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
  #1  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:03 AM
RickRyder's Avatar
RickRyder RickRyder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Just saw this gem on Facebook...Feinstein

I am sick of this woman's idiotic nonsense!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._think_so.html

Last edited by RickRyder; 04-22-2013 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:09 AM
wweigle wweigle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 698
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The use of a shotgun creates an element of surprise?. Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:10 AM
RickRyder's Avatar
RickRyder RickRyder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

By the way, I do not currently own any AW's, but under Feinstein's ideals, my 10/22, .17HMR and of course my AR 15 are...I have a shotgun, it has an 18 inch barrel, I can handle it no problem, I am also 6' 2" 240 pounds...I don't think my 5'2" 120 pound fiance would do to well with the shotgun, and my .40 would be hard for her to control, but she can fire the AR 15 no problem...I'd LOVE to see a video of Feinstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...

Last edited by RickRyder; 04-22-2013 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:15 AM
kvvmpu's Avatar
kvvmpu kvvmpu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SF BA
Posts: 77
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickRyder View Post
By the way, I do not currently own any AW's, but under Fienstein's ideals, my 10/22, .17HMR and of course my AR 15 are...I have a shotgun, it has an 18 inch barrel, I can handle it no problem, I am also 6' 2" 240 pounds...I don't think my 5'2" 120 pound fiance would do to well with the shotgun, and my .40 would be hard for her to control, but she can fire the AR 15 no problem...I'd LOVE to see a video of Fienstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...
I'll pay money to see video her shooting your shotgun!
__________________
GUN CONTROL
should mean a balance stand and a smooth trigger pull
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:18 AM
RickRyder's Avatar
RickRyder RickRyder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

HAHAHA, best one I've seen yet!

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:29 AM
lakersandguns lakersandguns is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: At the poker game
Posts: 5,832
iTrader: 52 / 93%
Default

What a dumbass

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:29 AM
penguin0123 penguin0123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The next thing you know, she'll be recommending a double barrel .410
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:54 AM
AlaskaGuy's Avatar
AlaskaGuy AlaskaGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Not where I want to be
Posts: 252
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakersandguns View Post
What a dumbass

ROFL
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:14 AM
kraqus's Avatar
kraqus kraqus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Norcalwood
Posts: 242
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Priceless video!


Quote:
Originally Posted by wweigle View Post
Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.

No, they are not....




Benny
__________________
"I've got my own life to live, I'm the one that's gonna die, when its time for me to die, So let me live my life the way I want to.." .... Jimi Hendrix.

Last edited by kraqus; 04-22-2013 at 10:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:28 AM
stony stony is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I love this argument: what about a machine gun? what about rocket launchers? what about nuclear weapons? should we be allowed to own those things? People like DiFi use this as a basis for weapons that they don't like. Essentially, they say, "we have already banned some stuff... why not others?"

Let me destroy that argument right now. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to own machine guns. However, as far as explosives/nuclear weapons/biological weapons go, they all have a varying degree of being indiscriminate in their use. It could be argued that banning these sorts of arms (and I suppose that the same argument could be made for machine guns) is not unconstitutional because of this. If you look at the arguments of some natural law scholars (which our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is based on) make this argument. Particularly, John Locke states in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,

"...it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."

Now, Locke also makes the case for the natural right for people to be secure in their life, liberty and property. Notice that he states, "when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred." Weapons like nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, etc are indiscriminate by their very nature. Particularly with nuclear weapons, it is near impossible to control whether or not they take the life of the innocent. Therefore, by employing such weapons, you are depriving the innocent their right to life. Locke states that we have a right to employ weapons against those that make war on us but do not have the right to deprive the rights of the innocent.

There is nothing indiscriminate about what DiFi calls an "assault weapon." In fact, an AR-15 is far less indiscriminate than a 12 ga shotgun. They are far more accurate and as a result, you are much less likely to deprive the innocent of their right to life. The theory of natural law dictates that the AR-15 should receive even greater protection than Biden and DiFi's shotguns.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:50 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wweigle View Post
The use of a shotgun creates an element of surprise?. Is she Biden's sister? Appears to have the same genetic makeup.
But I thought that it was the racking of the slide that would make all perpetrators quiver in fear and allow you to stop the crime without firing the weapon at all???

Isn't the sound the slide makes supposed to be part of the shotgun's effectiveness? How can the sound also allow "surprise"? I'm even more confused listening to her than I am listening to Biden.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:56 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stony View Post
I love this argument: what about a machine gun? what about rocket launchers? what about nuclear weapons? should we be allowed to own those things? People like DiFi use this as a basis for weapons that they don't like. Essentially, they say, "we have already banned some stuff... why not others?"

Let me destroy that argument right now. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to own machine guns. However, as far as explosives/nuclear weapons/biological weapons go, they all have a varying degree of being indiscriminate in their use. It could be argued that banning these sorts of arms (and I suppose that the same argument could be made for machine guns) is not unconstitutional because of this. If you look at the arguments of some natural law scholars (which our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is based on) make this argument. Particularly, John Locke states in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,

"...it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."

Now, Locke also makes the case for the natural right for people to be secure in their life, liberty and property. Notice that he states, "when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred." Weapons like nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, etc are indiscriminate by their very nature. Particularly with nuclear weapons, it is near impossible to control whether or not they take the life of the innocent. Therefore, by employing such weapons, you are depriving the innocent their right to life. Locke states that we have a right to employ weapons against those that make war on us but do not have the right to deprive the rights of the innocent.

There is nothing indiscriminate about what DiFi calls an "assault weapon." In fact, an AR-15 is far less indiscriminate than a 12 ga shotgun. They are far more accurate and as a result, you are much less likely to deprive the innocent of their right to life. The theory of natural law dictates that the AR-15 should receive even greater protection than Biden and DiFi's shotguns.

Stoney, that's really well said.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:04 PM
HKMadness HKMadness is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: LA County
Posts: 4,865
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Feinstein On Watertown, MA Residents: "Do They Need An Assault Weapon? I Don't Think So"

At least she's trying to uphold our bill of needs, according to HER opinion

That's what she's paid to do by her constituents, isn't it? California, love everything except the politics
__________________
Hk free since 2013!

Show your friends your 1911's and your enemies your glocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLDEN GUN View Post
chuck Norris is not afraid of visible abs

Last edited by HKMadness; 04-22-2013 at 4:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:04 PM
sugi942's Avatar
sugi942 sugi942 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,131
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraqus View Post
Priceless video!





No, they are not....




Benny
You're right. They're brothers.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:06 PM
RickRyder's Avatar
RickRyder RickRyder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Stoney, that's really well said.
+1

The only sad part is people with common sense and the ability to reason can understand that argument. Most of these gun grabbers wouldn't even be able to makes sense of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government because they are too STUPID!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:03 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 18,203
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Interviewer:
"...when a million people in Boston were forced to stay in their homes, that a lot of those people -- particularly in Watertown where they were going door to door and there was a real concern that this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages -- would people like to have guns?"
-quoted from the link

Lets see, 1,000,000 people being told to stay in their homes due to 1 (ONE) person (or even a small group of people). That is definitely a left wing liberal ideology. One bad apple spoils it for the rest of us. Unless it refers to welfare, health care or religion.

Honestly, I would have been outside mowing my lawn or working in my garden. Going about my daily business. Don't like it difi, I don't care, su*k it! I will not let the threat of one person keep me from my normal way of life. Why should I? If I did that, I would never leave the house due to criminals, crazies, and self absorbed politicians running rampant.

And I have said this before, I do not give consent to search anything I own. If you want to search, come back with a search warrant. If you have probable cause (which a criminal, not connected to me, on the run does not provide) I can't stop you from searching. Would a warrant be needed if I call the cops to tell them that some scumbag broke into my house with a gun, and he now has more holes in him than God (allah...whatever) gave him? No!


Difi:
"Now, you've got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don't really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument, but 12-gauge shotgun, there are many weapons, 2,000-plus weapons that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon."
-also quoted from the link

Yea, police who are breaking (forcing their way) into people's homes to try and find one dirtbag. ONE (see above).

Like the police are their to protect us. (Sorry to my LEO friends who do really care about the people). Public servants are under no obligation to protect us. Many of them choose to protect us regardless of the policies of the politicians in power. And I thank them for that.

But, I would rather have a gun in my hand than a cop on the phone. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...you know the rest.

As for the shotgun BS:
Thank you Joe-Di Fine-Biden! Please keep your grubby hands off of my constitutional rights! If you don't like guns, don't own one. You try to force everyone else succumb to your ideals (abortion, illegal aliens, welfare, etc.), but ignore the ideals of those who disagree with you.

Oh, and BTW, I don't own any "assault" weapons, the only rifles I own are semi auto centerfire rifles, some with a pistol grip (and all the other BS required by the state of California to make them legal here). I can't afford the luxury of a private security detail (carrying weapons I am not allowed to have) to protect me. Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, health care taxes, gov't fees, and the crummy state of the economy (thanks to your fiscally irresponsible pet programs and overspending) have eaten up what I earn!

Hypocrites!

I am now, and have been for some time, a one issue voter. If you do not fervently support the constitution (in its entirety, not just the parts you like) I will not vote for you. I WILL try to get others to forgo voting for you too! If that means that the other things I might not care so much about, that are not rights enumerated by the constitution, fall by the wayside, so be it!

I will vote, I will let anyone who listens hear my voice, I will support the constitution (even if I may disagree with some of it), I will support freedom and the way of life that our fathers and fore fathers fought to provide and protect!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:05 PM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

too...much...FAIL!!!
Where do begin to point out the hypocrisy and lies?
Is there an emoticon for that scene in Scanners when that dude's head exploded?
__________________
It doesn't matter how scary, ugly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient self defense can be. Like it or not, you will never, ever be relieved of your duty and responsibility to defend your life, your family, your country and your freedom.

How much ammo do I need? Enough to last me the rest of my life, and then lot more for later.

The government does not come knocking at your door. It comes knocking down your door.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:09 PM
skinnytrees skinnytrees is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 82
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When is this witch going to retire or fall over.

Jesus christ.

How dumb do people in California have to be to keep electing her.

If she was my Senator I would feel personal shame
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:17 PM
luvtolean's Avatar
luvtolean luvtolean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,065
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quoting Locke and his justification for self-defense sounds fancy, but the legal standard pertaining to the restriction of BoR freedoms has nothing to do with being discriminant. The media indiscriminately harms lots of people, but they still get to continue on with first amendment protection.

There are restrictions on all enumerated BoR freedoms.

The test for a restriction on the freedom is strict scrutiny. This essentially means, it must be a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored and by the least restrictive means possible.

There is a reason you hear so much about "in common usage".

A semi-automatic rifle clearly does not meet the test, a nuclear weapon clearly does.

Last edited by luvtolean; 04-22-2013 at 1:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:21 PM
JustEd's Avatar
JustEd JustEd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The State Capitol
Posts: 868
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickRyder View Post
By the way, I do not currently own any AW's, but under Feinstein's ideals, my 10/22, .17HMR and of course my AR 15 are...I have a shotgun, it has an 18 inch barrel, I can handle it no problem, I am also 6' 2" 240 pounds...I don't think my 5'2" 120 pound fiance would do to well with the shotgun, and my .40 would be hard for her to control, but she can fire the AR 15 no problem...I'd LOVE to see a video of Feinstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...
The sad truth RR is that Lady Die doesn't need any of those. She simply points a finger at someone and tell her Secret Service men to do their thing.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-22-2013, 7:41 PM
stony stony is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvtolean View Post
Quoting Locke and his justification for self-defense sounds fancy, but the legal standard pertaining to the restriction of BoR freedoms has nothing to do with being discriminant. The media indiscriminately harms lots of people, but they still get to continue on with first amendment protection.

There are restrictions on all enumerated BoR freedoms.

The test for a restriction on the freedom is strict scrutiny. This essentially means, it must be a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored and by the least restrictive means possible.

There is a reason you hear so much about "in common usage".

A semi-automatic rifle clearly does not meet the test, a nuclear weapon clearly does.
Unfortunately, our justice system does a lot of things that go against the principles on which our nation was founded. The established "legal standard" is irrelevant IMO. What matters is what the meaning of The Constitution is in reality. The Supreme Court has made other questionable decisions including interpreting the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause to allow the federal government to go beyond their enumerated powers to regulate drugs, essentially tore up the Fourth Amendment in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz and more recently ruled that corporations are people under Citizens United. Personally, I could care less what SCOTUS says unless they use the original intent of The Constitution as the standard. In my opinion, they have not always done this.

Also, according to Locke, I would suggest that there is some minute level of harm that is permitted as long as the action does not deprive the innocent of established natural rights. Outside of being in some ridiculously abstract manner, I can't think of a whole lot of situations where the media has taken away someone's right to life liberty and property.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2013, 7:48 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
But I thought that it was the racking of the slide that would make all perpetrators quiver in fear and allow you to stop the crime without firing the weapon at all???

Isn't the sound the slide makes supposed to be part of the shotgun's effectiveness? How can the sound also allow "surprise"? I'm even more confused listening to her than I am listening to Biden.
Racking the slide on a pump shotgun does nothing more than give away your position. All that "the sound scares off the bad guy" **** is straight from Hollywood.
__________________
"People are fed up with the NRA."

- Gavin Newsom
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-22-2013, 8:02 PM
mmayer707's Avatar
mmayer707 mmayer707 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mountain House, CA
Posts: 683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Racking the slide on a pump shotgun does nothing more than give away your position. All that "the sound scares off the bad guy" **** is straight from Hollywood.
Actually, I have to disagree with this one. The common crook would most likely **** themselves and run to the nearest exit after hearing that noise.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:02 PM
ngiotta's Avatar
ngiotta ngiotta is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Visalia
Posts: 89
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
UltraNick.
Enterprise web development and design.

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:02 AM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 5,980
iTrader: 114 / 100%
Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:11 AM
myk's Avatar
myk myk is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 4,543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickRyder View Post
I'd LOVE to see a video of Feinstein shooting my Super Nova Tactical 12 Gauge! I'll supply the gun and as much ammo as she wants, but we are talking self defense so I will only supply 00 buck or slugs...She would also have to sign a waiver not holding me liable for her shoulder...
That gun kicks like a horse. I hope if I ever use it on a bad guy it hurts them as much as it hurts me, lol...
__________________
Crashing gun control rallies is fun, but absolutely necessary, anywhere and everywhere they take place so that the truth about guns and violence can be heard:http://mykranili.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:53 AM
HPBrowningMK3's Avatar
HPBrowningMK3 HPBrowningMK3 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles, PRK
Posts: 1,164
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The essential issue is whether or not we are prepared to do whatever it takes (legally, of course) against the fascists or are we going to try to follow the quaint Marquess Of Queensberry rules. So far, that strategy has gotten us in trouble and as cost us lots of money! I do NOT want to hear we are "better than that" bs while we are getting pummeled on ALL fronts. To think that is akin to Pyrrhic victory and we need a hell more than that!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:41 AM
arrix's Avatar
arrix arrix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 1,194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickRyder View Post
I am sick of this woman's idiotic nonsense!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._think_so.html
Her use of straw-man arguments is ridiculous. Par for the course with gun control freaks though since their legislation was not based on fact and has no real merit to it at all.
__________________
Quote:
There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance -- Tyranny may always enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.

-Walt Whitman
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-23-2013, 1:41 AM
Bill Carson's Avatar
Bill Carson Bill Carson is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reductio ad absurdum
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-23-2013, 5:02 AM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,655
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickRyder View Post
HAHAHA, best one I've seen yet!

none is proceeding as I have foreseen....
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-23-2013, 5:36 AM
ThatguyMatt's Avatar
ThatguyMatt ThatguyMatt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perris, Ca
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sl0re10 View Post
none is proceeding as I have foreseen....
Lmao
__________________
I think therefore I am armed.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-23-2013, 5:55 AM
kvvmpu's Avatar
kvvmpu kvvmpu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SF BA
Posts: 77
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnytrees View Post
When is this witch going to retire or fall over.

Jesus christ.

How dumb do people in California have to be to keep electing her.

If she was my Senator I would feel personal shame
I never voted for her and don't know even one person who did...
__________________
GUN CONTROL
should mean a balance stand and a smooth trigger pull
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-27-2013, 11:10 AM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmayer707 View Post
Actually, I have to disagree with this one. The common crook would most likely **** themselves and run to the nearest exit after hearing that noise.
I don't keep unloaded guns in my house or on me, so I wouldn't have a need to rack a round into the chamber on my pump shotgun. Also, in a SHTF situation, the less mechanical motions you have to go thru in the first part of the confusion, the better. Me personally, I'm not about trying to scare a bad guy away with a sound of a slide racking. I'm about getting down to business to defend what's mine and mine.
__________________
"People are fed up with the NRA."

- Gavin Newsom
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 1:02 AM.




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.