Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:18 AM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,158
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Article is biased piece of trash.

The continued pushing of the "military-style" or "assault" weapon terms onto the public as well as the concepts of "high-capacity" magazines as preferred by mass murderers is their only gimmick.

Millions of us see right through this. The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S., it has features that people want; a quick mag release, magazines in colors, sizes, different price points, and quality as well as all the accessories one could possibly want from optics to ergonomics and individuality.

True, it is a dream platform for the gun industry and it turns out that this rifle encourages more gun related purchases.

If left out of gun control debates the average american would know as much about AR 15's as they would about say, the typical motocross bike and whether it was a 250cc or 500cc and if it's a two-stroke or four, fuel injected or carb.

That's because it really is about recreational use as millions of americans simply go out and shoot them and no one gets hurt.

It's the new bowling.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

NRA Member
CGF Member
AKA Richard Cramden
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-01-2013, 1:35 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 8,708
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
If the NRA were a true activist and true friend of gun owners, it would not have let California and New York and several other states pass stringent gun laws.

But the NRA did indeed let these states pass stringent gun laws. Why?

From the article:

>Much like elite funders of a major political party, these Golden Ringers enjoy top access to decision-makers at the NRA. Their interests, not the interest of the $35-a-year member, rule the roost. "They've got this base of true believers that they mail their magazines out to," says policy analyst Diaz. "But the NRA is really about serving this elite."

(CDF): Full disclosure: I used to be an NRA member. Before I joined, I feared they were just a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, an organization that merely paid lip service to fighting gun laws.

I was correct. So I bailed.

I read American Rifleman every single month for three years. All they did was to publish hyperbole in their editorials. They would send me fund raising notes all the time.

What did they do with that money?

A true organization fighting stringent gun laws would not pay its leaders six figure salaries while gun owners have to get show ID to buy ammo.

Follow the money.

Nope. They're going to have to work MUCH HARDER to get another single cent from me.

CDFingers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
If the NRA employs a full time lobbyist, what has he or she been doing, lo, these many years?

Not enough. Waste of my money.

CDFingers


You are stupid. Not a little stupid, either or the usual kind of stupid people the rest of us run into on an everyday basis. You're a special kind of stupid. You're unique brand of stupid is almost beyond comprehension.

Let me break down WHY you're stupid, just so it's clear.

1: You pay money to be a member of the NRA. That means you gave up hard earned cash to facilitate the influence of legislation on your behalf.

2: When the arm of that influence goes to a legislative body and it's members and says "Stop doing things we don't like, or our members will not vote for you", that IS how they exert leverage on said legislator. Without the threat of losing office, the NRA really has nothing they can do to influence the votes.

3: You VOLUNTARILY continued to vote for the same people the NRA said to NOT vote for, which meant you directly worked against your own interests in this case.

4: After the NRA is unable to influence the legislator because YOU voted for that person, they are still in office DESPITE the warning from the NRA, thereby making any future threat the NRA can make toothless.

5: You blame the NRA's subsequent inability to influence legislation for YOUR ACTIONS.


You are such a special kind of stupid it needs it's own name.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Last edited by njineermike; 02-01-2013 at 1:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-01-2013, 1:52 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Priceless.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-01-2013, 1:53 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KLF View Post
I generally enjoy and respect Rollingstone's politics reporting.
There was a time I did too, but that time has long since passed. They are just another ultra left-wing tabloid telling the world that the Gov't knows better than the people what is best.

The NRA ARE the people, and while Wayne may get the podium more than I would like, we can influence Wayne way more than we can influence RS.
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-01-2013, 3:50 PM
KLF KLF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 344
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obviously a Plant View Post
The Tiahrt Amendment was a provision attached to a 2006 spending bill that limits the ways gun related data can be used, specifically, requiring certain background checks for guns be destroyed within 24 hours, limiting the access to ATF data and statistics, including those of guns lost/stolen from FFL's, to criminal investigations.
Probably one of the only laws regarding or increasing the privacy of a citizen passed in the last 13 years.
Hey thanks! I appreciate your words. Useful. --KLF
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-01-2013, 4:44 PM
thefitter's Avatar
thefitter thefitter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 435
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You are stupid. Not a little stupid, either or the usual kind of stupid people the rest of us run into on an everyday basis. You're a special kind of stupid. You're unique brand of stupid is almost beyond comprehension.

Let me break down WHY you're stupid, just so it's clear.

1: You pay money to be a member of the NRA. That means you gave up hard earned cash to facilitate the influence of legislation on your behalf.

2: When the arm of that influence goes to a legislative body and it's members and says "Stop doing things we don't like, or our members will not vote for you", that IS how they exert leverage on said legislator. Without the threat of losing office, the NRA really has nothing they can do to influence the votes.

3: You VOLUNTARILY continued to vote for the same people the NRA said to NOT vote for, which meant you directly worked against your own interests in this case.

4: After the NRA is unable to influence the legislator because YOU voted for that person, they are still in office DESPITE the warning from the NRA, thereby making any future threat the NRA can make toothless.

5: You blame the NRA's subsequent inability to influence legislation for YOUR ACTIONS.


You are such a special kind of stupid it needs it's own name.
How do YOU know how HE voted?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:22 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 8,708
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefitter View Post
How do YOU know how HE voted?
Because he told us.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:38 PM
thefitter's Avatar
thefitter thefitter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 435
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Because he told us.
I guess you two have a history that I'm unaware of...carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-01-2013, 6:04 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,930
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You are stupid. Not a little stupid, either or the usual kind of stupid people the rest of us run into on an everyday basis. You're a special kind of stupid. You're unique brand of stupid is almost beyond comprehension.

Let me break down WHY you're stupid, just so it's clear.

1: You pay money to be a member of the NRA. That means you gave up hard earned cash to facilitate the influence of legislation on your behalf.

2: When the arm of that influence goes to a legislative body and it's members and says "Stop doing things we don't like, or our members will not vote for you", that IS how they exert leverage on said legislator. Without the threat of losing office, the NRA really has nothing they can do to influence the votes.

3: You VOLUNTARILY continued to vote for the same people the NRA said to NOT vote for, which meant you directly worked against your own interests in this case.

4: After the NRA is unable to influence the legislator because YOU voted for that person, they are still in office DESPITE the warning from the NRA, thereby making any future threat the NRA can make toothless.

5: You blame the NRA's subsequent inability to influence legislation for YOUR ACTIONS.


You are such a special kind of stupid it needs it's own name.
Quoted in my sig line.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-01-2013, 6:45 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
What do I do?

Every single semester my students are treated to the "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.

You're welcome.

I run my fingers. I no longer need move my lips as I type...

PM sent for check.

CDFingers
How about posting your "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-01-2013, 6:48 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,706
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
popular press
RS wishes they were.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:04 PM
H Paul Payne's Avatar
H Paul Payne H Paul Payne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 617
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
If the NRA were a true activist and true friend of gun owners, it would not have let California and New York and several other states pass stringent gun laws.

But the NRA did indeed let these states pass stringent gun laws. Why?

From the article:

>Much like elite funders of a major political party, these Golden Ringers enjoy top access to decision-makers at the NRA. Their interests, not the interest of the $35-a-year member, rule the roost. "They've got this base of true believers that they mail their magazines out to," says policy analyst Diaz. "But the NRA is really about serving this elite."

(CDF): Full disclosure: I used to be an NRA member. Before I joined, I feared they were just a lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, an organization that merely paid lip service to fighting gun laws.

I was correct. So I bailed.

I read American Rifleman every single month for three years. All they did was to publish hyperbole in their editorials. They would send me fund raising notes all the time.

What did they do with that money?

A true organization fighting stringent gun laws would not pay its leaders six figure salaries while gun owners have to get show ID to buy ammo.

Follow the money.

Nope. They're going to have to work MUCH HARDER to get another single cent from me.

CDFingers
Your fear and feelings of inadequacy are almost palpable. Maybe that's why you are trolling so hard.

Your attacks on the NRA are absolute and obvious falsehoods and you most certainly know it. But you feel safe hiding behind a fake "screen name."

If you are going to make claims that are not true, at least be honest and list your name, address, phone number, and email address. I don't lie and I list all of those things.

If you believe what you are saying is true, you don't need to be afraid.

Paul
__________________
Fighting for the restoration and preservation of the Second Amendment, right here in California since 1989!

H. Paul Payne
NRA Liaison to the Executive Vice President
NRA Members' Councils Program Administrator
(951) 683-4NRA Office nrausmc@earthlink.net Email
http://www.calnra.com California NRA Web Site ----- CLICK HERE to
Join NRA's California Team of Volunteers

Proud to be an NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:53 PM
johnjohn301's Avatar
johnjohn301 johnjohn301 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 147
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewalker View Post
CDFingers, CA is the *only* state where the NRA employs a full time lobbyist. Respectfully, you are entirely wrong.
Well... good thing he's "full time" I imagine if this was a part-time gig, we'd be registering sling-shots and prohibited from carrying more than 10 rocks in our pockets. Whew! Thank goodies the NRA is alive and working hard in Cali.
BTW - I'm a Life Membership holder and I still reserve the right to call them as I see them. I won't let the government do my thinking for me any more than will let the NRA do my thinking for me. Results earn respect!

Last edited by johnjohn301; 02-01-2013 at 8:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:13 PM
SgtDinosaur's Avatar
SgtDinosaur SgtDinosaur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 1,387
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjohn301 View Post
Well... good thing he's "full time" I imagine if this was a part-time gig, we'd be registering sling-shots and prohibited from carrying more than 10 rocks in our pockets. Whew! Thank goodies the NRA is alive and well in Cali.
What's your suggestion? How do you think they are going to stop gun control in this state? A state that keeps electing the same pinkos over and over? What percentage of California voters belong to the NRA? For that matter, what percentage of California gun owners belong to the NRA? What's their leverage? Oh, and I'm an Endowment member. The NRA was successful in the 1996 midterm elections because in some states their members vote, and are numerous enough to make a difference. And they have been involved in plenty of lawsuits in California. It wasn't that long ago they got an onerous law in SF overturned. No one is going to get a pro-gun legislature in this state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:23 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
How about posting your "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:29 PM
nitrofc nitrofc is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,723
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Rolling Stone????????

:s milielol5::smi lielol5:
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:42 PM
johnjohn301's Avatar
johnjohn301 johnjohn301 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 147
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDinosaur View Post
What's your suggestion? How do you think they are going to stop gun control in this state? A state that keeps electing the same pinkos over and over? What percentage of California voters belong to the NRA? For that matter, what percentage of California gun owners belong to the NRA? What's their leverage? Oh, and I'm an Endowment member. The NRA was successful in the 1996 midterm elections because in some states their members vote, and are numerous enough to make a difference. And they have been involved in plenty of lawsuits in California. It wasn't that long ago they got an onerous law in SF overturned. No one is going to get a pro-gun legislature in this state.
My suggestion? Isn't that part of the problem? Everyone else needs to be doing the "heavy lifting" for the NRA (Calguns Foundation) because they can't be too bothered with the hard ones?

1996???? Kinda like an old broke-down boxer reliving "the big fight" isn't it? Which is exactly my point - time the NRA quit schmoozing and got back in the fight. Oh and the training DVDs that I didn't order - feels a little misguided and money grubbing, don't you think? Their time might be better served dealing with the wolves at the door.

So you seriously think the NRA is representing your (my) interests well? Tell me - how's that working out in New York right about now? Can't blame the pinkos for that one. Yes-sir, the NRA is pretty busy, just not representing the money-paying Joes.

I am a Life Membership holder and have and will continue to judge them by their results - not by their blue-plate special slogan-of-the-hour. And as a money-paying supporter, I am not impressed.

But - I'm very happy for you, that you are -

BTW - This is what it looks like when you are actually engaged in an issue and are not just an ill-prepared, out-of-date, self-serving, blow-hard masquerading as an 800lb gorilla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=Wi6gZU01yF8

Last edited by johnjohn301; 02-01-2013 at 9:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:16 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,865
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
How about posting your "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.
X2

How in the hell is California responsiblity any different from the rest of the nation?

I suspect that this "paper" justifies all our neutered, banned or "unsafe" weapons idiocy.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:16 AM
MalikCarr MalikCarr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This sort of makes me stop and think for a moment.

Has anyone considered the idea that the NRA is as powerful as it is because that's the way liberals and gun prohibitionists see it? Like, they *think* it's some massive entity that can kill any legislation anywhere, and because they're the ones that write and pass the bills, that actually becomes truth.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-02-2013, 7:03 AM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,739
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalikCarr View Post
This sort of makes me stop and think for a moment.

Has anyone considered the idea that the NRA is as powerful as it is because that's the way liberals and gun prohibitionists see it? Like, they *think* it's some massive entity that can kill any legislation anywhere, and because they're the ones that write and pass the bills, that actually becomes truth.
There is some truth to that. Hence the lefts new lie, sorry exageration about the NRA being a paper tiger, that they couldnt unseat Obama single handed etc...

Yeah, we took a hit, but no worse or even less worse than the democrats did in the last midterms.

The NRA strength is not the money it spends lobbying, which amounts to very little compared to unions and banks and etc.. its the ability to deliver votes.

Millions of votes. Think about how many people 4.5 mil is... Of course not all will follow the party line, but a good chunk will.

Numbers matter, otherwise gun hating democrats would have crushed the NRA years ago instead of the other way round.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-02-2013, 7:04 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
How about posting your "Responsible California Gun Owner" paper.

Much as I'm not happy to contribute the heat here, add my name to those who would like to see the definition of "Responsible."

Maybe in a separate post?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-02-2013, 7:09 AM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,739
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I will also point out that the 'gun lobby' is you and me. The left tries to dehumanize gun owners by calling them the 'gun lobby'. Everyone can appropriately hate a faceless group of rich white guys lobbying to put machine guns in the hands of children right?

Of course, the NSSF is the actual gun manufacturers lobby. If the NRA fights on behalf of companies to sell a legal and heavily regulated product, thats fine with me. They want to sell guns, I want to buy them. I dont see an issue with that.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-02-2013, 8:12 AM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefitter View Post
How do YOU know how HE voted?
You must be new here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-02-2013, 8:24 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Two things. First, I was a member of NRA to find out what they were peddling. I found out. Those who criticize my judgement of how I spend my money are perfectly free to do so, and they're free to spend their money how they want.

For me, I'd prefer not to support hair afire hyperbole. I did not "take someone's word for it." I did the research my self. It's my money. My decision. And now, after all that reading, I have verifiable support for my decision not to support them. You'll note I support CalGuns, so it's not like I'm riding for free or anything.

Now, unfortunately for our readers, my "Responsible California Gun Owner Paper" is copyrighted, so I'll only post the main ideas here.

There are some assumptions under which the paper moves forward:

* Californians want to be safe.
* Valid reasons exist for owning firearms: collecting, personal protection, sports, zombies, hunting, buying and selling.
* Valid and sane laws exist about guns: heavily regulated fully automatic weapons, ban on bazookas firing exploding projectiles.

Some facts exist:

* Crime has steadily been decreasing for decades.
* In California we have the right to protect self, family, property
* If under 18 people live in the house, guns must be locked up

So, now, we ask about guns.

If we want to protect self, family, property, a gun is pretty good, and it's perfectly legal. But to be responsible, we don't need to keep loaded guns lying around unsupervised. To be responsible, loaded guns must be supervised.

Now, we ask about the crimes we may need guns to defend against. We can look at home burglary.

Since most burglaries occur via open/unlocked doors and windows, we can reduce our risk by locking doors and windows. We can install motion sensitive lighting outside. We can plant deterrent landscaping by windows to deter break ins. We can get a dog. The police call this "lighting, locks, landscaping" and I added the dog.

Now, under the above conditions, a break in is very very unlikely. First, the house is locked. Second, burglars may be lazy, but they're not all that stupid in that they prefer to burgle unoccupied homes. Third, occupied homes just might have a gun owner in there who might shoot the burglar. Thus, it's unlikely that if people take these precautions they will ever have to confront a burglar in their home in the dark of night.

We have to remember that California levies extended penalties for committing crimes with guns, so burglars rarely use guns in burgling homes. Sure, it happens, but it's rare. Even more so if the home is locked, and if motion sensitive lights come on when the burglar walks up to the house.

A loaded gun is not needed if the above actions are taken. But for the Responsible California Gun Owner who must keep a loaded gun at the ready, there's the finger print safe. It opens very quickly in case some moronic burglar does make the mistake of breaking into a locked home where lives an armed, responsible gun owner. Too bad for him.


Those are the ideas I challenge my students with.

I challenge you folks now to poke holes in those ideas.

Now, why do I do this paper?

Unless that student is a gun owner or is a member of a gun owning family, they've never been exposed to any of these ideas. These ideas allow us to explore the difference between Federal and California gun laws. It allows us to explore the history of gun laws in CA. It allows us to learn how to use stats in arguments. It allows non gun owners to learn that indeed guns may be owned and used safely and responsibly. I talk about my guns and about my archery--and these things dovetail with how the brain works while learning things. I can show that the brain changes in response to external stimulus, so I say if you want to get better with guns or archery, perfect practice makes for permanent, perfect skills.

In the final analysis, any gun owner who buys a finger print safe for a house with under 18's in it is a responsible California gun owner whose rights are not infringed by the premises of the paper.

Enjoy your thoughts. I do.

CDFingers

Last edited by CDFingers; 02-02-2013 at 8:27 AM.. Reason: sold an "n"
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-02-2013, 8:46 AM
NOTABIKER NOTABIKER is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,102
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

i do not smoke pot or read rolling stone.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:48 AM
Tinpigy Tinpigy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Tankaranian 3X; Stonewalker 2X. To CDFingers, I'm going to write another check to the NRA togar, in your honor. At least they are doing something useful in the fight against those who would take away our right to keep and bear arms.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:18 AM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post

Now, unfortunately for our readers, my "Responsible California Gun Owner Paper" is copyrighted, so I'll only post the main ideas here.


* Valid reasons exist for owning firearms: collecting, personal protection, sports, zombies, hunting, buying and selling.


I challenge you folks now to poke holes in those ideas.
OK, I'll play.

You forgot the Second Amendment. That's all the reason I need.

And your copyright claim? Horse feathers!




Fail, right out of the gate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.

Last edited by tcrpe; 02-02-2013 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-02-2013, 4:22 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 8,708
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post

Blah blah blah


I'm a moron.


blah blah blah


CDFingers

Oh my god! You're so stupid it hurts other people. How do your fists not spontaneously just jump up and punch you right in the face just for having to be attached to you?

I'll poke another hole here: Fingerprint locks. As an engineer, I know it's not IF things fail, it's WHEN. We have something called a "critical path". The fingerprint mechanism is one of those things on the critical path as a single point of failure. In a critical emergency, such as a bad guy coming in through the window or breaking down the door, those few seconds between realizing the fingerprint mechanism isn't working, finding the key and opening the lock could cost my family it's lives. Mandating that is a ridiculous idea only posited by someone who doesn't understand enough technology to qualified plug in a toaster.

But, as someone who can be replaced by a chimpanzee with a spell checker, I wouldn't expect you to have the slightest idea of how the actual world works.

If I woke up one day and I were you, I'd punch myself in the balls every day just for being you.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Last edited by njineermike; 02-02-2013 at 4:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-02-2013, 4:27 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

When you talk to the trees . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-02-2013, 5:42 PM
SgtDinosaur's Avatar
SgtDinosaur SgtDinosaur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 1,387
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjohn301 View Post
My suggestion? Isn't that part of the problem? Everyone else needs to be doing the "heavy lifting" for the NRA (Calguns Foundation) because they can't be too bothered with the hard ones?

1996???? Kinda like an old broke-down boxer reliving "the big fight" isn't it? Which is exactly my point - time the NRA quit schmoozing and got back in the fight. Oh and the training DVDs that I didn't order - feels a little misguided and money grubbing, don't you think? Their time might be better served dealing with the wolves at the door.

So you seriously think the NRA is representing your (my) interests well? Tell me - how's that working out in New York right about now? Can't blame the pinkos for that one. Yes-sir, the NRA is pretty busy, just not representing the money-paying Joes.

I am a Life Membership holder and have and will continue to judge them by their results - not by their blue-plate special slogan-of-the-hour. And as a money-paying supporter, I am not impressed.

But - I'm very happy for you, that you are -

BTW - This is what it looks like when you are actually engaged in an issue and are not just an ill-prepared, out-of-date, self-serving, blow-hard masquerading as an 800lb gorilla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=Wi6gZU01yF8
So you admit you don't have a clue. Can't blame the pinkos for NY? What planet do you live on? Quit whining and blathering. Try doing something. I bet you just sit back and let everyone else do the "heavy lifting".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-02-2013, 5:50 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
If we want to protect self, family, property, a gun is pretty good, and it's perfectly legal. But to be responsible, we don't need to keep loaded guns lying around unsupervised. To be responsible, loaded guns must be supervised.
Those are the ideas I challenge my students with.
I challenge you folks now to poke holes in those ideas.
Enjoy your thoughts. I do.
CDFingers
What is the purpose of this paper? I am going to conclude that you wish to tackle accidental discharge of a firearm by a minor, since you do not state what you the paper is about. The students are then supposed to challenge your conclusions?
If the above is correct you have setup a horrible “training” tool on the use of stats and critical writing. You simply conclude that access to firearms by minors is a significant issue outweighing the benefits. You do not ask your students to challenge the foundation of your argument, only your conclusion, this makes for an extremely ineffective critical thinking exercise. You provide facts with no backup; provide facts which have no bearing on the issue. This is an extremely poor way to teach critical writing.

As for holes in this poorly thought out paper:

The cost associated with purchase of fingerprint safes for household with low or fixed incomes, would double the costs of the firearm placing self protection out the range of those who need it. Accidental discharges of firearms by minors do not pose a significant threat to children that would require a minor to have no access to a firearm. The likelihood that a minor may need access to a firearm outweighs the need to have them locked at all times.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-02-2013, 6:27 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman21 View Post
What is the purpose of this paper?
It appears to be a weak, yet pernicious, attempt to redefine the God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms as "needs" and/or hobbies.

Needs that he further insinuates the government can somehow mitigate, negating the RKBA.

Epic logic fail.

I can see why he refuses to post it up, hiding behind a supposed copyright veil.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.

Last edited by tcrpe; 02-02-2013 at 6:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-02-2013, 6:47 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 11,341
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Fingerprint lock. Have you tried that under stress? I bet that if someone was kicking in that blue door, you wouldn't be able to get it open in time.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Watch come Wednesday. It's going to be a landslide. Forget the polls, look at the census data, trump screwed up. Tell you what though if trump had made peace with woman and hispancis he could have pulled this off. But he kept at em. Just couldn't shut up.
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 02-02-2013 at 6:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:21 PM
JMP's Avatar
JMP JMP is offline
Internet Warrior
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 16,818
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
Now, we ask about the crimes we may need guns to defend against. We can look at home burglary.

Since most burglaries occur via open/unlocked doors and windows, we can reduce our risk by locking doors and windows. We can install motion sensitive lighting outside. We can plant deterrent landscaping by windows to deter break ins. We can get a dog. The police call this "lighting, locks, landscaping" and I added the dog.

Now, under the above conditions, a break in is very very unlikely. First, the house is locked. Second, burglars may be lazy, but they're not all that stupid in that they prefer to burgle unoccupied homes. Third, occupied homes just might have a gun owner in there who might shoot the burglar. Thus, it's unlikely that if people take these precautions they will ever have to confront a burglar in their home in the dark of night.

We have to remember that California levies extended penalties for committing crimes with guns, so burglars rarely use guns in burgling homes. Sure, it happens, but it's rare. Even more so if the home is locked, and if motion sensitive lights come on when the burglar walks up to the house.

A loaded gun is not needed if the above actions are taken. But for the Responsible California Gun Owner who must keep a loaded gun at the ready, there's the finger print safe. It opens very quickly in case some moronic burglar does make the mistake of breaking into a locked home where lives an armed, responsible gun owner. Too bad for him.
If you were my student, I'd give you an "F" for arguing on the basis of a completely false premise. You position is a joke; it totally ignores any constitutional aspect of the subject. I only bring it up because you say: "We have to remember that California levies extended penalties for committing crimes with guns." So, as long as we are going to argue along the lines of the law, you need ignore the fact that the Constitution is defined as the supreme law of the land.
Quote:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
So let's accept the fact that you feel that the constitution is not applicable to gun ownership; instead, let's look at the argument you put forward.

You have isolated it to home burglary. Really? This is the best example you can come up with? Then, you suggest that burglars aren't stupid? Unless someone is trying to pull an Ocean's 11 style technically planned theft, burglars are EXTREMELY STUPID. For home burglars to make the kind of money needed to justify their risk, they'd need to perpetuate the crime over and over again until they eventually get caught. So yes, home burglars are morons.

Unless you are comparing them to your level of intelligence, common criminals are stupid beyond belief. If said criminals possessed any intellectual capacity, they'd be in a legitimate job making much more. The Hollywood portrayal of so-called mastermind criminals is completely false.

You remain blissfully ignorant that many burglars will act irrationally. Often, they will burglarize in order to pay for their next dose of drugs. I am glad you remain smug and optimistic that burglars will exercise rational and intelligent thought. I hope you do not end up a victim one day.

Your thesis from the very first point is utterly flawed. As, I said, if I gave the class, you would earn an "F" for blatant absence of critical thinking.

That's just a small critique, I could go on for days to show you how silly your position is, but I don't feel like wasting my time on someone with a brain so narrow-minded that he is unable to process any rational thought.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:28 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Post up the "copyrighted" paper. After all, you own the "copyright", right?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:36 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've noticed that they attack the leadership of the NRA, not the members.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-03-2013, 5:48 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
Two things. First, I was a member of NRA to find out what they were peddling. I found out. Those who criticize my judgement of how I spend my money are perfectly free to do so, and they're free to spend their money how they want.

For me, I'd prefer not to support hair afire hyperbole. I did not "take someone's word for it." I did the research my self. It's my money. My decision. And now, after all that reading, I have verifiable support for my decision not to support them. You'll note I support CalGuns, so it's not like I'm riding for free or anything.

Now, unfortunately for our readers, my "Responsible California Gun Owner Paper" is copyrighted, so I'll only post the main ideas here.

There are some assumptions under which the paper moves forward:

* Californians want to be safe.
* Valid reasons exist for owning firearms: collecting, personal protection, sports, zombies, hunting, buying and selling.
* Valid and sane laws exist about guns: heavily regulated fully automatic weapons, ban on bazookas firing exploding projectiles.

Some facts exist:

* Crime has steadily been decreasing for decades.
* In California we have the right to protect self, family, property
* If under 18 people live in the house, guns must be locked up

So, now, we ask about guns.

If we want to protect self, family, property, a gun is pretty good, and it's perfectly legal. But to be responsible, we don't need to keep loaded guns lying around unsupervised. To be responsible, loaded guns must be supervised.

Now, we ask about the crimes we may need guns to defend against. We can look at home burglary.

Since most burglaries occur via open/unlocked doors and windows, we can reduce our risk by locking doors and windows. We can install motion sensitive lighting outside. We can plant deterrent landscaping by windows to deter break ins. We can get a dog. The police call this "lighting, locks, landscaping" and I added the dog.

Now, under the above conditions, a break in is very very unlikely. First, the house is locked. Second, burglars may be lazy, but they're not all that stupid in that they prefer to burgle unoccupied homes. Third, occupied homes just might have a gun owner in there who might shoot the burglar. Thus, it's unlikely that if people take these precautions they will ever have to confront a burglar in their home in the dark of night.

We have to remember that California levies extended penalties for committing crimes with guns, so burglars rarely use guns in burgling homes. Sure, it happens, but it's rare. Even more so if the home is locked, and if motion sensitive lights come on when the burglar walks up to the house.

A loaded gun is not needed if the above actions are taken. But for the Responsible California Gun Owner who must keep a loaded gun at the ready, there's the finger print safe. It opens very quickly in case some moronic burglar does make the mistake of breaking into a locked home where lives an armed, responsible gun owner. Too bad for him.


Those are the ideas I challenge my students with.

I challenge you folks now to poke holes in those ideas.

Now, why do I do this paper?

Unless that student is a gun owner or is a member of a gun owning family, they've never been exposed to any of these ideas. These ideas allow us to explore the difference between Federal and California gun laws. It allows us to explore the history of gun laws in CA. It allows us to learn how to use stats in arguments. It allows non gun owners to learn that indeed guns may be owned and used safely and responsibly. I talk about my guns and about my archery--and these things dovetail with how the brain works while learning things. I can show that the brain changes in response to external stimulus, so I say if you want to get better with guns or archery, perfect practice makes for permanent, perfect skills.

In the final analysis, any gun owner who buys a finger print safe for a house with under 18's in it is a responsible California gun owner whose rights are not infringed by the premises of the paper.

Enjoy your thoughts. I do.

CDFingers

For all the reasons posted & more, I am unimpressed.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-03-2013, 5:56 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The purpose of the exercise is not to write the definitive paper. The purpose is to expose new writers to ways of building a case, ways of exposing and developing premises, and ways of finding and using statistics. As a bonus, I get to talk about my rifles. For me: win-win.

The questions raised so far in this tread also come up in class by design. For example, when we look to the California state constitution to find the right to defend self, family, home, we get to discuss about the Supremacy Clause, about the Second, and about the American War of 1861, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth.

The key point in the paper about being a responsible California gun owner is that it is not responsible to leave loaded guns unsupervised, especially if under-18's are around.

I sort of like the knee jerks here. These are the folks who need to learn how rationally to discuss about guns and gun laws. Remember: laws made by people may be unmade by people.

CDFingers
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:19 AM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You setup poorly thought out paper by design to invoke a discussion; I guess it’s one way to teach, students don't do this.

If the purpose is to expose new writers to critical writing, persuasive writing and the use of statistics to support their position you have done an extremely poor job. I am basing this solely on what you have posted.

Your key point is poorly thought out. Am I irresponsible because I have two loaded firearms in the other room? Am I responsible because I leave loaded firearms in a safe when I leave to work? It is irresponsible for any gun owner to claim that children should be denied access to a firearm to protect themselves simply because they have not reach some arbitrary number.


I do not see a win-win here, I see an irresponsible gun owner no different than what you are railing against in this thread.

By the way, do you inform your students that you may not use a firearm to defend property? You have made the claim twice now so it’s not by accident. You should really reconsider the content and format of your paper.
I am going to guess that you will simply conclude that I cannot rationally discuss a topic, or some other knee jerk reaction despite the fact that I poked two large holes in your poorly thought out paper, which you have yet to address.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:30 AM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,865
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
Two things. First, I was a member of NRA to find out what they were peddling. I found out. Those who criticize my judgement of how I spend my money are perfectly free to do so, and they're free to spend their money how they want.

For me, I'd prefer not to support hair afire hyperbole. I did not "take someone's word for it." I did the research my self. It's my money. My decision. And now, after all that reading, I have verifiable support for my decision not to support them. You'll note I support CalGuns, so it's not like I'm riding for free or anything.

Now, unfortunately for our readers, my "Responsible California Gun Owner Paper" is copyrighted, so I'll only post the main ideas here.

There are some assumptions under which the paper moves forward:

* Californians want to be safe.
* Valid reasons exist for owning firearms: collecting, personal protection, sports, zombies, hunting, buying and selling.
* Valid and sane laws exist about guns: heavily regulated fully automatic weapons, ban on bazookas firing exploding projectiles.

Some facts exist:

* Crime has steadily been decreasing for decades.
* In California we have the right to protect self, family, property
* If under 18 people live in the house, guns must be locked up

So, now, we ask about guns.

If we want to protect self, family, property, a gun is pretty good, and it's perfectly legal. But to be responsible, we don't need to keep loaded guns lying around unsupervised. To be responsible, loaded guns must be supervised.

Now, we ask about the crimes we may need guns to defend against. We can look at home burglary.

Since most burglaries occur via open/unlocked doors and windows, we can reduce our risk by locking doors and windows. We can install motion sensitive lighting outside. We can plant deterrent landscaping by windows to deter break ins. We can get a dog. The police call this "lighting, locks, landscaping" and I added the dog.

Now, under the above conditions, a break in is very very unlikely. First, the house is locked. Second, burglars may be lazy, but they're not all that stupid in that they prefer to burgle unoccupied homes. Third, occupied homes just might have a gun owner in there who might shoot the burglar. Thus, it's unlikely that if people take these precautions they will ever have to confront a burglar in their home in the dark of night.

We have to remember that California levies extended penalties for committing crimes with guns, so burglars rarely use guns in burgling homes. Sure, it happens, but it's rare. Even more so if the home is locked, and if motion sensitive lights come on when the burglar walks up to the house.

A loaded gun is not needed if the above actions are taken. But for the Responsible California Gun Owner who must keep a loaded gun at the ready, there's the finger print safe. It opens very quickly in case some moronic burglar does make the mistake of breaking into a locked home where lives an armed, responsible gun owner. Too bad for him.


Those are the ideas I challenge my students with.

I challenge you folks now to poke holes in those ideas.

Now, why do I do this paper?

Unless that student is a gun owner or is a member of a gun owning family, they've never been exposed to any of these ideas. These ideas allow us to explore the difference between Federal and California gun laws. It allows us to explore the history of gun laws in CA. It allows us to learn how to use stats in arguments. It allows non gun owners to learn that indeed guns may be owned and used safely and responsibly. I talk about my guns and about my archery--and these things dovetail with how the brain works while learning things. I can show that the brain changes in response to external stimulus, so I say if you want to get better with guns or archery, perfect practice makes for permanent, perfect skills.

In the final analysis, any gun owner who buys a finger print safe for a house with under 18's in it is a responsible California gun owner whose rights are not infringed by the premises of the paper.

Enjoy your thoughts. I do.

CDFingers

Do you support magazine restrictions we suffer under in California?
Do you support the pistol roster?
Do you support our neutured AR laws?
Do you support the inability for most Calfornians to CCW for general self protection?

Support meaning if you had the power, you would leave them in place?

Are you teaching that that is part of being "responsible"?
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:06 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.