PDA

View Full Version : Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Issues Statement


kemasa
12-21-2012, 2:01 PM
This is the person responsible for enforcing the laws in the state and it is clear that she is not qualified, so she really should be removed from office.


SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement in response to the National Rifle Association’s press conference:
“It has been a painful week since the horrifying tragedy in Newtown. Instead of reckless calls to saturate our schools with guns, we should remove guns from the hands of dangerous people. California is the only state with a strong program that identifies and disarms prohibited persons, which should serve as a national model. I will strengthen this program and support stricter state and federal legislation, including Senator Feinstein’s effort to pass a federal assault weapons ban.”


She does not want armed police or others who are trained at schools in order to protect children? Then perhaps we should get a lot of guns off the streets and take them away from police, or at least anyone who protects any area in which Kamala D. Harris happens to be. I suspect her view would change at that point.

mcisniper
12-21-2012, 5:16 PM
I have no problem with a ban. Take them away! Away from private citizens, law enforcement (duty weapons and personal), Federal Agencies (ATF, CBP, CIA, DIA, DEA, FBI, ICE, Justice; including Secret Service...) and the military when stationed on CONUS :nono: . You receive your weapon when you board the plane/ship to deploy.

In the New United States where everything seems it must be equal... MAKE IT EQUAL!

See how long we last. Better brush up on your Mandarin and Spanish.

Librarian
12-21-2012, 8:58 PM
On line at http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement

SanPedroShooter
12-21-2012, 9:13 PM
Elections, consequences...

blah blah blah.

I am tired.

samsigsauer
12-21-2012, 9:36 PM
She wants to have a sanctuary state like San Francisco Sanctuary City!!!!!


http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/San-Francisco-Sanctuary-City-Gone-Awry-2481280.php

MattyB
12-21-2012, 9:50 PM
She wants to have a sanctuary state like San Francisco Sanctuary City!!!!!


http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/San-Francisco-Sanctuary-City-Gone-Awry-2481280.php

I hate to make light of that story.. but is the victim really named..

TONY BOLOGNA???

Depending on pronunciation, he might as well be a Mafia Don in a comic book:facepalm:

Oh and Harris can ______ herself. The fact that she is all for refusing to prosecute or help enforce laws against illegal entrance into the country but is all over denying constitutional rights to citizens is just mind blowing.

This cherry picking BS about what is ok and what isnt instead of what is legal and what is illegal has got to stop.

Does the CGF fund include the attempt to oust State AG's that have refused to uphold their sworn duty? If so I got another couple hundred bucks just for that cause.

tcrpe
12-21-2012, 10:21 PM
we should remove guns from the hands of dangerous people

Can't argue with that.

Problem is . . . . . . . . How do we decide?

Certainly she's not equipped.





How about we just box up the crazies?

'Ike'
12-21-2012, 10:30 PM
We're screwed plain and simple in this state, it's just a matter of time...Only thing to decide is where to move!

Legasat
12-21-2012, 10:33 PM
I have no problem with a ban. Take them away! Away from private citizens, law enforcement (duty weapons and personal), Federal Agencies (ATF, CBP, CIA, DIA, DEA, FBI, ICE, Justice; including Secret Service...) and the military when stationed on CONUS.

Who will take them away from the bad guys?

Rossi357
12-21-2012, 10:41 PM
Sounds like she is more interested in who has a gun than protecting children.

vantec08
12-22-2012, 5:59 AM
Sounds like she is more interested in who has a gun than protecting children.

Right. This is where the antis arguments fall on their face -- "gun control" as proposed by liberals is about 250 years, one bill of rights, and 300 million guns too late.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-22-2012, 7:01 AM
Can't argue with that.

Problem is . . . . . . . . How do we decide?

Certainly she's not equipped.





How about we just box up the crazies?


In California?????? Do you know much space that would take?


The Raisuli

frankm
12-22-2012, 7:06 AM
Wow, the left really does NOT care about children. Saturating schools with guns? You mean cops with guns, don't ya? If you cared about one little dead body, there'd be cops in schools RIGHT NOW! You are evil. You are really evil, aren't you. Shall we fit you for a Mao jacket? Or do you already own one?

spencerhut
12-22-2012, 7:09 AM
Wow, the left really does NOT care about children. Saturating schools with guns? You mean cops with guns, don't ya? If you cared about one little dead body, there'd be cops in schools RIGHT NOW! You are evil. You are really evil, aren't you. Shall we fit you for a Mao jacket? Or do you already own one?

Nailed it on the freaking head. I'm feeling it too . . .

kimo0311
12-22-2012, 7:23 AM
If one American can't have T&E price large then know one should unless we're doing training excersizes for a war that's voted to be in by us Americans and not Coorperate kings and corrupt politicians. I wouldn't mind going to battle with my hands and a kabar:)

tcrpe
12-22-2012, 7:28 AM
Wow, the left really does NOT care about children. Saturating schools with guns? You mean cops with guns, don't ya? If you cared about one little dead body, there'd be cops in schools RIGHT NOW! You are evil. You are really evil, aren't you. Shall we fit you for a Mao jacket? Or do you already own one?

Calm down, frank.

Dantedamean
12-22-2012, 7:29 AM
It's amazing, the only reason so many are pushing back against this is because it was the NRA that suggested it. Had it been a liberal that suggested putting police officers at schools then everyone would think it is a great idea.


Politics trumps safety in America I suppose.

billmaykafer
12-22-2012, 8:08 AM
the gang that brought you waco,ruby ridge and branch davidian also brought you Fast & Furious... i guess it is ok for our government to send guns to drug cartels in a foreign country,but don't believe in the us constitution.

Capybara
12-22-2012, 8:11 AM
Liberals did suggest the same thing the NRA suggested yesterday, Bill Clinton during his presidency http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323 and Barbara Boxer last week http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/barbara-boxer-introduces-school-safety-bill-which-features-armed-guards-on-campus-50653/.

That's what pisses me off about these hypocritical idiots, NRA suggests it = bad, evil terrible. Liberals suggest same thing = oh, yes, we should consider that.

drkft
12-22-2012, 8:18 AM
We're screwed plain and simple in this state, it's just a matter of time...Only thing to decide is where to move!

I already made my decision. Born and raised in CA. It was a great state before liberals from the east coast moved in and changed the political landscape. Just bought property in the hill country of Texas. Beautiful. Land relatively inexpensive (compared to CA). I can hunt on my own property. The realtor told me that 8 of the last 10 buyers were from CA. Hopefully no liberal Borgs coming to change Texas like they changed and ruined CA.

colossians323
12-22-2012, 8:20 AM
Who will take them away from the bad guys?
The police of course :rolleyes:

foxtrotuniformlima
12-22-2012, 8:38 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part. They do not want any more laws restricting the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that is the view of many of their members but certainly not all.

If the NRA wants to be involved with what is about to happen, they need to recognize that the landscape has changed. They had (maybe still do ) a chance to suggest a few things that in the past they said no to but now think might work such as background checks for all gun transfers and purchases. Instead, they take the stand of " not one inch."

All transactions have a buyer and a seller. Whether we like it or not, we are the seller. We set our price as " not one inch" and the politicians, who are the buyer , say no. They do not have to say yes because they feel that they have enough votes to pass whatever they want and judging from some of the comments made lately by the blue dog Dems, they probably do. If that is the case, we are left with no one to sell to and unfortunately, we do not have enough voters on our side to remove them from office.

Our only hope is that the House of Reps has a strong enough back bone. We need to let them know that we have their back. The Senate will pass something. If the house caves, we are screwed.

And judging from the recent activities in the marketplace, the public thinks they will cave.

Dutch3
12-22-2012, 8:45 AM
There are already armed officers assigned to many schools in California. Is Ms. Harris planning to put an end to that as well?

Obviously, it must be "reckless".

jbj
12-22-2012, 8:46 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part. They do not want any more laws restricting the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that is the view of many of their members but certainly not all.

If the NRA wants to be involved with what is about to happen, they need to recognize that the landscape has changed. They had (maybe still do ) a chance to suggest a few things that in the past they said no to but now think might work such as background checks for all gun transfers and purchases. Instead, they take the stand of " not one inch."

All transactions have a buyer and a seller. Whether we like it or not, we are the seller. We set our price as " not one inch" and the politicians, who are the buyer , say no. They do not have to say yes because they feel that they have enough votes to pass whatever they want and judging from some of the comments made lately by the blue dog Dems, they probably do. If that is the case, we are left with no one to sell to and unfortunately, we do not have enough voters on our side to remove them from office.

Our only hope is that the House of Reps has a strong enough back bone. We need to let them know that we have their back. The Senate will pass something. If the house caves, we are screwed.

And judging from the recent activities in the marketplace, the public thinks they will cave.

+1
The truth of the matter is that the NRA needs to try to get a seat at the table to at least minimize the damage, if not steer the discussion, instead of looking like heartless obstructionists.

As for the House of Representatives, they can't get anything passed at all, spine or not.

tbhracing
12-22-2012, 8:50 AM
We're screwed plain and simple in this state, it's just a matter of time...Only thing to decide is where to move!

Arizona or Nevada, brother.

speleogist
12-22-2012, 8:56 AM
"The rest of the country should model their gun laws after ours."

4th highest rate of gun-related incidents per capita in the nation seems to escape a lot of people when they mention our "great" laws.

jetoboy88
12-22-2012, 8:59 AM
It's amazing, the only reason so many are pushing back against this is because it was the NRA that suggested it. Had it been a liberal that suggested putting police officers at schools then everyone would think it is a great idea.


Politics trumps safety in America I suppose.

More like Politics and cheap Dog and Pony Tricks trumps Common Sense period....

Folks, the NRA could find a cure for AIDS and the progressives will just denounce it as 'snake oil'... If it's claimed that the same formula came from "one of their kind" and all of a sudden it's a Global Scale Miracle...

No different then when the same people who were calling for G.W. Bush to be held up for War Crimes for opening the Guantanamo Bay Prison, are cheering Barack Obama on as he got his Nobel Prize despite breaking his promise to close it, and authorizing Drone Strikes at Sovereign Nations around the World.

And folks, it's not just a Liberal vs Conservative issue. Both sides are guilty in some scale or another. Fact is that nothing significant is ever going to move forward in this country simply because those that CAN make a difference are more interested in stroking their egos than becoming a solution to anything anymore...

philobeddoe
12-22-2012, 9:04 AM
I already made my decision. Born and raised in CA. It was a great state before liberals from the east coast moved in and changed the political landscape. Just bought property in the hill country of Texas. Beautiful. Land relatively inexpensive (compared to CA). I can hunt on my own property. The realtor told me that 8 of the last 10 buyers were from CA. Hopefully no liberal Borgs coming to change Texas like they changed and ruined CA.

Stop with the finger pointing. I'm a Jew lawyer from NY who moved to California and I am not part of the problem. You're painting with an awfully broad brush. There are legions of West Coast granola crunching Occupiers that were spawned right here in the Golden State.

Your new spread sounds really great, I hope it works out for you.

Hopefully no one accuses you of running to the hills instead of bugging in and banging it out with the rest of us.

Merry Christmas.

kemasa
12-22-2012, 9:07 AM
Politicians dancing on the blood of innocents.

She says:


we should remove guns from the hands of dangerous people


So why has she not removed firearms from criminals and politicians?

Ford8N
12-22-2012, 9:12 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part. They do not want any more laws restricting the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that is the view of many of their members but certainly not all.

If the NRA wants to be involved with what is about to happen, they need to recognize that the landscape has changed. They had (maybe still do ) a chance to suggest a few things that in the past they said no to but now think might work such as background checks for all gun transfers and purchases. Instead, they take the stand of " not one inch."

All transactions have a buyer and a seller. Whether we like it or not, we are the seller. We set our price as " not one inch" and the politicians, who are the buyer , say no. They do not have to say yes because they feel that they have enough votes to pass whatever they want and judging from some of the comments made lately by the blue dog Dems, they probably do. If that is the case, we are left with no one to sell to and unfortunately, we do not have enough voters on our side to remove them from office.

Our only hope is that the House of Reps has a strong enough back bone. We need to let them know that we have their back. The Senate will pass something. If the house caves, we are screwed.

And judging from the recent activities in the marketplace, the public thinks they will cave.

If the anti's say the NRA needs to compromise, then lets truly compromise. If they want background checks for FTF sales(gun show loop hole) then if I can pass the background check, I want to be able to buy NFA firearms in all 50 states and have nationwide CCW. Otherwise, FOoooooo.

guns_and_labs
12-22-2012, 9:32 AM
There are already armed officers assigned to many schools in California. Is Ms. Harris planning to put an end to that as well?

Obviously, it must be "reckless".
I frequently notice police cars outside of San Francisco schools as I drive by. I do hope they are leaving their guns in the car when they go in. Ms. Harris insists that it is reckless not to.

El Toro
12-22-2012, 9:56 AM
I already made my decision. Born and raised in CA. It was a great state before liberals from the east coast moved in and changed the political landscape. Just bought property in the hill country of Texas. Beautiful. Land relatively inexpensive (compared to CA). I can hunt on my own property. The realtor told me that 8 of the last 10 buyers were from CA. Hopefully no liberal Borgs coming to change Texas like they changed and ruined CA.

Austin = Texan Liberal Nirvanna

philobeddoe
12-22-2012, 9:58 AM
I frequently notice police cars outside of San Francisco schools as I drive by. I do hope they are leaving their guns in the car when they go in. Ms. Harris insists that it is reckless not to.

I drive by HS's on the way to work in the AM here in SoCal and see police cars out front as well. I wonder.

I went to HS in PA. Plenty of shotguns and rifles in the pickup trucks back then. Never a problem with firearms at my HS and the cops only came once and it wasn't on account of firearms or anything weapon/violence related.

kemasa
12-22-2012, 10:00 AM
If the anti's say the NRA needs to compromise, then lets truly compromise. If they want background checks for FTF sales(gun show loop hole) then if I can pass the background check, I want to be able to buy NFA firearms in all 50 states and have nationwide CCW. Otherwise, FOoooooo.


+1, but I hope you mean that a nation-wide CCW means that if you are not a criminal nor otherwise prohibited, that you can lawfully carry anywhere to defend yourself. A permit is an infringement of your Right. Vermont Carry.

One side has already compromised MANY times. It is now time for the other side to "compromise", but please realize that you should not compromise your Rights away.

ap3572001
12-22-2012, 10:05 AM
If the anti's say the NRA needs to compromise, then lets truly compromise. If they want background checks for FTF sales(gun show loop hole) then if I can pass the background check, I want to be able to buy NFA firearms in all 50 states and have nationwide CCW. Otherwise, FOoooooo.

+1!!!! Anyone who is "good enough" to buy and own a handgun , is good enough to qualify with it and carry it. Carry it anywhere in the US.

To take this one step further , if You are good enough to carry a loaded pistol with CCW , You are probably good enough to carry and own whatever You want.

Makes sense?

It does to me.

lavey29
12-22-2012, 10:10 AM
Who will take them away from the bad guys?


Who will (try) to take then away from the good guys?

The Shadow
12-22-2012, 10:17 AM
From the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

California has the highest murder rate according to the FBI, yet the Brady's say that California has the best gun laws. Maybe Kamala wants to comment about that.

speedrrracer
12-22-2012, 10:46 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part. They do not want any more laws restricting the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that is the view of many of their members but certainly not all.

It is an excellent position to take, and they were wise to take it.

Let me give you some awesome advice on negotiation in general. Don't surrender anything unless you get something back. The NRA knows this, and they're playing it smart.


If the NRA wants to be involved with what is about to happen, they need to recognize that the landscape has changed.

Says who? You sound like the talking heads on TV. What, exactly, is different? Did the landscape also change after Virginia Tech?

All the NRA needs to be involved is money. Enough of it and all this goes away. Tell the House Reeps (and, any Dems we can afford) they'll be supported financially if they vote against gun control, and their opponents will be supported financially if they vote for gun control. If the financial support has enough zeroes, it's a done deal.

Do they have enough? We'll see.

They do not have to say yes because they feel that they have enough votes to pass whatever they want and judging from some of the comments made lately by the blue dog Dems, they probably do.

We don't necessarily need Dems of any color or species. The Reeps have the House majority, by my informal count it's 240 out of 435 total members. If voting happens along party lines, with Dems for gun control and Reeps against, then absolutely no new federal gun control legislation will be passed whatsoever.


Our only hope is that the House of Reps has a strong enough back bone. We need to let them know that we have their back. The Senate will pass something. If the house caves, we are screwed.

Agreed -- all rests on the House, but keep in mind, we don't know the shape of any proposed legislation at this point. Lotta things can happen between now and then...

Rossi357
12-22-2012, 10:58 AM
From the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

California has the highest murder rate according to the FBI, yet the Brady's say that California has the best gun laws. Maybe Kamala wants to comment about that.

Brady's rating system is not based on how well the restrictions work, only how restrictive they are.

drkft
12-22-2012, 11:09 AM
Stop with the finger pointing. I'm a Jew lawyer from NY who moved to California and I am not part of the problem. You're painting with an awfully broad brush. There are legions of West Coast granola crunching Occupiers that were spawned right here in the Golden State.

Your new spread sounds really great, I hope it works out for you.

Hopefully no one accuses you of running to the hills instead of bugging in and banging it out with the rest of us.

Merry Christmas.

No offense intended. I'm not Jewish but my best friend is. He's thinking of moving to Texas as well. No I'll hang in here as long as possible and fight the good fight. My practice is here. But if our side is overwhelmed by the political Koolaid drinkers, promising eternal Nirvana when the last evil firearm is wrenched from all of our cold dead hands, then I have this as plan B. You are right about the "Volvo driving, Berkeley, granola, birkenstock crowd." OMG did I step in it again? :D

Ford8N
12-22-2012, 11:16 AM
From the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

California has the highest murder rate according to the FBI, yet the Brady's say that California has the best gun laws. Maybe Kamala wants to comment about that.

Thanks for that chart. Compare North Dakota to California. Everything is legal in ND. Shall issue CCW, AW's, Full auto's, SBR/SBS, silencers, no waiting period, face to face sales. There is a huge cultural difference toward guns in that state compared to California. It's a perfect example that more gun laws mean less crime. There is a big difference in one area, but it's not politically correct to mention. It is an enormous elephant in the room. But it's a glaring fact in the US Census.

MEGSDAD
12-22-2012, 11:17 AM
the message from us needs to be " we dont want guns in the hands of the mentally unstable and criminals either. BUT, taking guns from law abiding citizens WONT make you any safer. if you want to talk about how do do this we'll listen. when you talk ban.. NO.

kemasa
12-22-2012, 11:18 AM
Gun Free Zones get people killed. It is quite simple. There is also the line that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. They have tried banning firearms again and again and the results are the same. So, it is now time to try something different, allowing people to defend themselves.

tcrpe
12-22-2012, 11:54 AM
Allowing people to defend themselves, and boxing up the crazies.

philobeddoe
12-22-2012, 6:40 PM
No offense intended. I'm not Jewish but my best friend is. He's thinking of moving to Texas as well. No I'll hang in here as long as possible and fight the good fight. My practice is here. But if our side is overwhelmed by the political Koolaid drinkers, promising eternal Nirvana when the last evil firearm is wrenched from all of our cold dead hands, then I have this as plan B. You are right about the "Volvo driving, Berkeley, granola, birkenstock crowd." OMG did I step in it again? :D

No offense taken, just pointing out that knuckleheads come in all color and stripe, and the problem is worldwide. FWIW, I'm miserly, and I control the banks and media.

GREASY357
12-22-2012, 8:04 PM
Instead of reckless calls to saturate our schools with guns, we should remove guns from the hands of dangerous people.

Keep guns out of teachers possession because teachers are dangerous people

huntercf
12-22-2012, 8:07 PM
If the anti's say the NRA needs to compromise, then lets truly compromise. If they want background checks for FTF sales(gun show loop hole) then if I can pass the background check, I want to be able to buy NFA firearms in all 50 states and have nationwide CCW. Otherwise, FOoooooo.

^^^+1
I would also add, if you pass the background check (instant) you take your purchase with you.

Sakiri
12-22-2012, 8:22 PM
+1!!!! Anyone who is "good enough" to buy and own a handgun , is good enough to qualify with it and carry it. Carry it anywhere in the US.

To take this one step further , if You are good enough to carry a loaded pistol with CCW , You are probably good enough to carry and own whatever You want.

Makes sense?

It does to me.

In a rather large number of states, the first equals the second.

Can you buy it? Yes? Ok, then give us 50 bucks and here's your CCW.

How a friend of mine got hers in Washington State. Makes me sad.

And she doesn't even carry. She got it because her husband wanted her to have it, but she's not big into guns and doesn't carry.

Paul S
12-22-2012, 8:22 PM
If one American can't have T&E price large then know one should unless we're doing training excersizes for a war that's voted to be in by us Americans and not Coorperate kings and corrupt politicians. I wouldn't mind going to battle with my hands and a kabar:)

Sorry friend...you lost me there.

SPROCKET
12-22-2012, 10:09 PM
Kamala Harris did her level best to keep dangerous scumbags on the street while she was San Francisco DA. It's been posted before but it bears reposting as it show where her priorities lie. Below are the result of arrests made in the Bayview during part of 2005. These are straight from a community bulletin on the SFPD website.

I mentioned back in March that we were going to begin tracking our gun
arrest cases in an effort to find out why so many armed gang members seem
to be on the streets of the Bayview, even though our officers are arresting
them on a constant basis. We have almost six month's worth of data, and it
was a bit shocking when we first started to take a look at it. Although
the cases of most of the individuals arrested for gun charges in the past
six months have not yet been settled, 17 cases have been, and these are the
results:
A man booked for a stolen, loaded and concealed handgun pled guilty to a
misdemeanor and was given 3 years probation and 3 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for a loaded and concealed handgun was given misdemeanor
probation.
A man booked for a loaded and concealed handgun pled guilty to a felony and
was given 90 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of an assault rifle pled guilty to a
misdemeanor and was given 3 years probation and 90 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a concealed handgun and drugs had the gun
charge dismissed and the drug charge prosecuted.
A man booked for aggravated assault with a firearm had the case dismissed.
A man booked for possession of an assault rifle had the case dismissed.
A man booked for possession of a concealed handgun with obliterated serial
numbers pled guilty to a misdemeanor and was given 3 years probation and 90
days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a loaded and concealed handgun pled guilty
to a misdemeanor and was given three years probation and 2 days in the
County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a loaded and concealed handgun pled guilty
to a felony and was given 83 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a loaded and concealed handgun had the case
dismissed.
A man booked for possession of a stolen, concealed, and loaded handgun pled
guilty to a misdemeanor and was given 90 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a firearm by a felon pled guilty to a
misdemeanor and was given 37 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a firearm by a felon pled guilty to a felony
and was given 6 months in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a firearm by a felon pled guilty to a
misdemeanor and was given 37 days in the County Jail.
A man booked for possession of a firearm with obliterated serial numbers
had the case dismissed.
A man booked for possession of a firearm by a felon had the case dismissed.

Flipdude
12-22-2012, 11:41 PM
Gun control? Heard that before...does Eric Holder ring a bell? How much do you want to bet that with all the communities all over the U.S., who are falling for this BS and turning in their firearms to be destroyed, some of these guns will turn out missing. Gun control you say? Another Fast and Furious!

The only thing that will come out of this assault weapons ban will be:
1. All and any weapons ban (since the ASWB worked).
2. A black market for weapons.
3. Higher crime rates (where is California going to put these criminals if caught? in our over crowded jails?)
4. More school and public place mass shootings!

Come on legislators! Don't you people have enough brain power see what the outcome of your proposed gun ban laws will do? When fast and furious failed, nothing was done to hold these people accountable! But when a firearms related tragedy happens, the NRA is held accountable? Stop using the NRA as a scapegoat for all of your failed attempts on lame gun laws and start working with the NRA to empower the 2nd amendment and not bash it!

DannyInSoCal
12-22-2012, 11:56 PM
"Feeling" safe is more important then actually "Being" safe.

When comforting the next group of parents mourning the murders of their children -

Harris can say:

"We did everything we could. We disarmed law abiding citizens and passed more laws..."

Neo Sharkey
12-23-2012, 8:25 AM
+1
The truth of the matter is that the NRA needs to try to get a seat at the table to at least minimize the damage, if not steer the discussion, instead of looking like heartless obstructionists.

As for the House of Representatives, they can't get anything passed at all, spine or not.

We got into the mess we are in because we keep "compromising" which is really us just giving up more of our rights. We keep going like this, they are going to make everything illegal eventually.

We have to make it clear that we are not going to go along with any more restrictions without a Quid pro quo. If they want to talk about a real compromise (i.e. Federal 31 round magazine limits (since the Aurora shooter used a 50 or 100 round mag, with exemptions for licensed class III folks), but we get must issue CCW with no restrictions where we can carry, or something of equal value) then we can talk.

Neo Sharkey
12-23-2012, 8:27 AM
Gun control? Heard that before...does Eric Holder ring a bell? How much do you want to bet that with all the communities all over the U.S., who are falling for this BS and turning in their firearms to be destroyed, some of these guns will turn out missing. Gun control you say? Another Fast and Furious!

The only thing that will come out of this assault weapons ban will be:
1. All and any weapons ban (since the ASWB worked).
2. A black market for weapons.
3. Higher crime rates (where is California going to put these criminals if caught? in our over crowded jails?)
4. More school and public place mass shootings!

Come on legislators! Don't you people have enough brain power see what the outcome of your proposed gun ban laws will do? When fast and furious failed, nothing was done to hold these people accountable! But when a firearms related tragedy happens, the NRA is held accountable? Stop using the NRA as a scapegoat for all of your failed attempts on lame gun laws and start working with the NRA to empower the 2nd amendment and not bash it!

You missed one.

5. Civil War II.

They know a ban won't save a single life. They want more tragedies that they can use to push more gun control. We have to call them out on it and make it clear we won't go along with it.

SPUTTER
12-23-2012, 8:37 AM
You know...All you who say these gungrabbers are stupid, because of the stupid laws and ideas they come up with are wrong. They aren't stupid, but they are playing everyone else as stupid.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-23-2012, 9:45 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part. They do not want any more laws restricting the citizens right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that is the view of many of their members but certainly not all.

If the NRA wants to be involved with what is about to happen, they need to recognize that the landscape has changed. They had (maybe still do ) a chance to suggest a few things that in the past they said no to but now think might work such as background checks for all gun transfers and purchases. Instead, they take the stand of " not one inch."

All transactions have a buyer and a seller. Whether we like it or not, we are the seller. We set our price as " not one inch" and the politicians, who are the buyer , say no. They do not have to say yes because they feel that they have enough votes to pass whatever they want and judging from some of the comments made lately by the blue dog Dems, they probably do. If that is the case, we are left with no one to sell to and unfortunately, we do not have enough voters on our side to remove them from office.

Our only hope is that the House of Reps has a strong enough back bone. We need to let them know that we have their back. The Senate will pass something. If the house caves, we are screwed.

And judging from the recent activities in the marketplace, the public thinks they will cave.


NO! The NRA should NOT give an inch. We are very much fighting people who, when given an inch, will take a foot. Then another foot, & so on & so on. They have ZERO desire to "compromise" & WLP knows this.

Yes, we could point out to the anti-Constitutionalists that Moore v Madigan is only the first step & that "and bear" is coming soon whether they want it or not. We could agree to give up large capacity mags & they could agree that "only inside the home" is false & we'd have nationwide "Shall Issue" next month.

But why on earth would we want to do this? Moore v Madigan really is only the first step. We'll have "and bear" soon enough. That fight is nearly done. We're going to win it. This means that we don't have any other reason to compromise either. The courts are coming around. Once the Main Issue (individual Right) was settled, it was (and is) only a matter of time. And not all that long a time either. The last four years have seen a tremendous body of work done by Gura & others. Those cases are about to hit SCOTUS & we're going to win them.


We'll win the fight over the next AWB as well. The Constitutional issues are completely clear. Once the Main Issue was settled, the defeat of any AWB is certain. Just as anti-Constitutionalists couldn't outlaw e-mail as a way to "Petition the govt for redress of grievances" (because no one NEEDS to do so), they can't make a case for outlawing "assault rifles" (for the same reason) either. So, while I hope the House holds firm, I'm not all that worried if they don't. The resulting effort can only help the cause.


No offense taken, just pointing out that knuckleheads come in all color and stripe, and the problem is worldwide. FWIW, I'm miserly, and I control the banks and media.


:rofl:


The Raisuli

Flipdude
12-23-2012, 11:04 AM
You missed one.

5. Civil War II.

They know a ban won't save a single life. They want more tragedies that they can use to push more gun control. We have to call them out on it and make it clear we won't go along with it.

Thanks Neo, couldn't agree with you more. I'm afraid it might be inevitable...the way things are happening right now. NRA million man march anyone?

You know...All you who say these gungrabbers are stupid, because of the stupid laws and ideas they come up with are wrong. They aren't stupid, but they are playing everyone else as stupid.

I agree, but Americans are awakening at an alarming rate, and that is what they don't show in the mainstream media. They will only show sheeople agreeing with the gun grabbers and those who are turning their firearms in to be destroyed.

donny douchebag
12-23-2012, 11:19 AM
Gotta love the other story there about gun sales booming in Nevada:

"Nevada's rules on assault weapon sales are so lax that some blame the Silver State for the flow of such firearms into California, where the guns have been banned in some form since 1989."

http://tinyurl.com/bu5kbsq

advocatusdiaboli
12-23-2012, 8:39 PM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part.

So oh wise one, how does "giving" on right save our nation? How you "give" on trial by jury? Or free speech? or RKBA? or other rights? Is a right not absolute and immutable? When you give on a right it is no longer a right but a privilege subject to conditions.

kemasa
12-24-2012, 9:22 AM
The problem is that many people, including firearm owners, don't understand what a Right is, don't understand that the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone a Right, but only limits what the government can do with respect to Rights and don't really understand what "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. A discussion here with what restrictions gun owners would accept shows that. How many actually aware that the police have no duty or obligation to protect you as an individual? Perhaps one firearm law that we need is that the politicians, including their paid security, can not be exempt from any firearm laws that they pass.

Compromise means losing your rights one compromise at a time. The Right to free speech has been compromised as well due to "hate speech".

-hanko
12-24-2012, 9:41 AM
The problem is that the NRA has taken a position that does not involve any give on their part.

........snipped.........

And judging from the recent activities in the marketplace, the public thinks they will cave.
PERFECT user name, given what you've posted.:rolleyes:


The only thing that will come out of this assault weapons ban will be:
1. All and any weapons ban (since the ASWB worked).
2. A black market for weapons.
3. Higher crime rates (where is California going to put these criminals if caught? in our over crowded jails?)
4. More school and public place mass shootings!
Items 2 (especially) and 3 are already present.

-hanko