PDA

View Full Version : Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms


Steyr_223
04-20-2007, 9:37 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

Biff...
04-20-2007, 9:43 AM
People like this that endorese relinguishing(sp) our rights are what kills our country a little bit at a time.

Incitatus
04-20-2007, 9:54 AM
Yep. And since we're we're ready to chop the Bill of Rights, let's let let down the Right of Free Speech too.
We start with that idiot who wrote the article. Throw him in jail for now.

1911su16b870
04-20-2007, 10:29 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

This author of the article was strong arm robbed, and had chosen to remain a victim. Just do what the bad man tells me (and hope he doesn't hurt me). :mad:

tattooed_sailor
04-20-2007, 10:32 AM
what an idiot.. this is sio typical of the hollywood left wingers :mad:

tetris
04-20-2007, 12:16 PM
(Amendment is spelled amendment...)

From the finest minds at the UCLA, a professor of "communications" (sounds like a bullsh*t field to me if I ever saw one), lets give up our right to bear arms!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

The author is this guy: http://www.international.ucla.edu/asia/person.asp?Facultystaff_ID=252

Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

1norcalvarmintHunter
04-20-2007, 12:23 PM
You know regardless of gun control, people planning to do mass killings can find other ways, such as bombs, gasoline, arson, bows, crossbows, poisons, etc... are gonna ban fuel, matches, fertilizers, cleansers, etc...???

bwiese
04-20-2007, 12:27 PM
The 2nd is essentially unrepealable. There's two ways of amending the constitution:


Congress proposes amendments....

Both houses of Congress approve by 2/3rds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

The states propose amendments....

The legislatures of 2/3rds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states.


The latter has never occurred, and there's no way the former could ever occur on a contentious issue like this: those 2/3 & 3/4 thresholds are way too high a bar to climb over.

Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) has repeatedly proposed getting rid of 2nd/RKBA.
Predictably it goes nowhere, regardless of party in power, etc.

That's why the Brady types keep saying the 2nd is about the National Guard.
They know there's no way they can get it repealed so they're trying, in a very Alison way, to change the meaning but Parker has just slammed them (and will continue to do so).

schizrade2
04-20-2007, 12:31 PM
Can't repeal that which the .gov does not grant.
BOR is not granted by the .gov.

tetris
04-20-2007, 12:32 PM
The 2nd is essentially unrepealable. There's two ways of amending the constitution:

Bill, I respect your quaint notions of a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but the recent effort to give Washington D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives clearly proves that this talk of 3/4th votes of states and whatnot is dated.

cartman
04-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

Is he from France?

tetris
04-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Is he from France?

Well, technically no, he is from UCLA--but who is splitting hairs?

soopafly
04-20-2007, 12:47 PM
dupe
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=55669

DedEye
04-20-2007, 12:50 PM
Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

All the more reason that CCWs should be available to us "average" non-celebrity citizens.

kap
04-20-2007, 12:58 PM
If a guy has a gun pointed at your head you are a little behind the curve. Sounds like Mr. surrender monkey should have been paying attention to his surroundings a little better. I am sure that surrendering in that VT classroom would have saved those kids lives. Also, there are crappy parts of Beverly Hills. I am sure this guy does not live in the posh parts, rather the condos or apartments with shady alleys behind them that are typical of the LA concrete towers that dot the city from Santa Monica to Compton.

Oh, and a near death experience should show you what kind of a person you are. His comments speak for themselves in this respect.

grammaton76
04-20-2007, 1:01 PM
dupe
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=55669

Yep, threads merged.

hkuspc40
04-20-2007, 1:32 PM
I was enjoying my teriyaki chicken plate durinig lunch and bumped into an anti-gun article on CNN. I was compelled to respond to his article, and it went like so:


With regards to Tom Plate's article "Let's lay down our right to bear arms" article, there are some statements made which I'd like to comment on:

1) Third paragraph from top. He states that "the use of guns is often the American technique of choice....". This is not only an American choice, but others as well who're interested in preserving peace and for defense capabilities. Does he think America would be the way it is today without the ability to enforce laws and regulations? How does he think that these laws are enforced? Did he forget about how G. Washington won the war against the British?

2) 6th paragraph. The statement that the victims were not killed by a Korean, but by a 9mm handgun and .22 handgun. What a poor statement? Most guns do not accidently discharge on its own. It takes someone behind the trigger to cause the gun to fire. The students were not killed by a Korean, they were massacred by a Korean with psychological issues. Blame his childhood, when he was picked on by the rich, which caused him to carry out his deed. Blame something that makes sense. Blaming this incident on guns is not taking into account the real cause for his actions.

Unless the federal or local govt can provide armed security services 24/7 for every citizen in the US; guarantee its citizens that they will never become a victim of shooting incidents, robbery, rape, assault, etc; remove all illegal handguns in this country; do not comment on the second ammendment and think that it's no longer important!

//////////////////////////////

I'm not the most eloquent writer, but felt that a reply was needed to counter his point of view!

Almost feel like I need to do something to stop or slow these anti-gunners from taking our beloved 2nd ammendment rights away!

AxonGap
04-20-2007, 1:35 PM
Check this one out from CNN !

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html


"Sorry folks, double post!! My blog-fu is weak!"

bwiese
04-20-2007, 1:40 PM
Bill, I respect your quaint notions of a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but the recent effort to give Washington D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives clearly proves that this talk of 3/4th votes of states and whatnot is dated.

That vote is irrelevant and is just a political show for that broad demographic.

A variety of legal analysts of all political shades have said that giving DC state-like representational status will not pass constitutional muster even if Congress passes it.

Bad Voodoo
04-20-2007, 1:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

Would love to challenge Mr. Slate with a "you first" repeal request re: his 1st Amendment right to spew socialist propaganda, however CNNs disclaimer is why I choose not to exercise my wishes:

"CNN has the right to edit and/or alter any submission. CNN reserves the right not to use the material you submit at all and/or as little of the material as it chooses."

-voodoo

MadMex
04-20-2007, 1:50 PM
"Joe Russo, Staten Island, New York
Ted Nugent really has a twisted way of looking at the violence that seems to regularly plague us. As a hunter and gun owner, I do believe in our right to bear arms. However, that right should not include hand guns and assualt weapons."

Some Fuds never learn.

hoffmang
04-20-2007, 1:53 PM
If a bill passes to "give DC the vote" it will be overturned very quickly in Federal Court as unconstitutional.

-Gene

Bad Voodoo
04-20-2007, 1:54 PM
"Joe Russo, Staten Island, New York
Ted Nugent really has a twisted way of looking at the violence that seems to regularly plague us. As a hunter and gun owner, I do believe in our right to bear arms. However, that right should not include hand guns and assualt weapons."

Some Fuds never learn.

A Zumbo apologist! How about that!

-voodoo

schizrade2
04-20-2007, 1:59 PM
Bill, I respect your quaint notions of a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but the recent effort to give Washington D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives clearly proves that this talk of 3/4th votes of states and whatnot is dated.

Quaint? You don't fully understand the BOR do you.

Go get some education and come back.

jumbopanda
04-20-2007, 2:32 PM
*mindless dribble*


85% of guns used in crimes are obtained through illegal means. Keep crying, I drink your tears and laugh at your pain.

Builder
04-20-2007, 2:32 PM
One of the replies was:
Laurence Hewitt, New York, New York
"The constitution stipulates that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of "maintaining a standing militia." Which, in modern terms, outside of Iraq and the Golan Heights, refers to maintaining a national guard. It does not say that every man, woman and child has the right to carry around a handgun, as the NRA would have you believe."
This unfortunate fellow doesn't know what the 2nd Amendment is all about and even more unfortunate is that he probably votes with this lack of knowledge.
Just for completeness, the militia of the U.S. 2nd Amendment is made up of the organized and unorganized militias. The organized is the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The unorganized militia is all able-bodied citizen males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age and males to age 64 are included when they have been (are?) members of the National Guard.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311 reads
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/32/chapters/3/sections/section_313.html
Section 313 of Title 32
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

grammaton76
04-20-2007, 2:39 PM
It's worth noting that back then, 45 years was probably equivalent to 70 or so based on current longevity and health levels.

Mute
04-20-2007, 2:54 PM
Stupid idiot. That's precisely what the students and faculty members of VT were forced to do. Lay down their right to bear arms. If he couldn't even make that simple connection, it amazes me that he can function on a daily basis.

Bushwacker
04-20-2007, 3:41 PM
:rolleyes: Zumbo is on Calguns. Geez I guess I shouldn't have any hanguns then:rolleyes: Maybe I'll just willingly give up my OLLs too.:rolleyes: I'm not hunter but I enjoy target shooting. What are you saying?

MadMex
04-20-2007, 4:23 PM
:rolleyes: Zumbo is on Calguns. Geez I guess I shouldn't have any hanguns then:rolleyes: Maybe I'll just willingly give up my OLLs too.:rolleyes: I'm not hunter but I enjoy target shooting. What are you saying?
I hear an echo.

CalNRA
04-20-2007, 4:58 PM
if these morons had a chance they would be the judges convicting Washington et al for crimes against the crown and illegal carrying of loaded rifles in British courts. News flash Zumbos, Washington and clan were CIVILIANS with guns of MILITARY grade, so if you really think the 2nd was about hunting, go back to wherever the f*** the country you or your ungrateful ancestors all came from and stay there.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-20-2007, 4:59 PM
Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/vert.plate2.jpg

I think that Tom Plate has enough on his hands just trying to get his spiked metrosexual hairpiece to lay down.

What kind of 76 year old man with a double chin dresses like he's some naughty tomcat with the ladies leering into the camera like he probably does with co-ed job applicants trying to break into journalism as one of his interns at the LA Times?

Tom, you better wipe that look off your face before I slap you to the deck.

DIG
04-20-2007, 5:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html

...and then our Freedom of Speech right after that. Oh wait, they're already working on that one.

aileron
04-20-2007, 6:26 PM
Well, technically no, he is from UCLA--but who is splitting hairs?

Hey now be nice I like UCLA.

MIKEUSMC2005
04-20-2007, 7:27 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberties, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety". Ben Franklin


And for those that think a "militia" is the National Guard, here's why that is wrong. (The National Guard is control by the Federal Government).

"Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.""Let your gun be your constant companion on your walks... this gives exercise to the body and independence to the mind... no free man shall ever be debarred the use of guns" - Thomas Jefferson.

And...


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.

LAK Supply
04-20-2007, 7:48 PM
I sent this assclown an email. . . . couldn't resist. I hope I hurt his feelings as I mentioned that he was a fearful coward and a socialist. . . . . Wanted to be very mean, but I couldn't bring myself to look like as big an idiot as him. So, I kept it one notch below! :p

Bad Voodoo
04-20-2007, 8:05 PM
:rolleyes: Zumbo is on Calguns. Geez I guess I shouldn't have any hanguns then:rolleyes: Maybe I'll just willingly give up my OLLs too.:rolleyes: I'm not hunter but I enjoy target shooting. What are you saying?

I think part of the problem here is that you didn't comprehend my point, or you didn't read it at all. In my post, do you see the quote in bold? Think I may have been comparing Mr. Russo's viewpoints with those of Mr. Zumbo? Read. Comprehend. Repeat as necessary. Post. :rolleyes:

-voodoo

CalNRA
04-20-2007, 9:04 PM
I think part of the problem here is that you didn't comprehend my point, or you didn't read it at all. In my post, do you see the quote in bold? Think I may have been comparing Mr. Russo's viewpoints with those of Mr. Zumbo? Read. Comprehend. Repeat as necessary. Post. :rolleyes:

-voodoo

ahahhaha, I thought something was weird. LOL arguements are tragically funny when everyone''s uptight like that.

Bad Voodoo
04-20-2007, 9:47 PM
ahahhaha, I thought something was weird. LOL arguements are tragically funny when everyone''s uptight like that.

My signature couldn't have been a hint re: my personal feelings, huh? ;)

-voodoo

triaged
04-20-2007, 11:27 PM
The 2nd is essentially unrepealable. There's two ways of amending the constitution:...The latter has never occurred, and there's no way the former could ever occur on a contentious issue like this: those 2/3 & 3/4 thresholds are way too high a bar to climb over.I think you got this a bit wrong. The reason that the 2nd amendment will never be repealed is because enough of the people that would have to vote for the bill would somehow end up dead from gunshot wounds (some of which I'm sure would be from a musket just for spite).

socalsteve
04-20-2007, 11:32 PM
That guys a moroon --- not proud to be an American because a foriegn born person did this! What an axxxole...!

Lets dump the 1st amendment first and work our way up from there maybe!

Or start at the other end and work our way to the first - won't be to many amendmensts given up before the 2nd becomes recognized for tis value.

ZapThyCat
04-20-2007, 11:37 PM
People like this that endorese relinguishing(sp) our rights are what kills our country a little bit at a time.

They want our rights taken away... he's not speaking for himself, but for *US*. The people. He's a member of what he considers the elite... he doesn't have to worry about the same things the people have to worry about. He has power to gain when we are oppressed.

Cato
04-21-2007, 12:14 PM
"These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun."


Boys, it's high time we all sit down with our firearms and have a man to gun talk about gun violence.

triaged
04-21-2007, 12:28 PM
We all need to set up programs like this to protect 'innocent' people from our guns.
http://assaultweaponwatch.com/

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 12:36 PM
I read his story about being robbed... Umm... I'm throwing the BS flag. I don't believe it ever happened, or at least not like that. (Paraphrasing) "He pointed a laser-sighted handgun at my HEAD!" BS. Never freaking happened. He MAY have been robbed by a kid with a laser pointer, though. Now THAT is funny.

Though I'm more of the opinion that his "robbery" never really happened. It's just way too Hollywood. I bet it was a chrome GLOCK with a laser sight, too. :rolleyes:

grammaton76
04-23-2007, 3:07 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/vert.plate2.jpg

I think that Tom Plate has enough on his hands just trying to get his spiked metrosexual hairpiece to lay down.

He has an amazing resemblance to my turtle, at least to me. BTW, for anyone wondering, the slime coming out of his mouth is the result of his having just dined on escargot...

http://www.cheapspeech.com/Pics/Animals/Constantine//s_dsc09167.jpg

383green
04-23-2007, 10:31 AM
Hmm, I don't see the resemblance. To my eyes, your turtle has an intense, piercing stare, while Mr. Plate just looks rather smug and/or dim. Almost as if the green drool would be more at home on his lips than on your turtle's.

I'm just saying, is all. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

:p

alex00
04-23-2007, 10:46 AM
Why do you have to be a "James Bond type" to quickly shift positions, draw from a concealed holster and stop the threat. Instead, this anti-gun moron left the armed felon to plunder and pillage again. I wonder how many innocents the gun toting robber killed, injured or abused after our gun fearing friend met him.

Is he really so naive to think that banning guns will actually stop gun violence? I'm going to start a movement to ban the Prius. I don't really understand it, I hate the way it looks, and in the hands of gangsters can kill innocent people.

Prc329
04-23-2007, 12:35 PM
I think one of the biggest problems with the idea of RKBA in this country is the brainwashing we have been put threw. So many people are so stuck in the idea of the police will be there to protect us. We have also been *****fied as a nation. To many men talking about there feelings.

I was one of those guys that thought we did not need 2A. I grew up in Compton and North Long Beach. We dealt with a lot of gangs and I saw a couple of close friends gunned down. I wrongfully blamed the access to the gun as the problem. I do not believe it was until I got married did the idea of a gun for protection enter my mind. I then really took a long and hard look at my idea and beliefs when it came to the 2nd amendment.

After the birth of my daughter it became really clear to me. I can not be there 100% of the time. I can not count on Carson Sheriffs to be there at all. So the only option is get get a gun. I would have thought Katrina and the LA riots would have caused many people calling for gun control or to give up 2A to wake up. This did not happen and in california it got worse.

One thing about cali that I did not realize before is also the problem with the state and its law makers. If you look at many east coast states where laws are a lot more open and stupid legislation does not get past, these folks ave a genuine attachment to the state and the lands. They will fight to protect this land is it was needed. We californians do not have that type of connection with this state. I can count on one hand how many people I know that is not a first generation california resident. We do not care about this state the way a Virginia native would. I believe that is why 2A is in the state it is in here. The gun grabbers can come here and pass these silly life endangering laws because many people do not feel the attachment to the state to care. Many are just passing threw or can not voice there opinion because they are not legally here.

Sorry. I just needed to get that off my chest, been thinking about this for a long time.

Steyr_223
04-23-2007, 12:44 PM
Prc329, right on. I agree with you on longterm vs short term Californians. I have been here since 1970 I am a old timer.

grammaton76
04-23-2007, 2:46 PM
I can count on one hand how many people I know that is not a first generation california resident. We do not care about this state the way a Virginia native would. I believe that is why 2A is in the state it is in here. The gun grabbers can come here and pass these silly life endangering laws because many people do not feel the attachment to the state to care. Many are just passing threw or can not voice there opinion because they are not legally here.

My great-grandparents settled here in CA. I've been saying for quite some time that the main problem California has, is that we've been the dumping ground for the other 49 states' excess hippies ever since they invented 'em. :)

383green
04-23-2007, 6:48 PM
We have also been *****fied as a nation. To many men talking about there feelings.

Hey, I talk about my feelings, and there's nothing wrong with that. When I smell a slab of beef cooking over an oak fire, I feel hungry. When I see Jessica Alba, I feel horny. When I see a dog that's been run over, I feel sad. And when I see some pompous tw*t trying to infringe upon my rights in order to bring about his elitist wet dream, I feel really p*ssed off.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I strongly feel that this pompous tw*t should have the freedom to spew his beliefs with impunity. He can even call me similarly disrespectful names if he so chooses, with or without asterisks in place of the vowels. However, if he tries to infringe upon my rights, he won't find me in such an open state of mind.

I was one of those guys that thought we did not need 2A. [...] I then really took a long and hard look at my idea and beliefs when it came to the 2nd amendment. [...] After the birth of my daughter it became really clear to me. I can not be there 100% of the time. I can not count on Carson Sheriffs to be there at all. So the only option is get get a gun.

It takes a strong person to evaluate their deeply-held beliefs, change their mind about them, and admit that they were wrong.

I would have thought Katrina and the LA riots would have caused many people calling for gun control or to give up 2A to wake up. This did not happen and in california it got worse.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I've been paying more attention to this lately and communicating more with hardcore whack jobs like myself here on the hardcore whack job forum (;)), but it seems to me like things might be shifting more in favor of the 2A slowly. The Katrina situation did seem to wake some folks up, leading to bills which would outlaw future such confiscations (duh, I don't recall whether they passed or not). Then after Parker v. DC, the anti-2A folks have been sounding downright desperate to me. Things seem to have gotten measurably better in CA over the last year, with the DOJ willingly allowing some of their power to be stripped, the legislature turning AW possession into an infraction wobbler (presumably to avoid a test case that might not go their way?), and the whole DOJ firearms group getting demoted.

We californians do not have that type of connection with this state. I can count on one hand how many people I know that is not a first generation california resident. We do not care about this state the way a Virginia native would. I believe that is why 2A is in the state it is in here.

You may be on to something there, but I don't think it's fully cut and dried. Although I grew up in NV, I was born in CA and my folks were born here and lived here until they moved to NV to follow a job when I was almost 2 years old. They were 2nd+ generation Californians, and they're somewhere on the anti-gun side of the spectrum (though not nearly as far from the center as the real hard-core gun grabbers). My mom is convinced that all of the whacko conservatives out here have brain-washed me, and she doesn't get that I have no more in common with the Orange County Bible Belt conservatives than I do with the Bay Area hippies. She can't quite digest that I made up my own mind on the subject, decided that private ownership of firearms is a necessary evil thats far better than the alternative, and then being the compulsive type I naturally went over to the hard-core end of the half of the spectrum that I chose. If I had decided that guns are bad, then I'd probably be just as rabidly anti-gun, because I practice moderation in moderation. :o

Sorry. I just needed to get that off my chest, been thinking about this for a long time.

It was a valuable contribution to the discussion, in my opinion.

383green
04-23-2007, 6:52 PM
My great-grandparents settled here in CA. I've been saying for quite some time that the main problem California has, is that we've been the dumping ground for the other 49 states' excess hippies ever since they invented 'em. :)

They probably come here for the fair weather, because it's too cold in places like Minnesota to run around naked and hairy. :eek:

SnWnMe
04-23-2007, 7:16 PM
Professor,

I cannot fathom how an intellectual like you is willing to give up his rights and even urge the rest of the country to do the same. Should we give up our right to free expression because people like the congregation of Westboro church abuse it? Should we give up the right to be secure in our persons and dwellings because some evil men seized a few planes and killed thousands?

How would giving up your gun rights prevent the robbery you suffered? Do you really believe that guns will just magically go away if we said "No more 2nd Amendment"? Remember that there are 200 million handguns in circulation in the US.

And what would compliance net you if the evil person is bent on murder? If you were in the Eng bldg in V-Tech, do you think that surrender would allow you to survive? Would you take your chances with giving up to Cho or having a handgun of your own?

Please put some more thought into your writings before you publish them. Don't let emotions guide your thinking. It is our right to keep and bear arms that makes us unique in the world. We are the envy of the world at large because we are really free, chic US bashing notwithstanding.

Regards

SnWnMe

nothing4u
04-23-2007, 9:02 PM
I would totally give up my right to have bear arms. As long as i have an escort of hot, well armed secret service chicks following me around 24/7. What are the chances of this happening? Damn, I guess I could always dream of hot chicks with guns. Until then I'll take care of business myself. The police can't always be there on time to save your ***. But they always have chalk to outline your body after the bad guys are done with you. I'd much rather have the police outline the bad guy's than mine.

Californio
04-23-2007, 9:09 PM
My great-grandparents settled here in CA. I've been saying for quite some time that the main problem California has, is that we've been the dumping ground for the other 49 states' excess hippies ever since they invented 'em. :)

So very True.

Dr. Peter Venkman
04-23-2007, 9:49 PM
What a douche.

tygerpaw
04-24-2007, 8:21 PM
Why does plate talk about Koreans so much? What does he have against Koreans? Another liberal racist who thinks he's not. Nobody's been saying anything about Koreans except him. What a putz.