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 > CALGUNS.NET > Announcements and Suggestions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Announcements and Suggestions This is a place for suggestions, news and updates about the site.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 07-09-2013, 6:52 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruber51 View Post
The majority of democratic voters are on the government gravy train be it different social programs or because they are government employees. Most do not share the ideals of the progressives they vote for or worse are unaware of them.
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than a Fox News talking point that has no basis in reality. The vast majority of Americans recieving direct Federal Aid vote Republican, and it's been that way for decades. If you look at a California voting map the entire coast is painted blue with pockets of red further inward. Who can afford to live on the coast? Minorities with their EBT cards? Hardly. Those wealthy enough to live along the coast don't vote Democrat because the government is supporting them.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-09-2013, 6:53 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Do you mean like using the IRS to target political opponents? That kind of overreach?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-09-2013, 6:56 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Perhaps using George Bush's patriot act to spy on all Americans an even kill a few in unmanned drone attacks is the kind of overreach you are taking about.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-09-2013, 6:58 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
This is tougher than I thought it would be. I'll try again. Liberals do not share your obsession with 2A. It is not a concept that they have daily, or even monthly or yearly, contact with. As I've stated earlier, they are generally less concerned with government intrusion in to their lives. That doesn't make them bad or stupid, just knowledge challenged. The simple fact is that the boom of post-WWII that created a huge middle class in America lessened the need for a firearm to protect you. We have, indeed, become a very safe society to live in and millions of Americans now go their entire lives without witnessing first-hand violence that would preclude the use and ownership of a firearm. Heck, I've talked to retired cops who never once drew their gun their entire careers. It's not so much that liberals "hate" guns. Rather, we have, fictionally it turns out, made society safe enough to live in without a Smith & Wesson strapped to your leg. So when you start the conversation with "from my cold, dead hands...", there is no frame of reference from which they can understand. It has to be taught, just like anything else worth knowing. I took an NRA handgun course last week. It lasted an hour and the 2A was never even mentioned. So why START the conversation with that? They will not see the government in the same light that you do. That is my reason for suggesting the "sporting" aspect of gun ownership as a starting point. FYI, as veteran, I fully understand, appreciate, and agree with 2A. And despite your opinion, I fully understand 1A as well. Good night, gentlemen.
And you've dodged the question again. You claim to agree with 2a, but you don't seem to want to admit to what extent.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:04 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
The vast majority of Americans recieving direct Federal Aid vote Republican, and it's been that way for decades.
LOL wat? Citation needed








Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:22 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc1138 View Post
And you've dodged the question again. You claim to agree with 2a, but you don't seem to want to admit to what extent.
C'mon, are you really that dense? What is it that you need to hear from me? That I support the private ownership of tactical nukes? I do not. That I am an admitted firearms owner, and that I support the 2A should be enough for you. But because I am a progressive, it's not. Please try to bring something of substance to the conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:22 AM
Gruber51's Avatar
Gruber51 Gruber51 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Imperial Valley / Turlock
Posts: 827
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than a Fox News talking point that has no basis in reality. The vast majority of Americans recieving direct Federal Aid vote Republican, and it's been that way for decades. If you look at a California voting map the entire coast is painted blue with pockets of red further inward. Who can afford to live on the coast? Minorities with their EBT cards? Hardly. Those wealthy enough to live along the coast don't vote Democrat because the government is supporting them.
Wow, see I'm wasting my time, back to work to pay for all the welfare recipients who get food stamps, section 8, and other government assistance that allows them to live wherever they chose.
__________________
Food grows where water flows.

One Big A$$ Mistake America
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:23 AM
toro1's Avatar
toro1 toro1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 367
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I'll start of by stating I am an independent and hold both parties in equal disdain as they both have myopic viewpoints on how things should be run.
That being said, I find the progressive approach to be much less palatable to my life. It is very perplexing to me that you (the OP) are OK with general government intrusion, but are now concerned with one aspect of that intrusion. For me, and it looks like many others, that unacceptable intrusion level started a long time ago and is accelerating in all aspects of life. Why do you feel the need to have government tell you how to live any aspect of your life? You can make the same decisions on your own without their interference, and that allows the rest of us to make the right decisions for ourselves.
From my perspective your are trying to remove a unsightly growth that bothers you, when the fundamental problem is the patient has cancer that needs to be treated. I do not disagree with your stated goal, but for most of us, the people that vote for progressive candidates have enabled the cancer and we feel the cure needs to go much deeper than just the addressing gun issue.
Relative to the 2a issues, I am all for changes that will protect the public from the loonies, but the latest crop of bills does nothing that I am aware of to stop any future violence. It is also very disturbing to me that the progressives are willing circumvent/ignore the Constitution when it fits their agenda. This should scare every American citizen as it is clear they do not think it applies to them and they will do whatever they need to do to get their way.
On a final note, I would also like to see where you draw the line on what should be allowed under the 2a. I know I am not aligned with a majority of the people on the right, but think it is a reasonable question for you to answer since you started this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:24 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
LOL wat? Citation needed

It's called Google.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:35 AM
toro1's Avatar
toro1 toro1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 367
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than a Fox News talking point that has no basis in reality. The vast majority of Americans recieving direct Federal Aid vote Republican, and it's been that way for decades. If you look at a California voting map the entire coast is painted blue with pockets of red further inward. Who can afford to live on the coast? Minorities with their EBT cards? Hardly. Those wealthy enough to live along the coast don't vote Democrat because the government is supporting them.
I am not sure what this has to do with the original thread, but I live in Santa Barbara and this statement could not be more erroneous as it relates to SB. SB is a Democrat stronghold and the town is filled with low income people who receive their share of government handouts. However, to practice full disclosure, my wife works in Social Services and in addition to those low income people that get the freebies (and by the way are driving nicer cars than myself), she also works with people in multi-million dollar mansions that are also getting the same freebies.
Now back to the topic...........
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:35 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
C'mon, are you really that dense? What is it that you need to hear from me? That I support the private ownership of tactical nukes? I do not. That I am an admitted firearms owner, and that I support the 2A should be enough for you. But because I am a progressive, it's not. Please try to bring something of substance to the conversation.
I didn't say anything about nukes, neither did POLICESTATE. Still dodging it I see...
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:43 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toro1 View Post
I'll start of by stating I am an independent and hold both parties in equal disdain as they both have myopic viewpoints on how things should be run.
That being said, I find the progressive approach to be much less palatable to my life. It is very perplexing to me that you (the OP) are OK with general government intrusion, but are now concerned with one aspect of that intrusion. For me, and it looks like many others, that unacceptable intrusion level started a long time ago and is accelerating in all aspects of life. Why do you feel the need to have government tell you how to live any aspect of your life? You can make the same decisions on your own without their interference, and that allows the rest of us to make the right decisions for ourselves.
From my perspective your are trying to remove a unsightly growth that bothers you, when the fundamental problem is the patient has cancer that needs to be treated. I do not disagree with your stated goal, but for most of us, the people that vote for progressive candidates have enabled the cancer and we feel the cure needs to go much deeper than just the addressing gun issue.
Relative to the 2a issues, I am all for changes that will protect the public from the loonies, but the latest crop of bills does nothing that I am aware of to stop any future violence. It is also very disturbing to me that the progressives are willing circumvent/ignore the Constitution when it fits their agenda. This should scare every American citizen as it is clear they do not think it applies to them and they will do whatever they need to do to get their way.
On a final note, I would also like to see where you draw the line on what should be allowed under the 2a. I know I am not aligned with a majority of the people on the right, but think it is a reasonable question for you to answer since you started this thread.
First off, I have not shared any of my other political beliefs, so you have no idea where I stand on any of them. As this is predominently a 2A thread, I would prefer to keep it that way. And, I have answered the "question" several times. Apparently that answer is unacceptable being as how it keeps getting asked. So, here is my understanding of 2A : I believe that it was written with the individual soldier/citizen in mind. That said, any arms that can be safely operated and/or transported by one singular individual should be allowed. I also believe that those arms must be physically operated by the individual, and not placed in some area to go off at some later time. I believe that the citizenry should be at least as well armed as a paid soldier, but do not believe that anyone should have, or need, some level of WMD's. I also believe that their are classes of weapons that should be prohibited. Such as biological or radiological weapons including inhalants like mustard and nerve gasses, and weapons that fire unconventional ammunition like glass shards. I could go on, but I hope that this answers this seemingly gnawing question. If not, God knows that I tried.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:45 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
First off, I have not shared any of my other political beliefs, so you have no idea where I stand on any of them. As this is predominently a 2A thread, I would prefer to keep it that way. And, I have answered the "question" several times. Apparently that answer is unacceptable being as how it keeps getting asked. So, here is my understanding of 2A : I believe that it was written with the individual soldier/citizen in mind. That said, any arms that can be safely operated and/or transported by one singular individual should be allowed. I also believe that those arms must be physically operated by the individual, and not placed in some area to go off at some later time. I believe that the citizenry should be at least as well armed as a paid soldier, but do not believe that anyone should have, or need, some level of WMD's. I also believe that their are classes of weapons that should be prohibited. Such as biological or radiological weapons including inhalants like mustard and nerve gasses, and weapons that fire unconventional ammunition like glass shards. I could go on, but I hope that this answers this seemingly gnawing question. If not, God knows that I tried.
So you can answer it, great.

Now why do you keep bringing up "sport" then?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:52 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc1138 View Post
So you can answer it, great.

Now why do you keep bringing up "sport" then?
Really? You've read this entire thread and you still can't figure that out? I have stated plainly, in black and white, my reasons for focusing on the sporting aspect as opposed to the 2A aspect. I really don't feel like rehashing what has already been explained ad nauseum.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:53 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
Really? You've read this entire thread and you still can't figure that out? I have stated plainly, in black and white, my reasons for focusing on the sporting aspect as opposed to the 2A aspect. I really don't feel like rehashing what has already been explained ad nauseum.
There's nothing about "sporting" in the second amendment. You want us to lie about it? How "progressive".
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:12 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
It's called Google.
Well, google called and said you're wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:14 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc1138 View Post
There's nothing about "sporting" in the second amendment. You want us to lie about it? How "progressive".
I don't mean to be rude, but your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This is a forum about guns in general, not just the 2A. And I have never suggested that the 2A is about "sporting" and I have never suggested that you lie and say that it is.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:14 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
Well, google called and said you're wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Wouldn't be the first time.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:18 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
I don't mean to be rude, but your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This is a forum about guns in general, not just the 2A. And I have never suggested that the 2A is about "sporting" and I have never suggested that you lie and say that it is.
Yet you keep telling us that's what we need to tell the progressives. Even though I've already told you that sort of BS compromise is how saw many laws have been passed in CA and even the federal level that either have exemptions for "sport" or attempt to ban anything that isn't for "sport".

If it's not about sport, then stop trying to tell us that's what we need to pretend that it's about.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:21 AM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,359
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
I don't mean to be rude, but your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This is a forum about guns in general, not just the 2A. And I have never suggested that the 2A is about "sporting" and I have never suggested that you lie and say that it is.
I read your post and no you didn't suggest AII was about sporting. You suggested exposing pinko commy libs to the sport of shooting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:27 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
I read your post and no you didn't suggest AII was about sporting. You suggested exposing pinko commy libs to the sport of shooting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2
Based on what I've read(posts #19 and #70) he wants to tip-toe around 2a and either ignore it or pretend it means something that it doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:41 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc1138 View Post
Yet you keep telling us that's what we need to tell the progressives. Even though I've already told you that sort of BS compromise is how saw many laws have been passed in CA and even the federal level that either have exemptions for "sport" or attempt to ban anything that isn't for "sport".

If it's not about sport, then stop trying to tell us that's what we need to pretend that it's about.
Wow, clearly, critical thinking is dead. I have suggested that instead of thumping liberals over the head with 2A rhetoric from the beginning, we instead introduce them to firearms from the more begnign aspect of sportsmanship, recreation, family bonding, etc. Then again, maybe you are just another one of those tinfoil hat conservatives whose sole reason for owning firearms is to protect yourself from "gubment teariny" Sorry, Merc, but I seriously doubt, even on this board, that the most compelling reason to own a firearm is fear of the feds. I'm sure that for most of us, the primary reason for owning firearms is that they are fun to shoot. That is precisely why there is but one 2A heading and more than twenty threads dedicated to other aspects of gun ownership, including "sport".
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:43 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is online now
dRama Lama Ding Dong
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 5,682
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Welcome ericb!

You and I won't agree on politics...

That doesn't mean you get a special forum to talk "progressive" stuff!

Somebody said earlier "This forum's for everyone" and that's true, it's also true most of us probably have more in common than not, so...
Just join the discussions, put on your flame suit and get in there.

/thread

eta:

Oh and quit fighting w/ merc and fivefivesix. You're not gonna get the last word in on them (LOOK AT THEIR POST COUNTS MAN)!
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:57 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready_eSeVe View Post
Welcome ericb!

You and I won't agree on politics...

That doesn't mean you get a special forum to talk "progressive" stuff!

Somebody said earlier "This forum's for everyone" and that's true, it's also true most of us probably have more in common than not, so...
Just join the discussions, put on your flame suit and get in there.

/thread

eta:

Oh and quit fighting w/ merc and fivefivesix. You're not gonna get the last word in on them (LOOK AT THEIR POST COUNTS MAN)!
Yeah, I've come to that realization. I should have just stayed out of the political minefield. But where's the fun in that? Thanks for the welcome. I agree, we probably have more in common than is at first apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-09-2013, 9:16 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
Wow, clearly, critical thinking is dead. I have suggested that instead of thumping liberals over the head with 2A rhetoric from the beginning, we instead introduce them to firearms from the more begnign aspect of sportsmanship, recreation, family bonding, etc. Then again, maybe you are just another one of those tinfoil hat conservatives whose sole reason for owning firearms is to protect yourself from "gubment teariny" Sorry, Merc, but I seriously doubt, even on this board, that the most compelling reason to own a firearm is fear of the feds. I'm sure that for most of us, the primary reason for owning firearms is that they are fun to shoot. That is precisely why there is but one 2A heading and more than twenty threads dedicated to other aspects of gun ownership, including "sport".
So back to the crap talking once you're unable to actually articulate a response. Cute.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-09-2013, 10:14 AM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
Wow, clearly, critical thinking is dead. I have suggested that instead of thumping liberals over the head with 2A rhetoric from the beginning, we instead introduce them to firearms from the more begnign aspect of sportsmanship, recreation, family bonding, etc. Then again, maybe you are just another one of those tinfoil hat conservatives whose sole reason for owning firearms is to protect yourself from "gubment teariny" Sorry, Merc, but I seriously doubt, even on this board, that the most compelling reason to own a firearm is fear of the feds. I'm sure that for most of us, the primary reason for owning firearms is that they are fun to shoot. That is precisely why there is but one 2A heading and more than twenty threads dedicated to other aspects of gun ownership, including "sport".
Now you are getting into the spirit of things! Think of this forum as 1 big 1A slugfest. As is the real world, one that is peopled with many divergent views, gun owners are no different with the exception that most gun owners are conservative and have been fighting the fight long before the internet came into being. On CGN, it runs the whole gambit with many gays, libertarians, and some unafraid progressives like yourself. Now if you understand this and not get butt hurt easily, then you will do fine.

Since you wanted a "progressive 2A thread" I'm interested in seeing what "progressives solutions" can be tabled. So far its "conservatives need to ask progressives out shooting". Which boggles my minds since conservatives/gun owners have been pilloried by progressives as "hill billy, red necked, racist, misogynist, homophobe, haters" in order to advance progressive ideology over the last 50 yrs. So what other "progressive solutions"? I can give you some. Progressive gun owners showing up at democrat functions and start working the crowd. Advance the same progressive gun owners up through the democrat ranks. Even perhaps telling other progressive that using name calling or "fixing your enemy" shouldn't be used when it comes to gun owners because "darn it, progressives love their guns too". Thats 3 for a start.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Endowment Life Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-09-2013, 10:40 AM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
Now you are getting into the spirit of things! Think of this forum as 1 big 1A slugfest. As is the real world, one that is peopled with many divergent views, gun owners are no different with the exception that most gun owners are conservative and have been fighting the fight long before the internet came into being. On CGN, it runs the whole gambit with many gays, libertarians, and some unafraid progressives like yourself. Now if you understand this and not get butt hurt easily, then you will do fine.

Since you wanted a "progressive 2A thread" I'm interested in seeing what "progressives solutions" can be tabled. So far its "conservatives need to ask progressives out shooting". Which boggles my minds since conservatives/gun owners have been pilloried by progressives as "hill billy, red necked, racist, misogynist, homophobe, haters" in order to advance progressive ideology over the last 50 yrs. So what other "progressive solutions"? I can give you some. Progressive gun owners showing up at democrat functions and start working the crowd. Advance the same progressive gun owners up through the democrat ranks. Even perhaps telling other progressive that using name calling or "fixing your enemy" shouldn't be used when it comes to gun owners because "darn it, progressives love their guns too". Thats 3 for a start.
Originally, my thoughts for this thread were NOT 2A specific. Rather, I just thought that this being California, that there were probably at least a few progressive scurrying around. It kind of got hijacked by posters demanding that I prove that I am in support of the 2A, given that I am a self confessed liberal. You make some valid points. I regularly attend my local city council meetings but 2A issues have never been tabled so far as I know. My local elected officials are all Republican so I don't know if preaching to that choir is necessary. On the other hand, Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi are lost causes as far as 2A is concerned. I'll have to give some thought to how best I can contribute to the conversation on a local level. Thanks for the input.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:14 PM
toro1's Avatar
toro1 toro1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 367
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
First off, I have not shared any of my other political beliefs, so you have no idea where I stand on any of them. As this is predominently a 2A thread, I would prefer to keep it that way. And, I have answered the "question" several times. Apparently that answer is unacceptable being as how it keeps getting asked. So, here is my understanding of 2A : I believe that it was written with the individual soldier/citizen in mind. That said, any arms that can be safely operated and/or transported by one singular individual should be allowed. I also believe that those arms must be physically operated by the individual, and not placed in some area to go off at some later time. I believe that the citizenry should be at least as well armed as a paid soldier, but do not believe that anyone should have, or need, some level of WMD's. I also believe that their are classes of weapons that should be prohibited. Such as biological or radiological weapons including inhalants like mustard and nerve gasses, and weapons that fire unconventional ammunition like glass shards. I could go on, but I hope that this answers this seemingly gnawing question. If not, God knows that I tried.
Thanks for the explanation on where you stand. For me it is important to understand where you drew the line so the rest of what you say could be put into context. There are many progressives that say they believe in the 2a, but think that means 1 bolt action rifle (no handguns) and 25 rounds per household.
Also, I realize you were trying to keep your political beliefs out of the thread, but I am following your suggestion of engaging "progressives" to affect positive change, and just carried it past your initial stated goal. I realize, this is not the correct forum for that dialogue, but I figured I would poke at anyway. Enough said on it from me.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:21 PM
BigL BigL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 679
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

The fact remains your political party is infringing on our second amendment rights. Thats a fact. I believe that if we all want to see justice done and for the politicians who are trying to take away our second amendment rights we need to come together as a community not try to segregate ourselves because "we" think it would be easier to share our political views and beliefs with others who share similar views. We need to take constructive criticism and share new ideas with each other. Hopefully we can come to understand one another.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:29 PM
Jpzum Jpzum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bay, Repyublik Kommifornyikationstan
Posts: 202
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Libertarians: more socially liberal than dems. More fiscally conservative than GOP. The CA libertarian platform supports the 2A to the FULLEST extent. They support all personal freedoms that don't infringe on another persons rights. They believe the government should be protecting individuals rights rather than stripping them away. There is room for a leftist pro 2A person in the libertarian party. While they support such left ideas as gay marriage, they don't support subsides, handouts, corporate tax breaks... It's a growing party. Donkeys and Elephants just try to decide which rights to allow us or revoke, or who is allowed "rights" and to what extent.

I suppose it may be a radical stance to support a third party, but it makes you free to despise D/R equally and to support and advocate for all of your own individual rights (so long as they do not infringe on another persons individual rights). Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. The government does not legislate based on any specific religious view or anti religious view.

Both the dems and GOP want to be your nanny.

OP: progressive? What does that mean? Does it mean socialist? I don't even know what a progressive is. Does that mean the same thing as liberal? Or democrat? If it does, then why is there even such a thing as a progressive? Are any republicans progressive (that's rhetorical).

I've always felt liberal as far as social issues, but the attack on the 2A has caused me to wake up. Damn the CA democrat party. The right wing view on social issues (pro-life, homophobes, creationists, tea party) I could never support.

Feinstein, pelosi, boxer, Yee, de Leon, skinner, etc, etc, etc, are a bunch of emotional bleeding hearts that feel that disarming everyone is the best way to secure progressive votes. They would have everyone believe that supporters of the second amendment approve of killing children. And their constituents agree. They show it with their votes.

It seems that the only politicians who believe in ALL civil rights are the libertarians. Separation of church and state. Equal rights for all. Individuals right to keep and bear arms.

What does a progressive even believe? Or is that just another name to use instead of democrat? I know the democrats in CA believe that I should not be able to own or carry most types of firearms due to public safety. That position is terribly Misguided, but that is what they believe, when actually, public safety would not be jeopardized if I carried a gun. My personal safety and the safety of my family would be bolstered. The democrat agenda would not allow me to carry, and would severely restrict my choice in weapons, because I choose to abide by laws.

Criminals choose not to abide by laws.

Dems are ensconced in this state. GOP is not electable in the statewide elections. They are all garbage. It's all cronies, kickbacks, and power whores.

There is only one party that believes in ALL of your individual rights and personal freedoms. It might be a fringe element. Might not have the ability to win state wide elections (neither does GOP). But the fact is if you believe in the 2A, you can't cast your votes for the pelosis ET al. If you believe that all are created equal, you can't vote red.

There is another choice if you believe in freedom and YOUR RIGHTS.

It might be radical. But that's my .02
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:14 PM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Eric, welcome to the forum. Don't mind the prevalence of far-right members in this forum. There's also quite a few moderates, independents, libertarians and liberals in support of the Second Amendment here.

It's not all Conservatives. I consider myself a moderate with strong Libertarian leanings. Not everyone is as stubborn about fitting you into a conveniently pre-packaged stereotype. What I find interesting is how some of these loudmouths will cry foul when someone in the media wrongly tries to paint gun owners as a bunch of paranoid redneck gun-nuts, but as soon as someone around here speaks up having political views an inch to the left of Rush Limbaugh they get the McCarthy treatment.

By fighting among ourselves we play right into the anti-gun gameplan. Divide and conquer. Some folks get it, some don't.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:15 PM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpzum View Post
Libertarians: more socially liberal than dems. More fiscally conservative than GOP. The CA libertarian platform supports the 2A to the FULLEST extent. They support all personal freedoms that don't infringe on another persons rights. They believe the government should be protecting individuals rights rather than stripping them away. There is room for a leftist pro 2A person in the libertarian party. While they support such left ideas as gay marriage, they don't support subsides, handouts, corporate tax breaks... It's a growing party. Donkeys and Elephants just try to decide which rights to allow us or revoke, or who is allowed "rights" and to what extent.

I suppose it may be a radical stance to support a third party, but it makes you free to despise D/R equally and to support and advocate for all of your own individual rights (so long as they do not infringe on another persons individual rights). Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. The government does not legislate based on any specific religious view or anti religious view.

Both the dems and GOP want to be your nanny.

OP: progressive? What does that mean? Does it mean socialist? I don't even know what a progressive is. Does that mean the same thing as liberal? Or democrat? If it does, then why is there even such a thing as a progressive? Are any republicans progressive (that's rhetorical).

I've always felt liberal as far as social issues, but the attack on the 2A has caused me to wake up. Damn the CA democrat party. The right wing view on social issues (pro-life, homophobes, creationists, tea party) I could never support.

Feinstein, pelosi, boxer, Yee, de Leon, skinner, etc, etc, etc, are a bunch of emotional bleeding hearts that feel that disarming everyone is the best way to secure progressive votes. They would have everyone believe that supporters of the second amendment approve of killing children. And their constituents agree. They show it with their votes.

It seems that the only politicians who believe in ALL civil rights are the libertarians. Separation of church and state. Equal rights for all. Individuals right to keep and bear arms.

What does a progressive even believe? Or is that just another name to use instead of democrat? I know the democrats in CA believe that I should not be able to own or carry most types of firearms due to public safety. That position is terribly Misguided, but that is what they believe, when actually, public safety would not be jeopardized if I carried a gun. My personal safety and the safety of my family would be bolstered. The democrat agenda would not allow me to carry, and would severely restrict my choice in weapons, because I choose to abide by laws.

Criminals choose not to abide by laws.

Dems are ensconced in this state. GOP is not electable in the statewide elections. They are all garbage. It's all cronies, kickbacks, and power whores.

There is only one party that believes in ALL of your individual rights and personal freedoms. It might be a fringe element. Might not have the ability to win state wide elections (neither does GOP). But the fact is if you believe in the 2A, you can't cast your votes for the pelosis ET al. If you believe that all are created equal, you can't vote red.

There is another choice if you believe in freedom and YOUR RIGHTS.

It might be radical. But that's my .02
If there were true relevancy in it, then I would easily describe myself as a Libertarian. In fact, I voted for Gary Johnson last year. But the truth is that Third Party politics can be a crap shoot. There are loony Libertarians just as there are loony Dems and Repubs. It's just that the pool is so much smaller. Growing up in the OC, "behind the Orange Curtain" we used to call it, I recall the Republican Party being much more Libertarian in it's beliefs and in it's dogmas. Today, I couldn't even fathom wasting my vote on a Republican candidate, regardless of their 2A stance. There is simply too much stench on the far right these days. Maybe it's time to take another look at the California Libertarian party. Thanks for the info.

Last edited by Ericb760; 08-12-2013 at 6:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:17 PM
21SF's Avatar
21SF 21SF is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 3,529
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpzum View Post
Libertarians: more socially liberal than dems. More fiscally conservative than GOP. The CA libertarian platform supports the 2A to the FULLEST extent. They support all personal freedoms that don't infringe on another persons rights. They believe the government should be protecting individuals rights rather than stripping them away. There is room for a leftist pro 2A person in the libertarian party. While they support such left ideas as gay marriage, they don't support subsides, handouts, corporate tax breaks... It's a growing party. Donkeys and Elephants just try to decide which rights to allow us or revoke, or who is allowed "rights" and to what extent.

I suppose it may be a radical stance to support a third party, but it makes you free to despise D/R equally and to support and advocate for all of your own individual rights (so long as they do not infringe on another persons individual rights). Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. The government does not legislate based on any specific religious view or anti religious view.

Both the dems and GOP want to be your nanny.

OP: progressive? What does that mean? Does it mean socialist? I don't even know what a progressive is. Does that mean the same thing as liberal? Or democrat? If it does, then why is there even such a thing as a progressive? Are any republicans progressive (that's rhetorical).

I've always felt liberal as far as social issues, but the attack on the 2A has caused me to wake up. Damn the CA democrat party. The right wing view on social issues (pro-life, homophobes, creationists, tea party) I could never support.

Feinstein, pelosi, boxer, Yee, de Leon, skinner, etc, etc, etc, are a bunch of emotional bleeding hearts that feel that disarming everyone is the best way to secure progressive votes. They would have everyone believe that supporters of the second amendment approve of killing children. And their constituents agree. They show it with their votes.

It seems that the only politicians who believe in ALL civil rights are the libertarians. Separation of church and state. Equal rights for all. Individuals right to keep and bear arms.

What does a progressive even believe? Or is that just another name to use instead of democrat? I know the democrats in CA believe that I should not be able to own or carry most types of firearms due to public safety. That position is terribly Misguided, but that is what they believe, when actually, public safety would not be jeopardized if I carried a gun. My personal safety and the safety of my family would be bolstered. The democrat agenda would not allow me to carry, and would severely restrict my choice in weapons, because I choose to abide by laws.

Criminals choose not to abide by laws.

Dems are ensconced in this state. GOP is not electable in the statewide elections. They are all garbage. It's all cronies, kickbacks, and power whores.

There is only one party that believes in ALL of your individual rights and personal freedoms. It might be a fringe element. Might not have the ability to win state wide elections (neither does GOP). But the fact is if you believe in the 2A, you can't cast your votes for the pelosis ET al. If you believe that all are created equal, you can't vote red.

There is another choice if you believe in freedom and YOUR RIGHTS.

It might be radical. But that's my .02

This makes way too much sense for a LIBTARD!!!!
__________________
SA TRP Half rail, Glock 21SF, Spikes St-15, Ruger Alaskan .44, Saiga 7.62, GSSF Member
Diablo Rod & Gun Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenkeen View Post
"What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:18 PM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frito Bandido View Post
Eric, welcome to the forum. Don't mind the prevalence of far-right members in this forum. There's also quite a few moderates, independents, libertarians and liberals in support of the Second Amendment here.

It's not all Conservatives. I consider myself a moderate with strong Libertarian leanings. Not everyone is as stubborn about fitting you into a conveniently pre-packaged stereotype. What I find interesting is how some of these loudmouths will cry foul when someone in the media wrongly tries to paint gun owners as a bunch of paranoid redneck gun-nuts, but as soon as someone around here speaks up having political views an inch to the left of Rush Limbaugh they get the McCarthy treatment.

By fighting among ourselves we play right into the anti-gun gameplan. Divide and conquer. Some folks get it, some don't.
Which is precisely why I attempted to open this dialogue in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:22 PM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,564
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
Which is precisely why I attempted to open this dialogue in the first place.
So maybe you should stop with the immature comments and assumptions?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:23 PM
Jpzum Jpzum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bay, Repyublik Kommifornyikationstan
Posts: 202
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Go on the ca libertarian website and read their platform. They are gaining some traction. It's maybe unconventional. And they maybe get a little radical with some of their ideas of privatization.... But they are the one party who believes in freedom and individual rights. It's possible that libertarians can get elected or appointed to some offices on small local levels. The mayor of Mountain View is a libertarian. They are uncompromising on YOUR 2A rights and all of your personal freedoms. We probably can't unseat the dems at the senate level. But maybe someday.....
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:31 PM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 555
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
Which is precisely why I attempted to open this dialogue in the first place.
Don't be discouraged, this place needs a little more variety
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:32 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
If there were true relevancy in it, then I would easily describe myself as a Libertarian. In fact, I very nearly voted for Gary Johnson last year. But the truth is that Third Party politics can be a crap shoot. There are loony Libertarians just as there are loony Dems and Repubs. It's just that the pool is so much smaller. Growing up in the OC, "behind the Orange Curtain" we used to call it, I recall the Republican Party being much more Libertarian in it's beliefs and in it's dogmas. Today, I couldn't even fathom wasting my vote on a Republican candidate, regardless of their 2A stance. There is simply too much stench on the far right these days. Maybe it's time to take another look at the California Libertarian party. Thanks for the info.
So in CA voting for libertarians, who believe in very limited government and taking the candy bowl away, will some how win in a state the Dems have turned to their favor by making it into 1 big huge candy bowl?

Sorry, just don't see it.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Endowment Life Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:35 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,588
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default


Nice thread ya got 'ere.

Pity if sumpin' would 'appen to it.

Talkin' 'bout the topic 'stead o the talkers'd be a big help.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-09-2013, 1:36 PM
Jpzum Jpzum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Bay, Repyublik Kommifornyikationstan
Posts: 202
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Is there a better choice? Is your only goal to beat the dems? Or is your only goal supporting the GOP? Those parties suck!
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 12:51 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.