PDA

View Full Version : Did Unions Vote Away Our Gun Rights In CA?


Kenm
12-16-2012, 10:56 AM
With the latest gains by the Democrats to control all of the State offices they now can do anything that want to us such as repeal Prop 13 so property taxes can go up or take away or limit gun ownership. Is this a direct result of Union members voting for them?

dieselpower
12-16-2012, 11:08 AM
It doesnt matter how a Union member votes... the union dues you are forced to pay are used to support liberal / DNC candidates as well as the laws they author and push.

robcoe
12-16-2012, 11:11 AM
If you want the union that has done the most to sell out California gun owners, look at the police officers union.

ivsamhell
12-16-2012, 11:18 AM
It doesnt matter how a Union member votes... the union dues you are forced to pay are used to support liberal / DNC candidates as well as the laws they author and push.

no, you can opt out from your dues paying for anything other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

LCU1670
12-16-2012, 11:19 AM
Yes, the unions fund democratic elections and a lot of union members vote democrat as well.

Guntech
12-16-2012, 11:22 AM
It doesnt matter how a Union member votes... the union dues you are forced to pay are used to support liberal / DNC candidates as well as the laws they author and push.

They get you better wages, in exchange for your rights.

Guntech
12-16-2012, 11:23 AM
Yes, the unions fund democratic elections and a lot of union members vote democrat as well.

Heck yes they do, called me at least 20 times before November elections saying vote for Obama and other gun grabbers like Feinstein.

Tripper
12-16-2012, 11:30 AM
no, you can opt out from your dues paying for anything other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

Yah
That's a whole 10$ less

DVSmith
12-16-2012, 11:32 AM
If you want the union that has done the most to sell out California gun owners, look at the police officers union.

In part, because every piece of anti-gun legislation is written to exempt LEOs in order to gain their support. This has effectively created a gun owning super-class of citizens.

RRangel
12-16-2012, 11:47 AM
Yes, they have, and continue to do so. Unions by and large monetarily support leftist candidates, who we all know, support illogical gun controls. Whether done with specific intention, as to gun control or not, the result is the same.

IGOTDIRT4U
12-16-2012, 12:25 PM
In part, because every piece of anti-gun legislation is written to exempt LEOs in order to gain their support. This has effectively created a gun owning super-class of citizens.

Orwellian dream. Some animals are more equal than other animals.

I truly believe many union members voted Dem without thinking about the long term consequences, of even their own beliefs.n They were duped.

donw
12-16-2012, 12:26 PM
i WAS a member of a union before i retired...if given a choice, NOW...i don't think i would, VOLUNTARILY belong to a union...

IMO... please understand this...i'm very clearly saying, i personally, believe, for the biggest part, unions have outlived their usefulness...in the beginning, they were basically, formed for the protection and well being of the worker...now...more like for the pay and benefits...

pay and benefits are two of the biggest reasons the nation is in the condition it's in now...NOT THE ONLY REASONS, THOUGH, i understand that.

i was in a union for 38 years...when i retired, i got, from them...a new, empty wallet, with a lotto ticket in it and a handshake...no pension, no benefits, no bonus...

unions should NOT be able to influence the vote.

IMO the teachers union in California is more influential than the LEO union.

and yes...leo and legislators will ALWAYS exempt themselves from most laws involving firearms as they feel they should have the advantage over the average citizen.. (after all, they are a politicians/legislators private army to enforce law are they not? how many LEO would remain LEO if they were not allowed to 'open/concealed carry'? i'd wager, not many.)

IGOTDIRT4U
12-16-2012, 12:32 PM
In part, because every piece of anti-gun legislation is written to exempt LEOs in order to gain their support. This has effectively created a gun owning super-class of citizens.

Orwellian dream. Some animals are more equal than other animals.

I truly believe many union members voted Dem without thinking about the long term consequences, of even their own beliefs.n They were duped.

rivraton
12-16-2012, 1:05 PM
I used to be in the Teamsters and the UEW, both are run by crooks and thugs....

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:16 PM
I don't believe unions specifically want to ban firearms.

I think they want control of the Legislature so they can get bills passed that support there agendas.

Kenm
12-16-2012, 1:28 PM
But it would seem that most everyone the unions get elected are against gun ownership so the question still is did the unions vote away our gun rights? So what you are saying is the unions buy the legislatures to get what they want and that results in the people who oppose gun rights buying the same legislatures to do away with our gun rights.

wjc
12-16-2012, 1:30 PM
Essentially.

The people the unions support are generally for repression and the elimination of our rights.

bwiese
12-16-2012, 1:48 PM
Maybe indeed true, but the loss of gunrights revolves more around the decline of the *California* GOP party and its control by pro-lifers/ religionists, etc. And that caused the Dems to shift urther left since there was no effective opposition to moderate them.

Once these people got control of the party structure, they & their supported candidates started pronouncing untenable positions throughout CA.

CA GOP then made a deal with Willie Brown - who has 20+ points of IQ on any GOP manager - for 'safe seats'. This was effectively an 'affirmative action' program for GOP that didn't - for the short term - require real political productivity (i.e., real fought-for wins in swing-ish areas). The party & many candidates then swung 'open loop' [i.e., out of control] because they - again for the short term - could say anything and take any postion and somehow still get elected in these 'safe' districts.

Brown saw how demographics was working and just let time do its job. Didn't even take much money - union or otherwise - when your enemy is shooting himself in the foot, just stand back and let him. Combine this with poor PR by GOP widely perceived as anti-Hispanic (from Wilson administration) and they self-toasted at a bit faster rate than their other policies (antichoice, antiLGBT, etc) would dictate.

Today the CA GOP doesn't hold a single statewide seat and likely never will (until major reform ) - despite holding on to certain diminishing key areas.

We've hit the 1/3rd point in legislature too. There is no way unions alone could have achieved this - to do something "GOP stupid" at this scale would require more money than the unions have.

The state GOP party management, staff and machinery has been able to drabble on so long because the party income from donors and people working 'on the ground' is less about winning than anything else. This increasingly insignificant faction would rather see posturing than wins and rewards anything but winning. And when this analysis is presented to them, they [and their supporters] just respond with something like "We just need to move further right so our base recognizes it" or some other such nonsense.

My crowning example here is Dan Lungren. Antigun pro-life GOPer runs for governor and gets his *** kicked by - hold it - Gray Davis! That's about like being beaten in a footrace by a wheelchair-bound senior.

Until there's a party purge of people that don't want to win, nothing will change. (See: Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer: everytime Fiorina made a so-called pro-life statement, the polls the next day dropped; when she STFUd about it she could hold her own. That election was DIRECTLY determined by pro vs anti choice, period. I am unclear if Fiorina really believed what she said, but sure as hell party guidance should have been in place - but hold it, all they can do is lose.)

We again saw echoes of this in the Romney campaign, where the now-hugely-important single female vote was specifically targeted and alienated.

Guntech
12-16-2012, 8:34 PM
Maybe indeed true, but the loss of gunrights revolves more around the decline of the *California* GOP party and its control by pro-lifers/ religionists, etc. And that caused the Dems to shift urther left since there was no effective opposition to moderate them.

Once these people got control of the party structure, they & their supported candidates started pronouncing untenable positions throughout CA.

CA GOP then made a deal with Willie Brown - who has 20+ points of IQ on any GOP manager - for 'safe seats'. This was effectively an 'affirmative action' program for GOP that didn't - for the short term - require real political productivity (i.e., real fought-for wins in swing-ish areas). The party & many candidates then swung 'open loop' [i.e., out of control] because they - again for the short term - could say anything and take any postion and somehow still get elected in these 'safe' districts.

Brown saw how demographics was working and just let time do its job. Didn't even take much money - union or otherwise - when your enemy is shooting himself in the foot, just stand back and let him. Combine this with poor PR by GOP widely perceived as anti-Hispanic (from Wilson administration) and they self-toasted at a bit faster rate than their other policies (antichoice, antiLGBT, etc) would dictate.

Today the CA GOP doesn't hold a single statewide seat and likely never will (until major reform ) - despite holding on to certain diminishing key areas.

We've hit the 1/3rd point in legislature too. There is no way unions alone could have achieved this - to do something "GOP stupid" at this scale would require more money than the unions have.

The state GOP party management, staff and machinery has been able to drabble on so long because the party income from donors and people working 'on the ground' is less about winning than anything else. This increasingly insignificant faction would rather see posturing than wins and rewards anything but winning. And when this analysis is presented to them, they [and their supporters] just respond with something like "We just need to move further right so our base recognizes it" or some other such nonsense.

My crowning example here is Dan Lungren. Antigun pro-life GOPer runs for governor and gets his *** kicked by - hold it - Gray Davis! That's about like being beaten in a footrace by a wheelchair-bound senior.

Until there's a party purge of people that don't want to win, nothing will change. (See: Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer: everytime Fiorina made a so-called pro-life statement, the polls the next day dropped; when she STFUd about it she could hold her own. That election was DIRECTLY determined by pro vs anti choice, period. I am unclear if Fiorina really believed what she said, but sure as hell party guidance should have been in place - but hold it, all they can do is lose.)

We again saw echoes of this in the Romney campaign, where the now-hugely-important single female vote was specifically targeted and alienated.


Probably true, but I would have to disagree with you as far as this putting the final nail in Romneys coffin. GOP would have been hard pressed to put up anyone who could beat BHO, divide was too great. The young vote played a large role and it will take as long to change their opinions as it took for the Education system to brainwash them.

WAMO556
12-16-2012, 9:16 PM
Look, you guys got it all wrong. I and my brother are CONSERVATIVES. We watched how the RNC treated the Ron Paul delegates. We watched again when Beohner and his cronies conducted their "Night of the Long Knives" by throwing out FOUR conservative republicans from key committee positions, these same representatives found out they were being "fired" by watching the news. How is it that the Republicans are to keep us in rank and file, when they keep doing really stupid $H!T...

Boehner will cave on taxes - because that is what he does.
Boehner will cave on anything that requires intestinal fortitude and side with the Dems. The reason??? He wants to get re-elected.

At the elected level, there is hardly any difference philosophically between the Reps or the Dems. We're in debt, both parties are guilty of being indolent at the public trough; republicans with their military and the Dems with their Unions. Both exact HUGE amounts of laundered money for either party.

Unfortunately, the Dems have successfully run a information Operation that Corporations are run by the rich, but the rich and the corporations mostly support Democrats, but yet the Reps believe that less taxes are better, which equates the Reps with rich.

What we need to do is have a constitutional convention to repeal the 16th amendment, require senators to be e,excited by the states as it once was (by the Constitution).

Oh yeah, and END THE FED.

uhlan1
12-16-2012, 9:33 PM
In part, because every piece of anti-gun legislation is written to exempt LEOs in order to gain their support. This has effectively created a gun owning super-class of citizens.

Yup, and they're effective support for gun control at a very low price to the Dems. I know one who makes some nice spare change buying off roster guns and re-selling. Classic "I got mine".

Sgt Raven
12-17-2012, 5:27 PM
With the latest gains by the Democrats to control all of the State offices they now can do anything that want to us such as repeal Prop 13 so property taxes can go up or take away or limit gun ownership. Is this a direct result of Union members voting for them?

They can't do anything to Prop 13 tax rates without a vote of the people. The only way to alter an initiative is by another initiative. You don't help your case when your misstate the facts. :oji:

Kenm
12-19-2012, 1:41 PM
Did not intend to misstate anything. I was remembering when the vote was taken and thought one of the provisions was it could be repealled or overridden by a 2/3 vote by the legislators. I have seen a number of articles lately in various newspapers about Prop 13 and a recurring theme was did it need to be repealled. If it can only be repealled by the voters that is good.

Many of the propositions that have been voted on and won have not been implemented because a judge has interviened. This may or may not be due to the quality of the wording of the prop or it might just be an activist judge. I do recall Prop 13 had a lengthly time in the court.

Lacunacraft
12-19-2012, 2:16 PM
Maybe indeed true, but the loss of gunrights revolves more around the decline of the *California* GOP party and its control by pro-lifers/ religionists, etc. And that caused the Dems to shift urther left since there was no effective opposition to moderate them.

Once these people got control of the party structure, they & their supported candidates started pronouncing untenable positions throughout CA.

CA GOP then made a deal with Willie Brown - who has 20+ points of IQ on any GOP manager - for 'safe seats'. This was effectively an 'affirmative action' program for GOP that didn't - for the short term - require real political productivity (i.e., real fought-for wins in swing-ish areas). The party & many candidates then swung 'open loop' [i.e., out of control] because they - again for the short term - could say anything and take any postion and somehow still get elected in these 'safe' districts.

Brown saw how demographics was working and just let time do its job. Didn't even take much money - union or otherwise - when your enemy is shooting himself in the foot, just stand back and let him. Combine this with poor PR by GOP widely perceived as anti-Hispanic (from Wilson administration) and they self-toasted at a bit faster rate than their other policies (antichoice, antiLGBT, etc) would dictate.

Today the CA GOP doesn't hold a single statewide seat and likely never will (until major reform ) - despite holding on to certain diminishing key areas.

We've hit the 1/3rd point in legislature too. There is no way unions alone could have achieved this - to do something "GOP stupid" at this scale would require more money than the unions have.

The state GOP party management, staff and machinery has been able to drabble on so long because the party income from donors and people working 'on the ground' is less about winning than anything else. This increasingly insignificant faction would rather see posturing than wins and rewards anything but winning. And when this analysis is presented to them, they [and their supporters] just respond with something like "We just need to move further right so our base recognizes it" or some other such nonsense.

My crowning example here is Dan Lungren. Antigun pro-life GOPer runs for governor and gets his *** kicked by - hold it - Gray Davis! That's about like being beaten in a footrace by a wheelchair-bound senior.

Until there's a party purge of people that don't want to win, nothing will change. (See: Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer: everytime Fiorina made a so-called pro-life statement, the polls the next day dropped; when she STFUd about it she could hold her own. That election was DIRECTLY determined by pro vs anti choice, period. I am unclear if Fiorina really believed what she said, but sure as hell party guidance should have been in place - but hold it, all they can do is lose.)

We again saw echoes of this in the Romney campaign, where the now-hugely-important single female vote was specifically targeted and alienated.

This is the real cause of why the democrats are in control. The GOP refuses to see that certain positions they back are just not going to win them anything in California.

All they really need to do is drop them and I think you will see the GOP start winning in California because the people are tired of Sacramento's failures. You just can't win when you argue for positions that people in this state are adamantly against.

Unfortunately, this is also becoming true enough nation wide. The Democrats right now are crushing the GOP demographically. They are winning the future voters votes easily.

If you want a state to look at, look at Virginia. A state that was SOLIDLY red has drifted blue simply due to demographic changes.

IT will be an interesting few years going forward to say the least.

mjmagee67
12-19-2012, 2:21 PM
I am forced to be a Union member by state law.

Kinda odd that the Democrats are not Pro-choice when it comes to Unions.

Trenchfoot
12-19-2012, 2:55 PM
If you want a state to look at, look at Virginia. A state that was SOLIDLY red has drifted blue simply due to demographic changes.

IT will be an interesting few years going forward to say the least.

If demographics continue at the pace they are going and the GOP doesn't modernize it's social values, Texas will be a blue state in 2024, and the GOP will never get the Whitehouse back.

I really do think that the GOP's fiscal ideals resonate with most Americans, even the "47%". But we are emotional creatures, and when we see legislation and actions that seem to target our demographic unfairly, i.e. Arizona's "show me your papers" laws, proposals of Constitutional Amendments to ban gay marriage, Rush Limbaugh calling women sluts because they want contraception coverage and having GOP members defend not wanting contraception coverage, but defending erectile dysfunction drugs being covered because they are "life giving drugs", it causes us to react. Not to mention having a congressional hearing on the contraception mandate of Obamacare and refusing to let any women speak.

I haven't been in California long enough to know a lot about state level politics, but on a national level, the GOP has shot itself in the foot. When I was young, Ronald Reagan inspired me, but I am afraid of a world like the one in "V for Vendetta" if the GOP's current crop of theocrats gets their way. I believe in America, I have deployed to warzones for America, I believe in the Constitution, and I respect the few Republicans like Ron Paul because he advocates for liberty even if it is something that goes against his personal morals.

Let's face it. This country is never going back to the 1950's where homosexuals stayed in the closet, unmarried people didn't have sex (or at least admit to it), divorce was rare, you could beat your wife, the races were segregated, the local cop would drive you home if you got picked up drunk driving, and you could win a national election solely on the white male vote. The sooner the GOP realizes this, the better the country will be, because even though I am socially liberal, I don't want to see either political party have supermajorities in both houses and have the Whitehouse. That's too much power for either party to wield judiciously.

Kenm
12-25-2012, 12:13 PM
Well this is an interesting article. Not repealling Prop 13 just taking away parts at a time. Interesting that they want to change the provision to allow local property taxes to be changed.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Prop-13-revision-efforts-pick-up-steam-4144515.php

sarabellum
12-25-2012, 12:30 PM
Both the democrats and republicans have and will take gun rights:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people

The two corporate party monopoly is unconstitutional as it is no where mentioned in the constitution. Yet, the 2A community bought into it lock, stock, and barrel.

chris
12-25-2012, 12:48 PM
of course they did. since most democrats in office here IMO are against us. then yes unions are responsible for it. and also hold responsibility for the finincial mess we are in also.

Bobby Hated
12-25-2012, 11:27 PM
im a union member and proud. i think this is one of the best union states in the union. unfortunately democrats are hypocrites and decry every violation of civil liberties, except when it comes to the liberty to keep and bear arms.

i voted for a full GOP slate.

Hogstir
12-26-2012, 8:24 AM
no, you can opt out from your dues paying for anything other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

Calif School Employees Association (CSEA) does not use any dues monies to fund lobbying. You would have to voluntarily donate to the political fund.

ClarenceBoddicker
12-26-2012, 9:05 AM
CCPOA

/Thread