PDA

View Full Version : Lori Saldana Endorsed by Brady Campaign


jdberger
04-28-2012, 1:34 AM
I didn't see anyone else post this:

California's Lori Saldana Earns Endorsement for U.S. House of Representatives (http://bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1493/)
Becomes First Candidate to Sign Statement Against Arming Dangerous People

Apr 24, 2012


Washington, D.C. - The Brady Campaign and its network of California Chapters today announced endorsement of Lori Saldaña for election to Congress in California’s 52nd Congressional District. The primary will be held on June 5, 2012.

As a former California Assembly Member representing the San Diego Area, Ms. Saldaña repeatedly proved her commitment to strong gun laws and to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people by earning a 100% voting record with the Brady Campaign.

In 2010, she showed her leadership on public safety issues by authoring legislation to ban the carrying of openly displayed handguns in public. “Lori Saldaña saw the threat to law enforcement officers and to communities across California from people openly carrying their handguns in coffee shops, restaurants and other public places,” said Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “She stood up to the gun lobby and their dangerous vision of America.”

Ms. Saldaña also became the first California candidate to sign Brady’s Statement of Principle Against Arming Dangerous People. The Statement was unveiled last week when 32 victims and survivors held a press conference on Capitol Hill urging Congress to take action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and to reject U.S. Senate bills that the Brady Campaign has dubbed the “George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Acts”.

The STATEMENT reads:

I believe that these people should not be able to buy, own or carry a gun anywhere in our nation:

∙ Convicted felons

∙ Convicted domestic abusers

∙ Terrorists

∙ People found to be dangerously mentally ill.

“We are thrilled to endorse Lori Saldaña and we think she’ll make a great Member of Congress,” said Dr. Dallas Stout, President of the California Brady Chapters. “In the state legislature, she was a real champion on our issue. She stood up for our communities and for the victims and survivors of gun violence.”

Saldaña’s opponent, Rep. Brian Bilbray, repeatedly has voted in lock-step with the NRA and has earned an “A” rating from the group. Last fall, over the strong objections of the California Police Chiefs Association, Rep. Bilbray co-sponsored and voted for HR 822, referred to by the Brady Campaign as the “George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Act.”

If enacted, HR 822 would force states to let thousands of dangerous people like Trayvon Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman, carry loaded, hidden handguns from Times Square to Topeka, from Maine to California. It would allow tens of thousands of concealed carry permit holders, including many with violent backgrounds similar to Zimmerman’s, to take their guns and their “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality just about anywhere they go. Currently, California does not allow anyone from other states to carry loaded, hidden guns on California streets.

“Rep. Bilbray should be ashamed of himself for voting to nullify California’s strong gun laws and allow armed and dangerous people to carry guns in California communities,” said Gross. “He should have listened to the police chiefs throughout his state. Instead he chose to subscribe to the gun lobby’s dangerous and paranoid vision that you need to be armed to the teeth wherever you go.”


###


Of course, it's been quite apparent to those of us who've been paying attention, that Lori Saldana is a pretty spectacular idiot. Convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers, convicted terrorists and people found to be dangerously mentally ill are already prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms. That's been Federal law for more than 4 decades.

All the more reason to vociferously back her opponents. They might not like guns, but at least they weren't stupid enough to hang their hats on it.

The race promises to be competitive. Here are the candidates:

Shirley Decourt-Park
Scott Peters (Major Candidate)
Lori Saldana (Major Candidate)
Brian Bilbray District 50 incumbent (Major candidate)
Gene Hamilton Carswell
Wayne Iverson
John Stahl
John Subka
Jack Doyle
Ehab Shehata

Be sure, when you contact them, that you let them know that they have your support because you DON'T LIKE what Lori Saldana did with respect to guns, open carry, and gun laws. Mention that you're an NRA member. Mention that you've voted in the last __ elections. Mention that you might be willing to do a little campaign work.

Remember, California's new Primary Scheme is "top two". Let's make sure Saldana isn't there come the general election.

Gray Peterson
04-28-2012, 2:04 AM
OK, I have to post this, even though the actor is a bit of an anti-gunner:

xAdzBaPDmJk

Norcal Industries
04-28-2012, 2:09 AM
i still blame the 19th amendment.........

Gray Peterson
04-28-2012, 2:11 AM
i still blame the 19th amendment.........

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Really?

Norcal Industries
04-28-2012, 2:13 AM
yes. it was the beginning of the end.

Gray Peterson
04-28-2012, 2:21 AM
yes. it was the beginning of the end.

Uh, are you actually being serious here? Sorry to ask twice, but is this really how you actually feel?

Norcal Industries
04-28-2012, 2:26 AM
yes, i do. im not alone in that, im sure.

Gray Peterson
04-28-2012, 2:43 AM
yes, i do. im not alone in that, im sure.

Nice going, offending 51 percent of the population. You realize our enemies, like Ladd Everett of CSGV, absolutely adore folks like you? It feeds into their anti gunner PR narrative of gun owners & gun industry folla being misogynists, racists, & bigots, especially coming from a guy who is in the gun industry like yourself.

Calling for a repeal of the 15th amendment would have immediately gotten you bounced from the forum as racist. I don't see the 19th amendment differently.

meg
04-28-2012, 3:18 AM
Personally, I'm a fan of the 19th amendment.

Funtimes
04-28-2012, 3:58 AM
Man, these people drive me crazy.

Norcal Industries
04-28-2012, 4:37 AM
you can kiss the anti's arse all you want, it wont change their opinions. i just think that if people used their brains more than their hearts, this country would be better off.

Demonicspire
04-28-2012, 6:24 AM
Sadly, I find that most of the pro-second amendment politicians also tend to have positions opposite to mine on many other social issues. I wish we saw more politicians who said "I support ALL of your civil liberties, from gun rights to gay marriage, to not having the government spy on you".

SilverTauron
04-28-2012, 6:42 AM
What needs to be done is obvious.Brady shills do not belong in Congress.

The question at hand is whether or not her election is already a done deal.I do not know your local politics,but in my old haunts in Chicago the fastest way to build votes is to suck up to the anti-gun lobby.Much as I would like to say that just 'voting the statists out' will solve things,sometime the anti-firearm progressives just plain outnumber the good people.

jdberger
04-28-2012, 7:48 AM
Sadly, I find that most of the pro-second amendment politicians also tend to have positions opposite to mine on many other social issues. I wish we saw more politicians who said "I support ALL of your civil liberties, from gun rights to gay marriage, to not having the government spy on you".

You don't need someone who's "pro-second amendment" here. Just someone who's wary of crossing the gunnies.

If it becomes common knowledge that California politicians who actively try to restrict gun rights don't ghetto remain politicians, they will stop actively perusing that particular merit badge.

HowardW56
04-28-2012, 8:05 AM
i still blame the 19th amendment.........

yes. it was the beginning of the end.

yes, i do. im not alone in that, im sure.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Really?

Uh, are you actually being serious here? Sorry to ask twice, but is this really how you actually feel?

Nice going, offending 51 percent of the population. You realize our enemies, like Ladd Everett of CSGV, absolutely adore folks like you? It feeds into their anti gunner PR narrative of gun owners & gun industry folla being misogynists, racists, & bigots, especially coming from a guy who is in the gun industry like yourself.

Calling for a repeal of the 15th amendment would have immediately gotten you bounced from the forum as racist. I don't see the 19th amendment differently.

:eek: :no: :facepalm:


Wow

Demonicspire
04-28-2012, 9:30 AM
You don't need someone who's "pro-second amendment" here. Just someone who's wary of crossing the gunnies.

If it becomes common knowledge that California politicians who actively try to restrict gun rights don't ghetto remain politicians, they will stop actively perusing that particular merit badge.

I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" as that is associated with Ron Paul (who I think is a nutbag), but I think we need more politicians of a libertarian ideology in the dictionary sense i.e. support of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

diggersdarling
04-28-2012, 10:00 AM
I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" as that is associated with Ron Paul (who I think is a nutbag), but I think we need more politicians of a libertarian ideology in the dictionary sense i.e. support of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

Yeah, because following the Constitution is such a NOVEL idea.

bulgron
04-28-2012, 10:04 AM
i still blame the 19th amendment.........

Either:

1. You're drunk and you're trying to make a funny; or
2. You got hacked and someone else is trying to make a funny; or
3. You're the kind of a phucktard who actually thinks that.

If 1: sober up before posting please.

If 2: fix your computer please.

If 3: back away from your keyboard and don't ever come back here again.

Desertdog702
04-28-2012, 10:07 AM
Ok, so here is just one thing I see flawed here, the lori lady says she wants to keep guns out of dangerous ppl's hands but yet she has supported laws that keep guns out of only the law abiding. (e.g. banning OC)

Since the law abiding are not the ones doing crimes, lets rethink this gun control thing. Gun laws DO NOT work on criminals, criminals and the insane do not think about laws when the do their crimes. Sometimes they think about consequences, since bad guys think twice about robbing a home where they think the homeowner has guns.

What if there are enhancements on gun crimes, would that not take care of the real problems with crime. I say if someone uses a gun to commit a crime and they use a hi-cap magazine in an "assault rifle", whatever that is and could be debated some other time, then add time to the sentence. At least if they are facing more time they might think twice about it, but if not then they go away from society for awhile, its hard to commit gun crimes in prison. If they kill someone, then I think they should be put to sleep and not allowed to appeal for decades, death penalites should be done before the guy dies in prison of old age.

Funny how these libs who are tough on gun laws and keeping guns from the good guys are soft on criminals and are for the most part against the death penalty and have judges that let criminals get off easy.

Also, look at states with strict gun laws, those states are the ones with high violent crime rates, like IL, NY and NJ, against states with gun laws less strict, like TN, KY, NV, and others. Again, gun laws are not good for the law abiding and seem to me that they are dangerous for the good guys since they have their means of self defense stripped and you know, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

In reality, guns are not the problem, because if they were, states where "assault weapons" and states like my state, NV, where we can legally own machine guns, would be much more dangerous places. It is the cultures where violence is a norm and life has lost its value, these are the real problems. Fix the ideals of these cultures and you fix the real problems.

Demonicspire
04-28-2012, 10:08 AM
Yeah, because following the Constitution is such a NOVEL idea.

You'd think, but that's the way things seem to be going these days.

bulgron
04-28-2012, 10:09 AM
I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

There's probably some historical support for your point of view. At least one of the reasons why the founders wanted America to be armed was so that the population would be familiar with, and well practiced (well regulated) in the use of, weaponry.

But despite that, you have two big problems.

1. The amendment says "shall not be infringed." Any licensing scheme is going to constitute infringement.

2. We have the example of the Jim Crow laws to see what happens when government is allowed to put licenses between people they don't like and activities they don't want those people to do.

So as much as I'd like to be reasonable about this and adopt your point of view, I can't. The other side isn't reasonable, so we don't dare be either.

zhyla
04-28-2012, 10:28 AM
Sometimes I wish we had two 2A sections. One for misogynist crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and 2A circle jerking. Then another section with a less obvious title where we can just talk about court cases and elections in peace.

SilverTauron
04-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Ok, so here is just one thing I see flawed here, the lori lady says she wants to keep guns out of dangerous ppl's hands but yet she has supported laws that keep guns out of only the law abiding. (e.g. banning OC)

To her and her kind, ownership of a gun is criminal at face value. There is no distinction between "law abiding" and "currently illegal" to the Disarmament Lobby.



Since the law abiding are not the ones doing crimes, lets rethink this gun control thing. Gun laws DO NOT work on criminals, criminals and the insane do not think about laws when the do their crimes. Sometimes they think about consequences, since bad guys think twice about robbing a home where they think the homeowner has guns.

Crime reduction is not the goal of gun control. Speaking bluntly, crime ain't even the governments problem. Crooks won't be breaking into the governors mansion anytime soon, and they know better to directly attack artifices of local government such as council members and the like. If every citizen in California got mugged tomorrow at gunpoint, would the State Government cease to exist? Likely not. Indeed there would be outcries for a police response, but we come back to the fact that the only people who suffer from crime are individual citizens. Were it up to our "benevolent governments", police agencies would be shut down entirely and the money redistributed to politically motivated investments like "community centers" and the occasional pork belly project. This has taken place in some cash strapped communities already.



What if there are enhancements on gun crimes, would that not take care of the real problems with crime. I say if someone uses a gun to commit a crime and they use a hi-cap magazine in an "assault rifle", whatever that is and could be debated some other time, then add time to the sentence. At least if they are facing more time they might think twice about it, but if not then they go away from society for awhile, its hard to commit gun crimes in prison. If they kill someone, then I think they should be put to sleep and not allowed to appeal for decades, death penalites should be done before the guy dies in prison of old age.


This concept requires recognition and respect for a fixed code of law. This presents problems in a Progressive Society where crime as defined in texts like the Bible doesn't exist by virtue of a definition change.

Why is stealing wrong? Because the person who worked for the property is unjustly deprived of it by a scoundrel who didn't earn it. That concept can only exist in a place where the individual's right to be rewarded for their individual labors is law. If one's work belongs to the "community" then theft is impossible. Your Mercedes is Joe Crackhead's Mercedes too. Thus, how can we punish the Crackhead for taking what was already his , under his status as a member of the "community"?




Funny how these libs who are tough on gun laws and keeping guns from the good guys are soft on criminals and are for the most part against the death penalty and have judges that let criminals get off easy.

Also, look at states with strict gun laws, those states are the ones with high violent crime rates, like IL, NY and NJ, against states with gun laws less strict, like TN, KY, NV, and others. Again, gun laws are not good for the law abiding and seem to me that they are dangerous for the good guys since they have their means of self defense stripped and you know, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

In reality, guns are not the problem, because if they were, states where "assault weapons" and states like my state, NV, where we can legally own machine guns, would be much more dangerous places. It is the cultures where violence is a norm and life has lost its value, these are the real problems. Fix the ideals of these cultures and you fix the real problems.

Fixing the cultures involves sending a lot of politicos on both sides of the aisle to the unemployment line, and some of them would be residing at United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth before the dust settles. Because the fixes requires the approval of the guilty parties, don't hold your breath.

IVC
04-28-2012, 12:02 PM
1. The amendment says "shall not be infringed." Any licensing scheme is going to constitute infringement.

Not quite. This has been addressed many times in various contexts. Arguably the best way to demonstrate it quickly is to compare it to the licensing required for protesting in the streets, which is both covered by 1A and constitutional. The devil is in the detail.

The main reason we should fight any and all requirements as far as we can is that the other side is indeed trying to use various licensing and registration schemes to infringe on the right. For example, Bradies and alike are constantly using the phrase "common sense gun laws," while in reality trying to push a set of politically-motivated restrictions which ARE infringement.

vantec08
04-28-2012, 12:18 PM
Not quite. This has been addressed many times in various contexts. Arguably the best way to demonstrate it quickly is to compare it to the licensing required for protesting in the streets, which is both covered by 1A and constitutional. The devil is in the detail.

The main reason we should fight any and all requirements as far as we can is that the other side is indeed trying to use various licensing and registration schemes to infringe on the right. For example, Bradies and alike are constantly using the phrase "common sense gun laws," while in reality trying to push a set of politically-motivated restrictions which ARE infringement.

Agree. To quote the antis, "this is only the beginning." There is only one reason for registration. Other societies in history discovered that too late.

cycle61
04-28-2012, 12:21 PM
Sadly, I find that most of the pro-second amendment politicians also tend to have positions opposite to mine on many other social issues. I wish we saw more politicians who said "I support ALL of your civil liberties, from gun rights to gay marriage, to not having the government spy on you".

Agreed with this 100%

alfred1222
04-28-2012, 12:26 PM
i still blame the 19th amendment.........

yes. it was the beginning of the end.

yes, i do. im not alone in that, im sure.


You sir, are an idiot.

bulgron
04-28-2012, 1:03 PM
Not quite. This has been addressed many times in various contexts. Arguably the best way to demonstrate it quickly is to compare it to the licensing required for protesting in the streets, which is both covered by 1A and constitutional. The devil is in the detail.

I understand and agree with everything that you say. However, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that nowhere in the 1A do the words "shall not be infringed" appear.

Also, no one in America today is trying to implement a permit scheme for the express purpose of silencing the vaste majority of the American public.

Of course, if they could just have a few more decades of success, the people who are using permits to prevent us from owning and carrying guns will move on to Step 2, which is permits intended to shut everyone up except for official government mouth pieces.

Yes, I really think that's what they want to do.

jdberger
04-28-2012, 1:04 PM
While the discussion of the Second Amendment, insipid politicians and the Constitution is stimulating, I was hoping to spur a little more actual action.

It would sure be awesome if a couple Calgunners down in San Diego would volunteer some time/treasure toward the election of Messrs. Peters or Bilbray - and let them know exactly why.

We have about 100,000 Calgunners. 10 could make the difference.

SilverTauron
04-28-2012, 1:33 PM
While the discussion of the Second Amendment, insipid politicians and the Constitution is stimulating, I was hoping to spur a little more actual action.



Like what, hiring an assasin?

I speak in jest , but I gather the idea that the liberals have us good gun people beat in terms of population in that regard. If every Calguns member went to Cali to vote against these clowns-and in my case, that means a plane flight or two-we'd be a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of inured Democrat voters who think a 15 day waiting period is being generous. If it were not the case, Ms. Saldana would be ducking every gun related question that came her way, not standing with the Brady Campaign.

To the minds of most uninformed liberals, gun owners are unevolved peoples one step away from the Neanderthal species who are unwilling to join the Progressive Revolution.

jdberger
04-28-2012, 4:22 PM
Like what, hiring an assasin?

I speak in jest , but I gather the idea that the liberals have us good gun people beat in terms of population in that regard. If every Calguns member went to Cali to vote against these clowns-and in my case, that means a plane flight or two-we'd be a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of inured Democrat voters who think a 15 day waiting period is being generous. If it were not the case, Ms. Saldana would be ducking every gun related question that came her way, not standing with the Brady Campaign.

To the minds of most uninformed liberals, gun owners are unevolved peoples one step away from the Neanderthal species who are unwilling to join the Progressive Revolution.

Then the answer is to make the liberals "gun people". Take Harry Reid, for instance.

The other (more attainable) option is to simply make guns a "third rail". Most people aren't "anti-gun". They really don't care much about guns at all. However, if you show those politicians that getting involved in the debate is only going to cause them pain and grief, they'll simply stop taking calls from the folks like the Bradys.

We might not be able to completely counter them, but we can force them to spend another $10K by supporting their opponents. And, believe it or not, politicians learn from the experiences of their peers.

We can sit here all day and come up with reasons not to act.

Or we can do something positive.

What's an hour, a day, a week of your time to further the civil rights of gun owners?

Scott Peters (http://www.scottpeters.com/52nd-district)
Scott Peters for Congress
4715 Viewridge Ave. | Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92123

phone (858) 715-1369
email info@scottpeters.com
twitter @scottpeterssd
facebook /scottpeterssandiego

Brian Bilbray (http://bilbrayforcongress.com/)

Revolvis
Campaign Director, Brian Bilbray for Congress

Revolivs
3298 Governor Dr #1039
San Diego, CA 92192

Telephone: (510) 299-0579

Email Campaign: manager@bilbrayforcongress.com
Email Brian: brian@bilbrayforcongress.com

axel4488
04-28-2012, 4:41 PM
Politically, about 20 percent of the people on Calguns are idiots I swear..

Demonicspire
04-28-2012, 4:43 PM
I think the real issue is governmental trust. A big reason all of us support the second amendment is that we know an armed citizenry helps to keep politicians honest. I sincerely believe any attempt to turn the US into a military dictatorship would fail. Not only would the citizens resist, but I think very few soldiers would obey orders to fire on civilians.

Now the cognitive dissonance that I have trouble with in anti gun people is as follows; most of them don't trust the police or federal agencies. They see the police as brutalistic, the CIA as spying on them, and the military as murderers in cahoots with big businesses. Why then do they say "We should only trust the police and the military with guns?". Of course many of them would say "nobody should have guns", but that's just foolish. Just another sign that partisanship has people warped in their thinking. No one is simply "wrong" anymore, they are evil and out to destroy america if they disagree with you.

I think that's the single most important thing to communicate, I don't anticipate having to use my gun to shoot someone tomorrow, I don't want to shoot anyone ever, nor do I anticipate ever having to fight a tyrannical government. But I'm ready just in case.

I feel a similar unease to Justice Scalia and what can only be described as his vendetta against the 4th amendment. He has actually stated on paper multiple times that he doesn't think we should have it. He says "the police USED to be corrupt, but the 4th amendment fixed them all up, so we can remove it", he even misquoted a legal scholar to support his argument. The legal scholar expressly contacted him to correct the reference, because that scholar was of the opinion that the 4th amendment was keeping police honest, and needed to be maintained to keep them honest.

So, where this is all going is, I don't feel like I need my gun to fight right now, but giving it up will only invite conditions in which fighting is inevitable.

dantodd
04-28-2012, 5:27 PM
I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" as that is associated with Ron Paul (who I think is a nutbag), but I think we need more politicians of a libertarian ideology in the dictionary sense i.e. support of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

Careful. Some people here like nutbags, and the 19th amendment.

dwtt
04-28-2012, 6:18 PM
Politically, about 20 percent of the people on Calguns are idiots I swear..

I would put the number closer to 40%, and none of them would do anything useful like volunteering to help the campaign of a candidate. They can only write a bunch of crap trying to show everyone how smart they are, and fail in the process...

Lone_Gunman
04-28-2012, 6:58 PM
While I disagree with NorCal, it is interesting to note the relationship between the women's suffrage movement and the prohibition movement, which is very similar to the anti gun movement.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_18th_19th_Amendments.htm


*The passage of the 18th Amendment was the product of many years of hard work on the part on women's groups and religious fundamentalists. The church affiliated Anti-Saloon League and the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which regarded drinking as a sin, pressured Congress and the states t put the amendment across. Women's groups blamed alcohol for husbands leaving their wives and families and for the abuse of women. As far as both groups were concerned alcohol was an evil that destroyed the American family. By 1918 29 states already had adopted amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting alcohol.




As we have discussed the 1920's were a period of great change in America. The success of women's groups in getting prohibition passed was tied to the movement to gain the right to vote. The quest for the passage of this amendment, eventually passed as the 19th, was known as the suffrage movement.

HowardW56
04-28-2012, 7:04 PM
Politically, about 20 percent of the people on Calguns are idiots I swear..

I would put the number closer to 40%, and none of them would do anything useful like volunteering to help the campaign of a candidate. They can only write a bunch of crap trying to show everyone how smart they are, and fail in the process...


I think that the 20% number is probably more accurate, similar to society in general.

I think people not being motivated to volunteer is a lack of commitment to the recovery of the RKBA. There have been some successes without their help, so why put forth the effort...

Hopefully everyone here at a minimum contributes financially to support the effort...

<stepping off of my soapbox>

Gray Peterson
04-28-2012, 8:02 PM
you can kiss the anti's arse all you want, it wont change their opinions. i just think that if people used their brains more than their hearts, this country would be better off.

And in your view, women use their "hearts" rather than their "brains"?

I can't even imagine how stupid this statement is.

I also love the fact that you assume that women are the major leaders of the gun control movement. The directors and nearly all of gun control leadership are nearly all white men. Ladd Everitt, Josh Horwitz, Daniel Gross, Michael Bloomberg. The only exception to this is Robyn Thomas of LCAV.

You ask a classroom (a general one, not a gun one), which is 50 percent each gender, full of people this question: "Have you ever in your life, carried a self defense device, including a firearm, taser, stun gun, pepper spray, or a personal alarm". Nearly all of the women will raise their hand up.

Women get it. Most men don't.

Also, the 19th Amendment protects men, too. If women were to ever get majority political power, without the 19th amendment, we would have had to rely on their good graces to keep our ability to vote. 19th amendment annihilates that potential.

axel4488
04-28-2012, 10:16 PM
I think that the 20% number is probably more accurate, similar to society in general.

I think people not being motivated to volunteer is a lack of commitment to the recovery of the RKBA. There have been some successes without their help, so why put forth the effort...

Hopefully everyone here at a minimum contributes financially to support the effort...

<stepping off of my soapbox>

For the general public, I would put the percentage of politically stupid at 60%. Since the majority of them elected these idiots into office already.

vantec08
04-29-2012, 4:17 AM
It is my hope that Brady's "endorsement" becomes the kiss of death.

jdberger
04-29-2012, 9:32 AM
It is my hope that Brady's "endorsement" becomes the kiss of death.

Guessing by the spirited responses in this thread...no.

Smokeybehr
04-29-2012, 9:49 AM
I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" as that is associated with Ron Paul (who I think is a nutbag), but I think we need more politicians of a libertarian ideology in the dictionary sense i.e. support of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

Read the Second Amendment VERY carefully, especially the last 4 words.

Demonicspire
04-29-2012, 10:48 AM
Read the Second Amendment VERY carefully, especially the last 4 words.

Ok, give me a hard and fast definition of infringed? Very few rights in the constitution are what we call "absolute rights". I mean, if you take that very literally, I should be able to own and operate a jet fighter equipped with mustard gas bombs. Of course that's taking it farcically far, but honestly, no progress will be made by ideological absolutism and a refusal to compromise.

In fact, I see that as the biggest single problem in this argument. There is zero respect. Each side is just calling the other names. "Right wing gun nut" "Nanny state loving liberal", one side wants to turn the nation into an armed camp that thrives on the blood of children, the other wants to disarm us to be subjugated by our federal overlords. So of course, no side is inclined to give the other any consideration, or even entertain discussion.

IVC
04-29-2012, 11:21 AM
...Very few rights in the constitution are what we call "absolute rights".

Your concept is right, but the details are not. All rights in the Constitution are what you call "absolute." The limits exist because one's right conflicts with someone else's right.

The cliche of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not illegal because those are dirty words, but because of the consequences to other peoples' liberties. You can build a non-public (different than "private") theater on your piece of land and yell fire to your heart's content. Your "fighter jet" example is illegal because it affects other people, not because it's "OMG, a figher jet".

...one side wants to turn the nation into an armed camp that thrives on the blood of children...

Simply not true. I get your point, but this is simply not true.

jdberger
04-29-2012, 12:32 PM
Anyone interested in doing some volunteer work for Saldana's opponents?

mag360
04-29-2012, 2:50 PM
is it something that can be done outside of the distict

dwtt
04-30-2012, 7:11 AM
is it something that can be done outside of the distict

mailing flyers, emailing and mailing comments to newspapers, commenting on editorial articles in newpapers, calling registered voters in the district to vote for one of her opponents,..... I think you get the idea. The only thing you need to do is pick one of the opponents and go with it.

Wherryj
04-30-2012, 10:24 AM
Yeah, because following the Constitution is such a NOVEL idea.

Actually, it IS a pretty novel idea. Can you give me an example of any part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights that has been implemented and followed 100% of the time? Most of the time except when it's inconvenient doesn't count.

hvengel
04-30-2012, 1:17 PM
Ok, give me a hard and fast definition of infringed? Very few rights in the constitution are what we call "absolute rights". I mean, if you take that very literally, I should be able to own and operate a jet fighter equipped with mustard gas bombs. Of course that's taking it farcically far, ..

How about a private war ship with canon? It was not uncommon for there to be privately owned war ships with canon at the time of the founding. In fact, there is another part of the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) that authorizes the issuance of Letters of Marque. This would not be possible if private individuals were not allowed to own armed war ships. Putting this together with the 2nd amendment it is not a stretch to argue that privately own armed war ships are protected by the Constitution and in fact that if these do not exist that we no longer have a well regulated militia.

In addition, there are MANY privately owned jet fighters and other war birds in the US including bombers. There are currently restrictions that prevent these from being armed one of these being that gas weapons such as mustard gas are banded by international treaty/law. IE. it is illegal under international law for the government to have a jet fighter equipped with mustard gas bombs. So why would you ask if it was OK for an individual to own something that is illegal for the government to own?

jdberger
05-01-2012, 1:31 AM
How about a private war ship with canon? It was not uncommon for there to be privately owned war ships with canon at the time of the founding. In fact, there is another part of the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) that authorizes the issuance of Letters of Marque. This would not be possible if private individuals were not allowed to own armed war ships. Putting this together with the 2nd amendment it is not a stretch to argue that privately own armed war ships are protected by the Constitution and in fact that if these do not exist that we no longer have a well regulated militia.

In addition, there are MANY privately owned jet fighters and other war birds in the US including bombers. There are currently restrictions that prevent these from being armed one of these being that gas weapons such as mustard gas are banded by international treaty/law. IE. it is illegal under international law for the government to have a jet fighter equipped with mustard gas bombs. So why would you ask if it was OK for an individual to own something that is illegal for the government to own?


Sorry - but what the F does this have to do with Lori Saldana and her run for Congress in the 52nd District? Why are you cluttering my thread with this crap?

You want to have an esoteric discussion (and not just you) about the meaning, limitations and ramifications of the Second Amendment - go ahead. Just do it in another thread.

Please.

For the love of all that's wonderful and good...

jdberger
05-01-2012, 1:33 AM
mailing flyers, emailing and mailing comments to newspapers, commenting on editorial articles in newpapers, calling registered voters in the district to vote for one of her opponents,..... I think you get the idea. The only thing you need to do is pick one of the opponents and go with it.

Right. At minimum, contact opponents and see what you can do.

As usual, thanks for showing up.

dwtt
05-01-2012, 4:52 AM
Right. At minimum, contact opponents and see what you can do.

As usual, thanks for showing up.

I can't show up since I'm in Bangkok, but thanks to Skype, I can make calls to people in her district to urge them to vote for one of her opponents. I can also conveniently call in the middle of the night to her supporters asking them for their vote, thanks to a 10-hour time difference. ;) No, let's not play dirty!

ja308
05-01-2012, 12:04 PM
The article states her opponent is A rated Brian Bilbray -contacting his campaine would be a good start to show a brady endorsement as a negative .

morfeeis
05-01-2012, 2:32 PM
Sadly, I find that most of the pro-second amendment politicians also tend to have positions opposite to mine on many other social issues. I wish we saw more politicians who said "I support ALL of your civil liberties, from gun rights to gay marriage, to not having the government spy on you".

Thats where you lost me.

radioman
05-01-2012, 5:48 PM
The Brady's would endorse the Devil if he was for gun control

ja308
05-01-2012, 9:36 PM
The Brady's would endorse the Devil if he was for gun control

They have endorsed those who have the fallen ones message over and over.
BTW I am quite pleased with the leadership in congress . Not sure what your sig line is in reference to?

fallenknight308
05-01-2012, 10:07 PM
I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" as that is associated with Ron Paul (who I think is a nutbag), but I think we need more politicians of a libertarian ideology in the dictionary sense i.e. support of civil liberties and personal responsibility.

I honestly wouldn't mind laws that say "ok, you can own an AR or AK pattern rifle, IF you can pass a test and show that you can handle one of them appropriately". I have no problem with demonstrating competence, maybe they could have a "gun license" in the same way we have a "driver's license" that could allow you to purchase the more restricted guns.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-leNf6VRGuww/TZOFwIlk-9I/AAAAAAAACK4/msVBuCf9zAo/s400/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg


To the OP: Thanks for the heads up! :cool2:

Uxi
05-02-2012, 9:58 AM
lol at the PC feathers that were ruffled.

But yeah, Brady endorsement is like a retard badge.