldn't help but notice California making noise, and the nature of that noise.

Well, I don't think Jerry Brown's statment made Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, or Sotomayor move one iota... do you? Of course, the only one I haven't named so far is Kennedy, who was the swing vote but given his position on Heller, seems to me more likely that he's our ally on the 2nd Amendment.

I guess part of my point is that it's conclusion was foregone based on the composition of the Court and that Jerry Brown's position didn't have much of any effect on any of the individual justices for McDonald.

edwardm
04-08-2011, 9:19 AM
I'm probably approaching maximum threshold here, but I'll try.

Do you realize the significance of California's Attorney General filing an amicus in favor of cert AND in favor of a finding of application of the 2nd to the states?

The unsafe handgun act is a sham. We know that and we know JB feels differently. Did you miss the part where I said the work to be done involves changing perceptions and understanding about what "common sense" means? Name one governor prior to JB that would even be approachable on the issue in a meaningful sense.

A response of "OK", "OK" and "Uh - hummmmm" isn't very constructive.
If you've got something to add, to offer, to provide constructive discourse, I welcome it and encourage it. Otherwise this is just wobbling awfully close to trolling, and I've got little patience for that.

That is a statement of fact, it isn't an argument.



OK



Again, OK, but also note:



Uh - hummmmmm



I think you need to, because what you posted is not a very strong support of gun rights. If that's it, that's not much persuasion. Whatever support it provides it also undercuts.

hasserl
04-08-2011, 9:46 AM
A response of "OK", "OK" and "Uh - hummmmm" isn't very constructive.
If you've got something to add, to offer, to provide constructive discourse, I welcome it and encourage it. Otherwise this is just wobbling awfully close to trolling, and I've got little patience for that.

OK, means I don't disagree.

i.e.

–adjective
1.
all right; proceeding normally; satisfactory or under control: Things are OK at the moment.
2.
correct, permissible, or acceptable; meeting standards: Is this suit OK to wear to a formal party?
3.
doing well or in good health; managing adequately: She's been OK since the operation.
4.
adequate but unexceptional or unremarkable; tolerable: The job they did was OK, nothing more.
5.
estimable, dependable, or trustworthy; likable: an OK person.

Did you miss:

I think you need to, because what you posted is not a very strong support of gun rights. If that's it, that's not much persuasion. Whatever support it provides it also undercuts.

loose_electron
04-08-2011, 9:54 AM
One of the important things about politics - You can not look like a nut case extremist on anything, or you will not survive the political process.

That said, here you need to read between the lines: gun owner, supported by the NRA, writes legal position papers supporting RKBA...

If you want him to stand up in Sacramento, wave his AR-15 in the air, with a G-17 stuck in his belt, Mexican carry style, you are not gonna get it.

(However, that's a great idea for a photoshop project!)

Uxi
04-08-2011, 10:24 AM
He can show he's on really on our side by vetoing SB124, AB144, AB809. If he signs them, he'll prove he's not on our side.

Stonewalker
04-08-2011, 10:43 AM
I remain cautiously optimistic. He certainly hasn't made any anti-gun moves and he's made a few covert pro-gun moves.

supersonic
04-08-2011, 10:45 AM
Careful, I was just warned by a moderator that they don't like joking about felonies around here. And had a couple of jr moderator wannabee's chastise me as well. Humor isn't acceptable.

So you go to another thread to complain about it when you were the cause of the thread being locked?:nopity::nopity::nopity:

Glock22Fan
04-08-2011, 10:47 AM
Jerry Brown personally wrote the amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald at the request of Don Kates.

But he's a democrat (so is Kates) so he must be burned at the stake! And people wonder why Californians have no gun rights...

-Gene

If I had a choice of burning Democrats who are as pro-gun as Brown seems to have been lately, or Republicans who are anti-gun as, say, Arnie or Meg or Tom (Cambell), I'd burn the Republicans. And not have to think twice about it.

Not that I'm promoting illegal acts, of course, just saying . . .

J.D.Allen
04-08-2011, 10:57 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture that he owns a Barrett M82, a Mac-11 that he only holds sideways, and a Cricket-gun.

A cricket gun? No way. Just look at him. The recoil would literally kill him.

VAReact
04-08-2011, 11:02 AM
Common-sense gun RIGHTS -yea
Common-sense gun LAWS -nay
:cool2:

supersonic
04-08-2011, 11:55 AM
If I had a choice of burning Democrats who are as pro-gun as Brown seems to have been lately, or Republicans who are anti-gun as, say, Arnie or Meg or Tom (Cambell), I'd burn the Republicans. And not have to think twice about it.

Not that I'm promoting illegal acts, of course, just saying . . .

Yeah, RIGHT.;):p

hasserl
04-08-2011, 2:20 PM
If I had a choice of burning Democrats who are as pro-gun as Brown seems to have been lately, or Republicans who are anti-gun as, say, Arnie or Meg or Tom (Cambell), I'd burn the Republicans. And not have to think twice about it.

Not that I'm promoting illegal acts, of course, just saying . . .

Yeah, RIGHT.;):p

:rolleyes:

Kavey
04-08-2011, 2:28 PM
Is Jerry Brown pro-gun, or is he an anti-gunner like nearly every other left-wing Democrat in this predominately politically liberal state? I don't know. Jerry Brown is known for his ability to straddle political fences with his feet planted firmly on both sides.

Does his amicus brief in the McDonald case mean he truly believes in the individual rights guaranteed to each American citizen under the Second Amendment or, in the end, is he simply going to promote the adoption of additional reasonable gun laws (common-sense laws) as "supposedly" permitted by Heller? It wouldn't take too many more of these reasonable laws to make California a state where the acquisition and use of firearms is no longer practical or even possible.

My hope is that we never find out. The only way we will know for sure is if another anti-gun piece of legislation makes it through the legislature and lands on Jerry's desk. If he vetoes it we can all relax (a little bit). But, if he allows it to become law, then we will have been duped again by another duplicitous California governor.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 5:12 PM
[QUOTE=Gray Peterson;6161048]What does any of that have to do with guns?


Nothing, champ. politics has nothing to do with guns, like rain has nothing to do with moisture.
There are those who live in some parallel universe, some place where liberal democrats hand out free ammo and CCW's for the asking. The reality is something different, support democrats and at some point your guns are going away, everything except maybe your daddys shotgun, like the one Bill Clinton used for photo ops while he was "duck hunting"
It's real simple champ, what california has is an over abundance of sellouts, folks who would rather lay down than fight, what california needs is more rednecks, folks who would rather get militant than be neutered through legislation. But then what do I know, you're the expert.

VAReact
04-08-2011, 5:39 PM
:lurk5:

Glock22Fan
04-08-2011, 5:47 PM
[QUOTE=Gray Peterson;6161048]What does any of that have to do with guns?


Nothing, champ. politics has nothing to do with guns, like rain has nothing to do with moisture.
There are those who live in some parallel universe, some place where liberal democrats hand out free ammo and CCW's for the asking. The reality is something different, support democrats and at some point your guns are going away, everything except maybe your daddys shotgun, like the one Bill Clinton used for photo ops while he was "duck hunting"
It's real simple champ, what california has is an over abundance of sellouts, folks who would rather lay down than fight, what california needs is more rednecks, folks who would rather get militant than be neutered through legislation. But then what do I know, you're the expert.

I wish, and not for the first time either, that you would do some thorough research and keep your opinions to yourself until you understand the issued involved.

You seem to have been on the scene for about ten minutes, and in that time think you have learned enough to tell all the hardworking activists on this board that you are the only expert that matters, and unless they follow your thoughts exactly, they are doing it all wrong.

Guess what, "Champ," (although "Chump" fits better), it is you that's got it all wrong, as usual. Militant action in California is a non-starter. It would be totally counter-productive. Guerrilla warfare, through the courts, is our only hope while we have so many Californian residents whose natural footware is Birkenstocks.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 5:55 PM
[QUOTE=southernsnowshoe;6165962]

I wish, and not for the first time either, that you would do some thorough research and keep your opinions to yourself until you understand the issued involved.

You seem to have been on the scene for about ten minutes, and in that time think you have learned enough to tell all the hardworking activists on this board that you are the only expert that matters, and unless they follow your thoughts exactly, they are doing it all wrong.

Guess what, "Champ," (although "Chump" fits better), it is you that's got it all wrong, as usual. Militant action in California is a non-starter. It would be totally counter-productive. Guerrilla warfare, through the courts, is our only hope while we have so many Californian residents whose natural footware is Birkenstocks.

who cares what you wish? pick a fight and you get a fight.
You got it backwards but what else is new. If Sam Adams and John Hancock would have just went out in 1775 and got themselves a good lawyer the whole struggle could have been avoided, right? That's your mentality

Glock22Fan
04-08-2011, 5:59 PM
[QUOTE=Glock22Fan;6166163]

who cares what you wish? pick a fight and you get a fight.
You got it backwards but what else is new. If Sam Adams and John Hancock would have just went out in 1775 and got themselves a good lawyer the whole struggle could have been avoided, right? That's your mentality

You prove my point every time you post.

Then, we won the fight and lawsuits would have been useless (well, to be honest, my side lost as I am British by birth). This time, this issue, it is the other way around.

Picking a fight, as you want to do, only works when the numbers and logistics are on our side. Here they are totally against us.

loose_electron
04-08-2011, 6:02 PM
http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/popcorn.jpg

All is not black and white. If nothing else, I learned the next time I go to the range I need to wear my Birkenstocks!:D

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 6:24 PM
[QUOTE=southernsnowshoe;6166213]

You prove my point every time you post.

Then, we won the fight and lawsuits would have been useless (well, to be honest, my side lost as I am British by birth). This time, this issue, it is the other way around.

Picking a fight, as you want to do, only works when the numbers and logistics are on our side. Here they are totally against us.


You have enlightened me, thank you. I will be a much happier person If I just accept my role as a subject and a slave. Gun rights, any rights for that matter, should be under the strict control of liberals and i am a pure fool for wanting to take action, as my forefathers did. God save the queen.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:04 PM
LOL - I wish there was a "Like" button here!!!!

:D

Maybe we need to start a "Take a journalist/politician to the range day."

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:15 PM
You are apparently incapable of understanding nuance and complexity. Your wish to paint ALL democrats as evil, and ALL republicans as not evil, simply does not comport with reality.

The well-established truth is that there are MANY democrats who support gun rights, and there are MANY republicans who hate gun rights. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply not connected to reality.

Your opinions are simply not well-formed, not based on verifiable "reality," and most times -- not even coherent. At this point, it appears that your free AOL CD was a bad investment - on the part of AOL.

We do encourage robust debate on this forum, and we appreciate the entertainment value of some posts. But at some point, your online "persona" becomes more akin to the person who came to the party and was kind of fun at first (in a "watching a train wreck" sort of way) --

-- but then later became a real problem when he started urinating in the kitchen sink.

At this point, you need to zip up your fly, clean up the sink, and reconsider your original decision to attend the party.

You have enlightened me, thank you. I will be a much happier person If I just accept my role as a subject and a slave. Gun rights, any rights for that matter, should be under the strict control of liberals and i am a pure fool for wanting to take action, as my forefathers did. God save the queen.

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 8:17 PM
You have enlightened me, thank you. I will be a much happier person If I just accept my role as a subject and a slave. Gun rights, any rights for that matter, should be under the strict control of liberals and i am a pure fool for wanting to take action, as my forefathers did. God save the queen.

Lots of talk. No action.

Get outside and start revolting already. I think you'll find it a lonely and lethal idea that gets you simply shot. Moving somewhere else where your political predilections are more accepted is probably safer for your day to day liberty.

Gun owners in California in 2011 are black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills.

On a different note, I've heard through the grapevine what JB's definition of "reasonable gun laws" are. His simple question is that if we haven't had the law in 100 years, why do we need it now?

I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll see the veto pen, but I can tell everyone that we should make it easy by keeping as many bad bills away from his desk as possible.

-Gene

Saigon1965
04-08-2011, 8:21 PM
I like to party - And I ain't leaving till I get toss out -

At this point, you need to zip up your fly, clean up the sink, and reconsider your original decision to attend the party.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:28 PM
LOL - I might be in Oaktown next week - we will have to hook up with the usual suspects. . .

:D

I like to party - And I ain't leaving till I get toss out -

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:32 PM
The smell of burning ants is entertaining. I am so going to burn.

Lots of talk. No action.

hasserl
04-08-2011, 8:50 PM
Lots of talk. No action.

Get outside and start revolting already. I think you'll find it a lonely and lethal idea that gets you simply shot. Moving somewhere else where your political predilections are more accepted is probably safer for your day to day liberty.

Gun owners in California in 2011 are black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills.

On a different note, I've heard through the grapevine what JB's definition of "reasonable gun laws" are. His simple question is that if we haven't had the law in 100 years, why do we need it now?

I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll see the veto pen, but I can tell everyone that we should make it easy by keeping as many bad bills away from his desk as possible.

-Gene

How did my name get linked to that quote? That's weird.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 8:54 PM
How did my name get linked to that quote? That's weird.

Snowshoe was messing up quotes all over the place. RUN, IT'S CONTAGIOUS!

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:57 PM
True dat!

SSS often forgets THIS:

[/QUOTE]

Snowshoe was messing up quotes all over the place. RUN, IT'S CONTAGIOUS!

Gray Peterson
04-08-2011, 8:58 PM
Nothing, champ. politics has nothing to do with guns, like rain has nothing to do with moisture.
There are those who live in some parallel universe, some place where liberal democrats hand out free ammo and CCW's for the asking. The reality is something different, support democrats and at some point your guns are going away, everything except maybe your daddys shotgun, like the one Bill Clinton used for photo ops while he was "duck hunting"
It's real simple champ, what california has is an over abundance of sellouts, folks who would rather lay down than fight, what california needs is more rednecks, folks who would rather get militant than be neutered through legislation. But then what do I know, you're the expert.

Iowa - Shall Issue Permit to Carry Reform (2010)
Washington State - Shall-Issue CPL Reform (1961)
Oregon - Shall-Issue CHL Reform (1989)
Alaska - Alaska-style carry (2003), introduced by Rep. Eric Croft (D-Anchorage)
California - AB2022-1998 (1998), introduced by then Rep now Sen. Robert Wright (D-Compton)
Georgia - Permit to Carry Shall-Issue (1976)

All Democratic Legislatures with a Democratic Governor (except California, Pete Wilson was a GOP'er).

Yes, liberal democrats do hand out carry licenses. They live up in Washington State, Oregon, and Alaska.....

oaklander
04-08-2011, 8:59 PM
LOL - I am going to call you "Champ" from now on!

Yes, liberal democrats do hand out carry licenses. They live up in Washington State, Oregon, and Alaska.....

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 9:00 PM
How did my name get linked to that quote? That's weird.

Fixed in my post.

-Gene

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 9:21 PM
True dat!

SSS often forgets THIS:

[/QUOTE]



whoops.
I could not even turn on a computer three years ago. Don't even want to talk about email, lol.

You are putting words in my mouth, never said all republicans were not evil, in fact when I was blindsided on this thread by Grey, I was agreeing with him that political party should not matter, but it does, does anyone really, honestly believe we would be in this mess with guns in california if we had a republican majority in sacramento for the last 40 years? honestly.
And to gene, if you see a guy on the news with a forward slung AR, and a M77 over his shoulder, you will know I started without you.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 9:25 PM
Please SSS, just try and be nice to the folks here. Until you know who everyone is, your "off-the-cuff" comments just come off as rude.

We've talked about this before. We do not dislike you as a person, and we like your passion - but please just tone it down. . .

You will get more accomplished here if you join the party, and refrain from messing up the sink, etc. . .

[/HTML]



whoops.
I could not even turn on a computer three years ago. Don't even want to talk about email, lol.

You are putting words in my mouth, never said all republicans were not evil, in fact when I was blindsided on this thread by Grey, I was agreeing with him that political party should not matter, but it does, does anyone really, honestly believe we would be in this mess with guns in california if we had a republican majority in sacramento for the last 40 years? honestly.
And to gene, if you see a guy on the news with a forward slung AR, and a M77 over his shoulder, you will know I started without you.[/QUOTE]

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 9:31 PM
Yes, liberal democrats do hand out carry licenses. They live up in Washington State, Oregon, and Alaska.....


I live in California.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 9:35 PM
Again - you are missing the point. We should not have to spell it out in every post. . .

We have FRIENDS in Sacto who ARE DEMOCRATS and who LIKE GUNS. Let's not tee them off, let's work with them - they have power that we can use.

At this point, you are not even playing checkers, you are playing marbles, and it appears that some of yours may have been misplaced.

I live in California.

masameet
04-08-2011, 9:37 PM
... A few years back Earl Warren's son, himself now a federal judge, struck down the SF handgun ban ....

Actually he was a San Francisco County Superior Court judge. Now he's a retired judge doing arbitration.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 9:43 PM
Again - you are missing the point. We should not have to spell it out in every post. . .

We have FRIENDS in Sacto who ARE DEMOCRATS and who LIKE GUNS. Let's not tee them off, let's work with them - they have power that we can use.

At this point, you are not even playing checkers, you are playing marbles, and it appears that some of yours may have been misplaced.

God forbid we tee off anyone in sacramento.
When I was old enough to buy guns, without my dad buying them for me, you could walk in to a gun shop and walk out with a gun, my AR had no bullet button, I had 30 and 40 round mags. You could get any pistol Colt made in California.
You are not playing checkers, you are playing with yourself, careful you don't go blind.

masameet
04-08-2011, 9:43 PM
Until recently, the Swiss Guard carried P210s. Which means that there only few Californians who would have a chance of outfitting them (the person with the largest P210 collection I know in CA of owns 5 or 6).

Brown's gun ownership has been publicly known since he ran for AG, but it has been kept very quiet; it has only been discussed in the vaguest terms here. Some Calguns members even know what guns he owns, and where he goes to practice shooting.

As far as the cognoscenti are concerned, this whole thing isn't news.

Don't leave us in suspense!

We know his dad gave him a Colt .38.

Does he also own a shotgun and a pistol, both inherited from his dad, if not from his maternal grandfather, the SF cop?

oaklander
04-08-2011, 10:01 PM
LOL - I have noticed that I keep needing to get stronger and stronger prescriptions for my eyeglasses. We can chat in private, but my typing might be kind of slow. Something about the smell of a burning ant is most appealing to me. . .

Again, you are totally missing the point. For us, "winning the gun rights battle" is a fun, interesting, and useful project. It's not about anger, or "olden days." We approach this "battle" in a spirit of cooperation, both with factions within our community, and with our apparent opponents.

Since we have the truth, and the law - on our side - we are winning - time and time again.

Your mode of "angry random protest" simply does not work in this state. In fact, since you are NOT doing anything to join the battle, it absolutely can't work - at least for you.

As I/we have said time and time again - you need to join the winning team (that would be us).

With respect to your assertion below, I'll be "up" all night - feel free to join me in my personal battle. . .


You are not playing checkers, you are playing with yourself, careful you don't go blind.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 10:32 PM
LOL - I have noticed that I keep needing to get stronger and stronger prescriptions for my eyeglasses. We can chat in private, but my typing might be kind of slow. Something about the smell of a burning ant is most appealing to me. . .

Again, you are totally missing the point. For us, "winning the gun rights battle" is a fun, interesting, and useful project. It's not about anger, or "olden days." We approach this "battle" in a spirit of cooperation, both with factions within our community, and with our apparent opponents.

Since we have the truth, and the law - on our side - we are winning - time and time again.

Your mode of "angry random protest" simply does not work in this state. In fact, since you are NOT doing anything to join the battle, it absolutely can't work - at least for you.

As I/we have said time and time again - you need to join the winning team (that would be us).

With respect to your assertion below, I'll be "up" all night - feel free to join me in my personal battle. . .

So its kind of a science project, I get it. I was drinking beer in the parking lot during science class.
I ask you Oaktown, where is your tipping point? what would it take to get you and the other intellectual types to use their second amendment rights as the founders intended? what rights would have to be taken away from you before you would take up arms?

oaklander
04-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Of course it's "serious." But your online persona is kind of like a movie which tries to be serious, but which ends up as an unintentional comedy.

Please look at what you have said. . .

Do you have no ability to see how you appear?

So its kind of a science project, I get it. I was drinking beer in the parking lot during science class.
I ask you Oaktown, where is your tipping point? what would it take to get you and the other intellectual types to use their second amendment rights as the founders intended? what rights would have to be taken away from you before you would take up arms?

hoffmang
04-08-2011, 10:43 PM
what would it take to get you and the other intellectual types to use their second amendment rights as the founders intended? what rights would have to be taken away from you before you would take up arms?

I will answer. That tipping point will be extremely obvious and also very unlikely. The 2A is a check and it remains - even with the relatively annoying infringements currently in California law - a very effective check.

When National Guardsmen were told to disarm shokeepers during the LA Riots the basic thought process was "you first." Lots of patrols reported back that they had seen no guns. Our Republic is working and we're pretty far from the ammo box - we're at the soap, ballot box (in the rest of the 42-44 states), and now jury box/bench.

Elect a pro-gun president - regardless of party - next cycle and the 2A will return to a very safe place. Now at the national level, we don't have enough 2A friendly Democratic presidential candidates - which is a shame. Jerry's too old to run there... As such, I think gun owners know what needs to happen with the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices in the upcoming 4 year cycle. I just hope we can motivate enough to do the work and not let a second Obama administration get a pick out of our 5...

-Gene

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 10:44 PM
Of course it's "serious." But your online persona is kind of like a movie which tries to be serious, but which ends up as an unintentional comedy.

Please look at what you have said. . .

Do you have no ability to see how you appear?


Thats what I thought, you would delegate any actual fighting to someone without a law degree.

berto
04-08-2011, 10:57 PM
where is your tipping point? what would it take to get you and the other intellectual types to use their second amendment rights as the founders intended? what rights would have to be taken away from you before you would take up arms?

We're not even close to that point.

If you feel it's go time why don't I see you on the news leading the revolution? Why aren't you out in the streets using your 2A rights as the founders intended?

Classic keyboard revolutionary - stomp your feet about things not happening fast enough, berate others for refusing to fight the way you want to fight, refuse to actually get off your *** and do what you claim others are unwilling to do. What are you waiting for? A couple more drinks or do you need company?

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 11:13 PM
We're not even close to that point.

If you feel it's go time why don't I see you on the news leading the revolution? Why aren't you out in the streets using your 2A rights as the founders intended?

Classic keyboard revolutionary - stomp your feet about things not happening fast enough, berate others for refusing to fight the way you want to fight, refuse to actually get off your *** and do what you claim others are unwilling to do. What are you waiting for? A couple more drinks or do you need company?

This is the attitude that got this state into the condition it is in. True, one man can't do anything to change anything, some company would help, but gun owners in this state will wait until the only thing that is not banned will be rimfire rifles, like in mexico.

jdberger
04-08-2011, 11:14 PM
Two bulls on a hill.

The younger bull says, "Hey Dad, why don't we run on down there...."

The older bull says, "Son, why don't we walk and..."

Too many kids playing FPSs these days. They've been deluded into thinking that they can save the world on their own.

Glock22Fan
04-08-2011, 11:23 PM
So its kind of a science project, I get it. I was drinking beer in the parking lot during science class.
I ask you Oaktown, where is your tipping point? what would it take to get you and the other intellectual types to use their second amendment rights as the founders intended? what rights would have to be taken away from you before you would take up arms?

At this point of time and in this state, they would have to lose perhaps way more than 80 I.Q. points. Then, maybe, they could have a level conversation with you and join you in your beliefs.

berto
04-08-2011, 11:28 PM
This is the attitude that got this state into the condition it is in. True, one man can't do anything to change anything, some company would help, but gun owners in this state will wait until the only thing that is not banned will be rimfire rifles, like in mexico.

I'll ask again - why aren't you out in the streets using your 2A rights as the founders intended?

No backpedaling, no BS, no call to action you're unwilling to undertake yourself. Get out there. Oh wait, it's a lot easier and certainly less dangerous to come on here and call out folks who are actually getting stuff done.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 11:33 PM
At this point of time and in this state, they would have to lose perhaps way more than 80 I.Q. points. Then, maybe, they could have a level conversation with you and join you in your beliefs.

Thats a good one redcoat

Gray Peterson
04-08-2011, 11:33 PM
I live in California.

It doesn't matter. You're making this into a partisan political orientation game, and mixing up other political issues that push people away from gun rights folks as a group.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 11:37 PM
I'll ask again - why aren't you out in the streets using your 2A rights as the founders intended?

No backpedaling, no BS, no call to action you're unwilling to undertake yourself. Get out there. Oh wait, it's a lot easier and certainly less dangerous to come on here and call out folks who are actually getting stuff done.


Tell me about danger. huh? I asked a question. a simple one. Nobody needs you to kiss their as*

Etihtsarom
04-08-2011, 11:43 PM
LoL, this is like talking to a kid who doesn't get what you're saying. Welps, moving own, nothing to see here.

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 11:45 PM
I like to party - And I ain't leaving till I get toss out -




That's right, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Movies and video games - two ways to negate reality.

;)

The issue is that some people do not realize who is designing the games, and/or directing the movie.

Too many kids playing FPSs these days. They've been deluded into thinking that they can save the world on their own.

berto
04-08-2011, 11:56 PM
Tell me about danger. huh? I asked a question. a simple one. Nobody needs you to kiss their as*

The tipping point is when the soap box, ballot box, and jury box options have been exhausted. I can buy guns and ammo in CA, I can post here about my displeasure with existing law, I have a vote, we're beating the other side in court, gun owners aren't being lead away en masse.

Having worked alongside Kevin, Gene, and many others here I know what they do and how much they put into the fight. I don't know what you've done for the cause. You're antagonistic towards people who are actually doing something yet you offer no ideas other than taking it to the streets.

Now why don't you answer my question - when will you get militant?

InGrAM
04-09-2011, 12:21 AM
This is so stupid. Trolls that say "get militant" just makes all law abiding gun owners look bad to the anti-trolls on this forum and gives them a reason to hate us even more. It feeds their fire to try and pass anti-2nd amendment legislation.

None of us like Kalifornia's gun laws but we are fighting the laws in the courts and that is our best option. With the way the entire country is heading, we will gain more rights in the near future rather than lose them. (most likely)

Packy14
04-09-2011, 12:27 AM
I figure he's probably got a CCW (probably carrying a G26 or a thin frame Kahr)...he's seen Arizona, and he knows he has his enemies. He'd be an idiot not to CCW if he could. Oh wait, we're talking about GB...strike the idiot comment from the record, I hate saying something twice.

Packy14
04-09-2011, 12:41 AM
whoops.
I could not even turn on a computer three years ago. Don't even want to talk about email, lol.

You are putting words in my mouth, never said all republicans were not evil, in fact when I was blindsided on this thread by Grey, I was agreeing with him that political party should not matter, but it does, does anyone really, honestly believe we would be in this mess with guns in california if we had a republican majority in sacramento for the last 40 years? honestly.
And to gene, if you see a guy on the news with a forward slung AR, and a M77 over his shoulder, you will know I started without you






Hahha..you'll be the dead guy who we'll be shaking out heads at. Don't be so stupid, I know its hard, actually a real challenge for you, but please try.

hoffmang
04-09-2011, 1:03 AM
This is so stupid. Trolls that say "get militant" just makes all law abiding gun owners look bad to the anti-trolls on this forum and gives them a reason to hate us even more. It feeds their fire to try and pass anti-2nd amendment legislation.

I disagree. Law abiding gun owners who are serious about restoring the right to bear arms shouldn't let such sophistry lie.

We are taunting southernshowshoe to prove, and he's helping, that his words are empty. In that, we reject that shooting anyone (except in self defense) is even on the table at this time. However, the Second Amendment as a check on government power is a real and serious underlying issue as to why, at least I defend it.

That said, southernsnowshoe isn't willing to defend his bold words with actions which means that they don't mean much. He won't even answer about what action he'd take. Like many, he wants other, braver men, to take the action he doesn't even know how to take the first step on.

For a threat to work it has to be credible. His is not.

Our (political and judicial) threat is quite credible and we're continuing to gather political and judicial scalps with it. I for one am happy to have, if not an outright supporter in JB, at the very least, a fellow traveller.

I want to win the right to arms and that means I'm willing to sacrifice party and other issues over the short term to clear the decks of the protection of the second amendment - so we can keep our Republic - to have a Republic to worry about balancing it's budget...

southernsnowshoe however knows that people like me exist and will allow him to blather away about silly "second amendment options" because I'll do the real hard work inside the system to inoculate the system from itself.

And he'll just mouth off.

-Gene

Packy14
04-09-2011, 1:11 AM
I disagree. Law abiding gun owners who are serious about restoring the right to bear arms shouldn't let such sophistry lie.

We are taunting southernshowshoe to prove, and he's helping, that his words are empty. In that, we reject that shooting anyone (except in self defense) is even on the table at this time. However, the Second Amendment as a check on government power is a real and serious underlying issue as to why, at least I defend it.

That said, southernsnowshoe isn't willing to defend his bold words with actions which means that they don't mean much. He won't even answer about what action he'd take. Like many, he wants other, braver men, to take the action he doesn't even know how to take the first step on.

For a threat to work it has to be credible. His is not.

Our (political and judicial) threat is quite credible and we're continuing to gather political and judicial scalps with it. I for one am happy to have, if not an outright supporter in JB, at the very least, a fellow traveller.

I want to win the right to arms and that means I'm willing to sacrifice party and other issues over the short term to clear the decks of the protection of the second amendment - so we can keep our Republic - to have a Republic to worry about balancing it's budget...

southernsnowshoe however knows that people like me exist and will allow him to blather away about silly "second amendment options" because I'll do the real hard work inside the system to inoculate the system from itself.

And he'll just mouth off.

-Gene

Thanks, Gene, Oaklander, and everyone else who actually does something to help law abiding gun owners in this backward state.

E Pluribus Unum
04-09-2011, 3:05 AM
I disagree. Law abiding gun owners who are serious about restoring the right to bear arms shouldn't let such sophistry lie.

We are taunting southernshowshoe to prove, and he's helping, that his words are empty. In that, we reject that shooting anyone (except in self defense) is even on the table at this time. However, the Second Amendment as a check on government power is a real and serious underlying issue as to why, at least I defend it.

That said, southernsnowshoe isn't willing to defend his bold words with actions which means that they don't mean much. He won't even answer about what action he'd take. Like many, he wants other, braver men, to take the action he doesn't even know how to take the first step on.

For a threat to work it has to be credible. His is not.

Our (political and judicial) threat is quite credible and we're continuing to gather political and judicial scalps with it. I for one am happy to have, if not an outright supporter in JB, at the very least, a fellow traveller.

I want to win the right to arms and that means I'm willing to sacrifice party and other issues over the short term to clear the decks of the protection of the second amendment - so we can keep our Republic - to have a Republic to worry about balancing it's budget...

southernsnowshoe however knows that people like me exist and will allow him to blather away about silly "second amendment options" because I'll do the real hard work inside the system to inoculate the system from itself.

And he'll just mouth off.

-Gene

I understand his reluctance. I have made the statement before that I would shoot any government official that comes barging in my door.

In today's world, it is quite possible that the criminal element could pose as some form of government, most probably, law enforcement. If I have committed no crime, it is reasonable to assume that no legitimate form of government should be entering my residence, and even if they are, they are doing so in error. I am not going to waste the time trying to decide which it is.

As has been pointed out many times on this site, it is against the rules to threaten a member of government; while I take this to mean any specific member of the government, one could easily construe this to mean that any veiled threat against any government agency, even speaking about the theoretical, could be a violation of the rules. I understand his reluctance to make a statement in this regard.

As far as my previous statements, some have seen these as empty statements made by an internet quarterback. I suppose that any threat which is acquiesced to, or never tested, could be thought of as mere posturing. Granted, some are not willing to face the gauntlet when one's freedoms are in jeopardy; this is evident in the study of our nation's history; but some are serious. The only way to determine who is serious is in a no-win scenario where ultimately the one being tested is killed, or imprisoned for life. It is a test I hope I never take, because either way, the tester loses.

For this reason, I hope and pray that we are a LONG way away from the "militant" answer. Just because we are a long way away from using it, we need not "take it off the table." ;)

supersonic
04-09-2011, 6:35 AM
The well-established truth is that there are MANY democrats who support gun rights, and there are MANY republicans who hate gun rights. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply not connected to reality.

There goes Kevin, yet AGAIN, with that awe-inspiring "common sense"- thingy he is so famous for!;):p


your online "persona" becomes more akin to the person who came to the party and was kind of fun at first (in a "watching a train wreck" sort of way) --

-- but then later became a real problem when he started urinating in the kitchen sink.



BWA-HA-hahahaha....:rofl2:...I just choked on my morning beverage....it's coming out my nose.......As far as commenting on this, I will simply defer to the man, himself, who so eloquently put it:

We do encourage robust debate on this forum, and we appreciate the entertainment value of some posts.


Now THAT's entertainment!!!!:D

trashman
04-09-2011, 8:39 AM
Two bulls on a hill.


A more apt description would be this: after browsing this thread today I realized that late last night, when I was putting a fussy infant to bed you guys were all trying to do the same here...

--Neill

loose_electron
04-09-2011, 8:47 AM
LOL - I wish there was a "Like" button here!!!!

:D

Thanks Oaklander, to me part of the "battle" is changing public perception.

Take friends, journalists, politicians to your local shooting range. Let them become familiar with what they are talking about. Demonstrate that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can be safe, fun to work with, and a tool.

Tools can be used to help or harm, and that the vast majority of gun owners are sportsmen (sportspeople to be PC?) or individuals needing personal/family protection, and don't abuse the use of that tool.

edwardm
04-09-2011, 9:06 AM
Thanks Oaklander, to me part of the "battle" is changing public perception.

Take friends, journalists, politicians to your local shooting range. Let them become familiar with what they are talking about. Demonstrate that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can be safe, fun to work with, and a tool.

Tools can be used to help or harm, and that the vast majority of gun owners are sportsmen (sportspeople to be PC?) or individuals needing personal/family protection, and don't abuse the use of that tool.

Don't stop with just adults. Kids are an equally important place to expend effort. The 30+ Boy Scouts we got through basic rifle a few months ago are a prime example. A positive experience in a controlled, supervised environment. Most adults are sort of fixed in their ways, but kids are malleable and that's where I see even more potential.

Stonewalker
04-09-2011, 11:30 AM
Willful ignorance is a terrible thing. There's no excuse for it.

HondaMasterTech
04-09-2011, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE=Glock22Fan;6166236]


You have enlightened me, thank you. I will be a much happier person If I just accept my role as a subject and a slave. Gun rights, any rights for that matter, should be under the strict control of liberals and i am a pure fool for wanting to take action, as my forefathers did. God save the queen.
What, EXACTLY, are you suggesting people do with their 2nd Amendment rights at this point? Be specific, please.

HondaMasterTech
04-09-2011, 12:25 PM
lol. Quote redirected to another user? It was inteded for southernsnowshoe.

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 1:41 PM
It's contagious!

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 6:36 PM
Politics is not business, too many people think a good businessman can be effective in the political arena. Rarely the case.

This is a point that needs great emphasis.

Democratic or representative government is not a business. A business is a despotism. You have a dictator, the CEO, who gives orders to his minions (who themselves may have underlings). What political wrangling occurs does so between people at the same level of power, and it is done with an eye toward currying favor with someone above them.

If you're used to being a CEO, then you're used to having your orders obeyed, and at most you may have to convince a small group of board members to side with you.


Government in the U.S. isn't really like that. There are some similarities, of course, but the differences are critical.


The main benefit of having someone with business experience in office is that they can at least understand the point of view of businesses as regards government regulation. But it's even more important for them to understand the point of view of individuals as regards government regulation. Precious few politicians today have that kind of understanding.

VAReact
04-09-2011, 7:04 PM
+1 kcbrown...excellent post.

Skidmark
04-09-2011, 7:15 PM
Jerry Brown is not going to come for my guns, Barrack Obama is not going to come for my guns... I can sleep soundly tonight.

CalNRA
04-09-2011, 7:20 PM
Jerry Brown is not going to come for my guns, Barrack Obama is not going to come for my guns... I can sleep soundly tonight.

Not yet, just all the people he appointed. Sotomayor, Kagan, Holder, et al.

Did you happen to catch the vote on McDonald? Or is it as long as he personally didn't sign the orders, you feel no guilt in getting those activists into critical offices?

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 7:36 PM
Republicans suck wind at a lot of things, but defending the second amendment isn't one of them.

Yeah. Former governor Schwarzenegger, because he's a Republican, did such a superb job of defending the 2nd Amendment that we should be set here in California for the next 20 years. If it weren't for him we'd have the .50 BMG ban, AB 962 would have passed, microstamping would have passed, etc. But thanks to his staunch defense of the 2nd Amendment, none of those bills got past him.

Right?

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 7:41 PM
Elect a pro-gun president - regardless of party - next cycle and the 2A will return to a very safe place. Now at the national level, we don't have enough 2A friendly Democratic presidential candidates - which is a shame. Jerry's too old to run there... As such, I think gun owners know what needs to happen with the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices in the upcoming 4 year cycle. I just hope we can motivate enough to do the work and not let a second Obama administration get a pick out of our 5...


This raises a very interesting question.

We know the Democrats will be fielding an anti-gun candidate for the 2012 presidential race.

But what are the chances that the Republicans will also field an anti-gun candidate? (ETA: note that I do not consider that to be a terribly high probability scenario, but I have to consider the possibility of it happening nonetheless)

If the Republicans field an anti-gun candidate, which candidate and/or party are you guys going to recommend us pro-gun guys vote for, knowing that all candidates aside from the ones fielded by the two major parties are instantly "unelectable"?

Dirtbozz
04-09-2011, 8:56 PM
Yeah. Former governor Schwarzenegger, because he's a Republican, did such a superb job of defending the 2nd Amendment that we should be set here in California for the next 20 years. If it weren't for him we'd have the .50 BMG ban, AB 962 would have passed, microstamping would have passed, etc. But thanks to his staunch defense of the 2nd Amendment, none of those bills got past him.

Right?

Arnie carried the Republican label, but in name only. Thats where the term RINO came from. Of course you already new that. Right?

A true Conservative Republican would have handled things differently.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 9:30 PM
Arnie carried the Republican label, but in name only. Thats where the term RINO came from. Of course you already new that. Right?

A true Conservative Republican would have handled things differently.

Agreed.

But how many of those do we have here in California?

chewietobbacca
04-09-2011, 10:10 PM
Hmmmmmm, yeah, no way in hell.
You liberial democrats are going to bankrupt this state by spending other peoples money, just a matter of time. Thats why I don't even listen to the budget debate, it will take care of itself.

Without money, the entire charade that is the communist agenda of liberials just disappears. And the time is coming, soon, when this state and this nation run out of money. It will be at that time when all the liberals whos education has surpassed their intelligence, get a real world education, and find out where money really comes from, and that there is no such thing as an "entitlement program". not a sustainable one anyway.

That's funny... prior to the current administration, the biggest creators of national debt were Republicans... conservative ones at that. And no one made a peep.

Let's ignore the stupid political labels (which I despise for various reasons) and start dealing with the reality of each situation on its own merits. In this case, it is that guns should not be decided as a political partisan battle. After all, how can you claim this as a right for all citizens if you automatically villainize half of them right off the bat

Uxi
04-09-2011, 10:17 PM
Not yet, just all the people he appointed. Sotomayor, Kagan, Holder, et al.


Indeed. Jerry Brown will have a bunch of opportunities to show his true colors by signing or vetoing upcoming legislation since the knuckleheads in the legislature are still cooking up their BS.

Alaric
04-09-2011, 10:46 PM
This raises a very interesting question.

We know the Democrats will be fielding an anti-gun candidate for the 2012 presidential race.

But what are the chances that the Republicans will also field an anti-gun candidate? (ETA: note that I do not consider that to be a terribly high probability scenario, but I have to consider the possibility of it happening nonetheless)

If the Republicans field an anti-gun candidate, which candidate and/or party are you guys going to recommend us pro-gun guys vote for, knowing that all candidates aside from the ones fielded by the two major parties are instantly "unelectable"?

It is unfortunately a real possibility the GOP will field an anti-gunner in 2012.

-Mitt Romney is currently the front runner in GOP straw polling and he's stated support for the Clinton AWB. Not pro-2nd.
-Mike Huckabee is the #2 in current polling. He's pro 2nd, and A+ rated by the NRA.
-Sarah Palin is very pro-2nd but is also unelectable since Tina Fey ruined her political career, ignore her.
-Donald Trump wants to buy the presidency so he can better promote his tv show and casinos. Unknown 2nd views.
-Ron Paul is pro-2nd but is vilified in the media and will never have a fair shot at the nomination.

Of course, we don't yet know exactly who the candidates will be.

At this point, our more Republican-leaning members here should probably be supporting a Huckabee run. He's likely the only potential GOP candidate who has a shot at beating Obama.

Oh, and, I'm glad I voted for GB. He's pro-2nd.

CalNRA
04-09-2011, 11:09 PM
Oh, and, I'm glad I voted for GB. He's pro-2nd.

Curious, since he hasn't done anything as a governor to demonstrate that. Is this another case of Nobel Peace Prize syndrome?

Alaric
04-09-2011, 11:24 PM
Curious, since he hasn't done anything as a governor to demonstrate that. Is this another case of Nobel Peace Prize syndrome?

He's done more for us than Arnold ever did.

It's like they say in medicine, "first, do no harm".

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 11:30 PM
Curious, since he hasn't done anything as a governor to demonstrate that. Is this another case of Nobel Peace Prize syndrome?

He hasn't really had a chance this time around. Not like he can repeal all the laws just with a stroke of a pen. It would be brilliant if he donated 10% of his yearly income to the Madison Society, though.

CalNRA
04-09-2011, 11:37 PM
He's done more for us than Arnold ever did.

It's like they say in medicine, "first, do no harm".

He's only been in office for how long? That's not even one legislative cycle.

It was before your time, but Arnold early on looked promising, vetoing 2714 and all. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=40167) So you are suffering from precisely the Nobel Peace Prize Syndrome.

CalNRA
04-09-2011, 11:38 PM
He hasn't really had a chance this time around. Not like he can repeal all the laws just with a stroke of a pen. It would be brilliant if he donated 10% of his yearly income to the Madison Society, though.

Hence why Alaric's "glad for voting for him" is completely baseless.

Alaric
04-09-2011, 11:52 PM
Hence why Alaric's "glad for voting for him" is completely baseless.

You're arguing that my opinion of him being pro-2nd is completely baseless? Did you bother to read the OP that mentioned he's a gun owner? Or his brief to SCOTUS supporting McDonald while he was AG?

I argue that your opinion of my opinion is baseless.

CalNRA
04-09-2011, 11:56 PM
You're arguing that my opinion of him being pro-2nd is completely baseless? Did you bother to read the OP that mentioned he's a gun owner?

So is Sylvester Stallone.

His brief, while somewhat positive, has no bearing on his performance as governor.


I argue that your opinion of my opinion is baseless.

You argue that you are glad you voted him, when he has done precisely nothing for the 2nd as governor. If you can't think critically, well, I'm not your mother.

And nice job dodging your whole "he did more for us than Arnold" nonsense when I took the trouble to provide you with evidence of what Arnold did for us (early on, anyway).

Alaric
04-10-2011, 12:01 AM
And I did a nice job dodging your whole "he wrote a pro-McDonald brief as AG" ...

^Fixed it for you^

Alaric
04-10-2011, 12:10 AM
His brief, while somewhat positive, has no bearing on his performance as governor.

His brief is part of the reason I said I think he's pro-2nd, which is what YOU said was a baseless opinion. Clearly then, it's not baseless. Wow, logic is hard huh?

Listen, I get it, you don't support him politically so you're going to troll this thread. Nice try, you gave it your best.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 12:12 AM
^Fixed it for you^

read it carefully

Thanks

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 12:16 AM
His brief is part of the reason I said I think he's pro-2nd, which is what YOU said was a baseless opinion. Clearly then, it's not baseless. Wow, logic is hard huh?

Listen, I get it, you don't support him politically so you're going to troll this thread. Nice try, you gave it your best.

On the contrary, I hope he does good. But unlike you I am waiting to see what he actually does in the governor's office before I declare my "gladness" for him.
He's done more for us than Arnold ever did.

It's like they say in medicine, "first, do no harm".

would you like to address that now?
56EfRXisPh4

Alaric
04-10-2011, 12:26 AM
On the contrary, I hope he does good. But unlike you I am waiting to see what he actually does in the governor's office before I declare my "gladness" for him.


would you like to address that now?

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. :D

As far as Arnold's record, you have to look at the whole thing. He signed multiple gun control laws while in office - he stunk. And don't forget, JB has actually been in office as Governor LONGER than Arnold was. He's now in his third term as Governor.

So yes, I am glad I voted for him, and his long record as Governor speaks for itself - no one gun control bill signed thus far.

There was this as well: AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right." (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=263405)

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 12:30 AM
You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. :D

As far as Arnold's record, you have to look at the whole thing. He signed multiple gun control laws while in office - he stunk. And don't forget, JB has actually been in office as Governor LONGER than Arnold was. He's now in his third term as Governor.

So yes, I am glad I voted for him, and his long record as Governor speaks for itself - no gun control bills signed thus far.


interesting.

56EfRXisPh4

How about we let him do some actual good work before you get too "glad"?

hoffmang
04-10-2011, 12:39 AM
Hence why Alaric's "glad for voting for him" is completely baseless.

I dunno. I kind of think the fact (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) that he saved OLLs as AG gives him a bit of the benefit of the doubt when coupled with his amicus.

-Gene

Alaric
04-10-2011, 12:44 AM
^I saw the video.

First off, he signed a bill that causes anyone committing a crime with a gun to go to prison - that's not gun control.
Second, the 15 day waiting period on all handgun purchases was tragic and Brown should be ashamed of himself. Still, if all we had was a single bill that made a 5 day waiting period a 15 day waiting period, in the span of 8 years of Governorship - that's still far better than Arnold.
Third, he was a better choice than Whitman who came out as anti-gun during her tenure at Ebay.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 12:44 AM
I dunno. I kind of think the fact (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) that he saved OLLs as AG gives him a bit of the benefit of the doubt when coupled with his amicus.

-Gene

Hence why I'll hold my judgment and see what the guy will do when bills reach his desk.

CalNRA
04-10-2011, 12:46 AM
^I saw the video.

First off, he signed a bill that causes anyone committing a crime with a gun to go to prison - that's not gun control.
Second, the 15 day waiting period on all handgun purchases was tragic and Brown should be ashamed of himself. Still, if all we had was a single bill that made a 5 day waiting period a 15 day waiting period, in the span of 8 years of Governorship - that's still far better than Arnold.
Did you watch the whole video?

Alaric
04-10-2011, 12:59 AM
Did you watch the whole video?

Do you object to his "galvanizing the moral force that will rededicate us to the investment in each and every family."? I know, he sounds like a socialist at times. What he's really doing though is redirecting the debate from guns to the root issues that cause crime. That's not a bad thing for us.

If it was his support for the Brady Bill, keep in mind EVERYONE (candidates and in office) at the time supported it. Even Reagan supported it. (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html)

The Brady Bill will go down in history like the internment of the Japanese in WW2. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but wow, what a dumb, immoral and unconstitutional thing to do.