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 02-12-2012, 6:26 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

Ha ha, this state is awesome! I'll see you guys on the 'right' side of the border.... Not only do we risk our freedom and lives, temp fate, law and/or a policemans bullet for a hobby in many cases, and the possible defense of our very lives in others, now we are possibly 'immoral' and guilty of 'moral turpitude' for possesing a hunting rifle with a bit of plastic sticking off it or the wrong logo engraved on the side.

You can keep your 'weather'.... I know where I'm not wanted.

Also, if this case is going to be appealed, can CGF help the guys lawyer? Not to get him off, he sounds like a ****head, I mean to clear up any gun related issues. It sounds like the court is taking the legislature at their word. As stupid and ignorant as the legislatures conclusion is, is the court not correct in taking their 'word' for it?
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Last edited by SanPedroShooter; 02-12-2012 at 6:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-12-2012, 8:50 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
You can keep your 'weather'.... I know where I'm not wanted.
I refuse to be a victim of intimidation. You should try it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
Also, if this case is going to be appealed, can CGF help the guys lawyer? Not to get him off, he sounds like a ****head, I mean to clear up any gun related issues. It sounds like the court is taking the legislature at their word. As stupid and ignorant as the legislatures conclusion is, is the court not correct in taking their 'word' for it?
The number one way we can help this guy is to take a likely win in Wilson v. Cook County (IL Supremes) and import it into California via Haynie v. Harris and/or a subsequent case.

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:39 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This also benefits us in another way in that it admits that CA's laws are based on qualitative moral judgments of bad feeling. This reduces them down to basic censorship and thus open to attack as such.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-12-2012, 10:29 AM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
This also benefits us in another way in that it admits that CA's laws are based on qualitative moral judgments of bad feeling. This reduces them down to basic censorship and thus open to attack as such.


This is a very good point ... now that we've got a specific finding by a court that possession of a particular item shows that you have a predisposition toward a certain morally reprehensible activity ... it's not too hard to show that it is a demonstrably false conclusion.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-12-2012, 10:49 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I refuse to be a victim of intimidation. You should try it!


The number one way we can help this guy is to take a likely win in Wilson v. Cook County (IL Supremes) and import it into California via Haynie v. Harris and/or a subsequent case.

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene
I do not believe this ruling is a result of intimidation.

The judge is articulating a fact that is culturally true in every state that has policies against civil gun ownership. She has simply put in an official statement what is considered a cultural norm in your state;and that cultural norm is anyone who owns an AK or AR15 -or, put to its logical conclusion, any firearm at all- is an immoral person who is up to no good just by de facto ownership.

To such people their thought process is why do you NEED a rifle? Heck why do you NEED a gun at all? Millions of law abiding people in California go about their days without an HK strapped to their hip or even locked in a gun safe at home, so why do YOU feel the need to arm yourself-unless you are obivously up to no good. Such people do not care about the truth that violence is commonplace and that self defense is a prescribed human right. They only care that they have lived their entire lives without a violent event and their neighbors haven't been involved in a violent event, so anyone who arms themselves must thus be either insane or up to no good.

Thus, the "moral turpitude" speech. The Constitution is a dead argument because these people know no such thing. No one in the public school system has educated them on the national Bill of Rights, and all of us alive will drop dead of shock before the Federal government goes out of its way to describe limits on its central authority. As far as the civil populations of urban California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York ( among other places) are concerned guns are a necessary evil for law enforcement and military personnel which have as much business in civilian hands as a nuclear fission bomb.


Court rulings will go a long way to safeguarding all our rights on paper, but equal effort must be spent on educating the hoplophobe neighbor and coworker that owning a gun is not the mark of a terrorist, as no one else is going to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:32 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I do not believe this ruling is a result of intimidation.
I think you've misread me a bit. My post had two very separate points in it. "Intimidation" was in response to the poster who said he would move out of California because he wasn't wanted here as a person who takes firearms seriously.

The ruling analysis is VERY different and blending my two points leads to odd outcomes.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:40 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I think you've misread me a bit. My post had two very separate points in it. "Intimidation" was in response to the poster who said he would move out of California because he wasn't wanted here as a person who takes firearms seriously.

The ruling analysis is VERY different and blending my two points leads to odd outcomes.

-Gene
Perhaps I have. It isn't my intention to confuse the intent of your posts.

But haranguing someone for leaving a state that plainly does not desire his company is taking an unfair step. Plainly enough of the citizens of California feel the legislature is doing right by restricting gun ownership via their electoral support of such politicians .

If one man believes his rights are being infringed by the laws in his area of residence,he should feel free to move someplace that welcomes his tax dollars and AR15 rifles hand in hand without being accused of folding to 'intimidation'. Just because one is not physically located in a gun-regulated doesn't mean they are 'out of the fight'. I don't live in California , and have left Illinois for good. I still participate and support your cause just the same, as we all must hang together or we will all surely hang separately .

Last edited by SilverTauron; 02-12-2012 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:41 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 agree Gene, if was just the gun issue I could deal. I still make donations to CGF and I'm still a CRPA member, I am just raising my family out side of California. We all do what we think is best, and know that without you and CGF, we'd be in bind I cant even imagine. I was wondering the other day what the BOF would be up to if CGF was never created. It seems like there is no one that will call them on their ****, not unless it is brought before the court, and even then... Same with the Sherrifs and LEO in this state.

I shudder to think.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Last edited by SanPedroShooter; 02-12-2012 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:42 AM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,573
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

No surprise at all in that ruling. It is precisely how the vast majority of voters in SF Bay area and LA view gun possession. We should make it a sticky for the enlightenment of all the proponents of reclaiming our rights via the initiative process.
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:52 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
No surprise at all in that ruling. It is precisely how the vast majority of voters in SF Bay area and LA view gun possession. We should make it a sticky for the enlightenment of all the proponents of reclaiming our rights via the initiative process.
I do not know about SF, or the Bay Area, in general. I can tell folks that the majority of law abiding citizens in the FLAT parts of Oakland, many of whom are also church goers (like me), strongly support the right of self defense.

I know this because I literally talk to hundreds of people per month (I talk to everyone, it's a gift, or a curse!)



I think that there are TWO ways of thinking, in general:

1) SOME people think that ALL people are generally BAD, and it is the government's JOB to protect US, from US.

OR

2) SOME people think that ALL people are generally GOOD, and it is OUR JOB, as citizens of this great country, to DEFEND ourselves, and our country from folks in #1, above.

I tend to side with #2, as do most of us.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-12-2012, 12:46 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Perhaps I have. It isn't my intention to confuse the intent of your posts.

But haranguing someone for leaving a state that plainly does not desire his company is taking an unfair step. Plainly enough of the citizens of California feel the legislature is doing right by restricting gun ownership via their electoral support of such politicians .
I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-12-2012, 12:55 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene
YES!

And many of us are working locally in our own communities to do that. I implore ALL Calgunners to realize that you DO have power to make POSITIVE changes in your own communities.

You don't have to run for office or anything.

Some of the ways are:

1) VOTE

2) Attend your local City Council meetings (and school board meetings, etc.)

3) Work within your other communities (such as faith-based, etc.) and spread the word that we are working to restore our civil rights.

4) Take someone shooting.

5) JOIN, and work with your local NRA Members' Councils.

6) Same with your Calguns C3 chapters.

7) Always remember that in many places, you may be the ONLY person that
someone knows, who is a rights activist (and that IS what we are). So act like it. Be respectable.

8) Create friendly relationships with your local media, and with your state and local elected representatives.

9) NEVER be strident or angry - we ARE the good guys and gals, and so we act like it.

10) Try to avoid mixing in other issues with our rights issues. This means that IF you want to be an advocate for our rights, don't mix in other things, for numerous reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-12-2012, 1:11 PM
Mrbroom's Avatar
Mrbroom Mrbroom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 336
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
YES!

And many of us are working locally in our own communities to do that. I implore ALL Calgunners to realize that you DO have power to make POSITIVE changes in your own communities.

You don't have to run for office or anything.

Some of the ways are:

1) VOTE

2) Attend your local City Council meetings (and school board meetings, etc.)

3) Work within your other communities (such as faith-based, etc.) and spread the word that we are working to restore our civil rights.

4) Take someone shooting.

5) JOIN, and work with your local NRA Members' Councils.

6) Same with your Calguns C3 chapters.

7) Always remember that in many places, you may be the ONLY person that
someone knows, who is a rights activist (and that IS what we are). So act like it. Be respectable.

8) Create friendly relationships with your local media, and with your state and local elected representatives.

9) NEVER be strident or angry - we ARE the good guys and gals, and so we act like it.

10) Try to avoid mixing in other issues with our rights issues. This means that IF you want to be an advocate for our rights, don't mix in other things, for numerous reasons.
1-10!!!!! This is like the ten commandments to effect posistive change!!!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-12-2012, 1:23 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbroom View Post
1-10!!!!! This is like the ten commandments to effect posistive change!!!
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, and we don't even need to break them, since none of us are worshiping craven idols (other than our newest Romy builds!). . .



PS - here is a chart that explains the type of thinking that I think I am seeing within our opposition. . . (LOWER LEFT). . .

Please let me know if it makes sense. It has to do with how people view the role of the government. . .



ETA: we are obviously trying to move CA to the upper right, and away from lower left. . .

ALSO - a lot of this has to do with how individual people THINK! Seriously, I have found that people who think that others are generally BAD, tend to be in lower LEFT, and those who think that most people are generally GOOD (and hence, can be trusted) are in the upper RIGHT.

This is from me talking to literally THOUSANDS of people over the last 6 years or so. THAT is why if I get into an online argument with someone (which I try and avoid now), I pretty much always ask them if they think that people are good. If they do, then there is HOPE for them, and I might be able to convince them we are correct. IF the person just thinks that all people are pretty much evil, or can't be trusted, there is really nothing you can do to change that person's mind. Their entire thinking is distorted. SOME people view the world as full of bad people, who MUST be controlled by Mother Russia, or Uncle Sam, or whatever.

Most of MY friends figure that we are mostly grown up enough to figure things out on our own, with a little non-governmental help and guidance, now and then.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0430610e-efd2-45c4-9647-cf7e106d44c8.jpg (47.8 KB, 344 views)

Last edited by oaklander; 02-12-2012 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-12-2012, 2:04 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
1) VOTE
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Who wants to bet where all of our electoral votes are going this fall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
4) Take someone shooting.
By far the best way to do it - I've never met anyone who didn't chuckle in awe when the first round went off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
9) NEVER be strident or angry ...
Take this into account if responding to my post .
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-12-2012, 2:25 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I don't think you'd apply the same logic to Dr. King or African Americans in Birmingham Alabama circa 1963.

You restore rights in the place they're oppressed.

-Gene
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-12-2012, 2:40 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.
Actually, the rights violations are just as bad, and more pernicious - no matter how you look at them.

If you want to analyze things from a race perspective, a majority of people of color live in places where they have little to ZERO self-defense rights. Think about the cities that have the highest populations of blacks, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...an_populations

NOW - match that up with the cities that have the WORST record on self-defense laws. There is a HUGE overlap.

In fact, I see this in CA. The most LTC-friendly counties are predominantly NOT counties that contain large populations of non-latino people of color. See: http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.p...ccw-initiative, and compare to http://fiatmap.files.wordpress.com/2...erican-map.jpg.

NOW - think about this. . .

What RIGHT is the MOST VALUABLE???

Would that NOT be the right to be alive???

Our political opposition will attempt to use your SAME argument to marginalize the right of self-defense. It IS a basic right, and in this country, it is MUCH more available to whites.

LET ME REPHRASE:

What WE are doing is the SAME THING as the black civil rights work in the 1960's. We even have some of the SAME PEOPLE DOING IT. One of the people in our coalition is a former freedom rider, and there are more than one of us who fought the civil rights battles back in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, 90's, and 00's.

I myself marched for black civil rights in Compton, in the mid 1980's. I do not think it is even logical to separate out our coalition from the black civil rights movement. Parts of us, have been parts of it. And that is just verifiable truth. All rights movements tend to work in tandem, but here - it's not just that. In many senses, and through many connections, we are actually part of it, a continuation of it, and a logical extension of it.

NOW, I am not trying to hitch a wagon, or "buy" us more moral weight than we are entitled to. But you need to kind of "see" that this is about more than being able to buy neat toys. THIS RIGHT underlies all other rights, and without THIS RIGHT, there would have been NO 1960's BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, as we know it.

I am not the one saying it - just read the scholarship to realize how often lawfully-owned firearms were used to protect the brave men and women who fought for ALL RIGHTS. The reason I say ALL RIGHTS is because what hurts one American, hurts ALL Americans.

I am not going to back down on this, or even argue with you. Please, think about this right, and what it means. It is much more important than I think you give it credit for, and it is a lot more intertwined in with our basic rights struggles than you first imagine.

Last edited by oaklander; 02-12-2012 at 3:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:11 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.
That seems an obtuse response. As you clearly can't dispute the key is to fight in the few urban areas that treat gun owners as unwelcome guests.

You're quite right that MLK went all over the south - but he remained living in the south. So do we go all over our "south," but that still doesn't mean we should all give up and move out of the places where oppression is happening.

That's exactly what the oppressors want. Giving it to them is short sighted.

-Gene

PS. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean to those who decided they can't afford this fight - it's not cheap on a whole lot of levels - most non cash. However, the "just move" thing is hilarious and lame. You can't win this war by boycotting.

What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to just pack up and move to French Louisiana since they weren't all that welcome in the Crown Colonies?
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:13 PM
RRichie09's Avatar
RRichie09 RRichie09 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 2,600
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.
But the only the most important thing people like you and I can do is to vote and you cannot do that from a distance. Basically, what have you done for CA gun laws besides support the cause in your head?
__________________

-Rich
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:13 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
You confuse location with effectiveness. You seem to be making excellent progress in advancing gun rights in Chicago and Washington D.C., without actually packing your family up and moving to each location in the process.

MLK Jr. didn't stay in Alabama to advance the cause of civil rights. He traveled and moved to various campaigns in various places. He did not physically relocate his family to each district in each one.

Perhaps a more relevant factor in your comparison is that the civil rights violations in the 1960s were much more widespread than the gun rights struggle we face today. MLK did not HAVE a place to relocate that would treat him and his family with full civil rights, as racial prejudice was ingrained into the culture of America no matter what state one lived in.

As for gun rights, we as yet do not live in a climate where California type gun laws are a national norm.The states that are committed to the goal of civil disarmament are the most intransigent ones in the Union, and the circumstances of how they got as badly as they are are factors which cannot be reversed in a mans lifetime. Do not misunderstand, I support your efforts in the legal level, but part of why California and other states are in the mess they are is because the generation of voters at the ballot today have rejected the principles of self determination and small government.That sort of generation shift takes time to undo.
Try not to be so narrow minded on the "rights issues" While MLK was certainly an icon, i thinks its fair to say he didn't do it all on his own. There were in fact, "family" all over the place in this country spreading his word and ideas. (Family as in followers and civil rights workers. Not all of them got along or saw eye to eye in many cases.

Civil rights for blacks had a true "movement" much like the one that CGF has started now. The difference? Internet speed! One thing MLK never had.

Last edited by taperxz; 02-12-2012 at 3:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:24 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

You guys and gals rock!!!

I am super happy that we truly understand that it IS a rights issue. . .

Here is a graphic that I made using the two sources outlined in my previous post. Those of you who THINK that our civil rights have no relation to ALL civil rights, well - you kind of need to rethink things. . .

Attached Images
File Type: jpg racism-in-california-gun-laws.jpg (20.1 KB, 360 views)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:27 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
That seems an obtuse response. As you clearly can't dispute the key is to fight in the few urban areas that treat gun owners as unwelcome guests.

You're quite right that MLK went all over the south - but he remained living in the south. So do we go all over our "south," but that still doesn't mean we should all give up and move out of the places where oppression is happening.

That's exactly what the oppressors want. Giving it to them is short sighted.

-Gene

PS. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean to those who decided they can't afford this fight - it's not cheap on a whole lot of levels - most non cash. However, the "just move" thing is hilarious and lame. You can't win this war by boycotting.

What would have happened if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to just pack up and move to French Louisiana since they weren't all that welcome in the Crown Colonies?
I am not disagreeing with any statements. MLK's fight and our fight are for the same thing. My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty. By the logic of some members on this board, all who call themselves free gun owners should pull up stakes and move into California .


As far as advancing the cause of gun rights in California, I will freely state my contribution is bubkis. Its an unfortunate question though as I have never lived in California as an adult.Even though I do not live in Illinois, I am active in the 2nd Amendment fight in Illinois, such as it is. Ive motivated friends and family in Chicago to give a rats about their rights and I daresay there may be some progress on that front. Sure its only five people , but its a start. And I did it with my residence being in South Dakota.


My point is that whether your address is in South LA or South Texas, we are ALL in the same fight. Leftist politicians exist here in South Dakota as much as they do in any other place, the difference is that the people in this state know their rights and refuse to cede them to some slick talking guy or gal in a suit .Because one doesn't physically live in LA doesn't make a pro gun advocate some sort of traitor or runner, any more than white Americans who supported MLK and others during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement could be called the same.


Instead of demeaning someone who is fed up with submitting to a government run amok and the ever present possibility of going to jail just because they own a gun in a state which culturally criminalizes the practice , we should support those people wherever they go. The reason I am a member on this site is because taking the attitude of 'gun control laws aren't my problem' doesn't help anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:28 PM
DannyInSoCal's Avatar
DannyInSoCal DannyInSoCal is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 8,119
iTrader: 108 / 100%
Default

Thank a liberal...
__________________
.
$500 Donation to any Veterans Charity - Plus $500 Gift Card to any gun store: Visit 2nd Amendment Mortgage / www.2AMortgage.com
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:46 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I am not disagreeing with any statements. MLK's fight and our fight are for the same thing. My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty. By the logic of some members on this board, all who call themselves free gun owners should pull up stakes and move into California .


As far as advancing the cause of gun rights in California, I will freely state my contribution is bubkis. Its an unfortunate question though as I have never lived in California as an adult.Even though I do not live in Illinois, I am active in the 2nd Amendment fight in Illinois, such as it is. Ive motivated friends and family in Chicago to give a rats about their rights and I daresay there may be some progress on that front. Sure its only five people , but its a start. And I did it with my residence being in South Dakota.


My point is that whether your address is in South LA or South Texas, we are ALL in the same fight. Leftist politicians exist here in South Dakota as much as they do in any other place, the difference is that the people in this state know their rights and refuse to cede them to some slick talking guy or gal in a suit .Because one doesn't physically live in LA doesn't make a pro gun advocate some sort of traitor or runner, any more than white Americans who supported MLK and others during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement could be called the same.


Instead of demeaning someone who is fed up with submitting to a government run amok and the ever present possibility of going to jail just because they own a gun in a state which culturally criminalizes the practice , we should support those people wherever they go. The reason I am a member on this site is because taking the attitude of 'gun control laws aren't my problem' doesn't help anyone.
You are missing the point of USING the entire Federal Judiciary System for our benefit here in CA
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-12-2012, 3:52 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.

Last edited by OleCuss; 02-12-2012 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-12-2012, 6:00 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.
YES!

And we need to remember that the fight is RIGHT HERE >.<

That dot represents where each of us is standing right now. Things do not just "happen," and it is incumbent on each of us to do what we can. If folks look at the stickies on this site, and also review the gun rights are civil rights site in my .sig, folks can glean a plethora of things that each of us can do.

It does NOT take money (although money is good, and PLEASE support our coalition), all it takes is maybe a few hours per week of folk's time. There is plenty of work!!!

I got my start signing up people at NRA booths at gun shows, through my local NRA MC. Just find something you like to do. I like to do BBQ's, and that is about all I do. Stay tuned for a HUGE and peaceful BBQ in Oakland, likely within the next 8 months or so. . .

Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-12-2012, 7:03 PM
RRichie09's Avatar
RRichie09 RRichie09 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 2,600
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
My point is that demeaning people who leave for better pastures is petty.
If you hadn't mentioned that you could fight for our rights in CA from another state I would've kept my mouth shut. I too have considered moving out of CA, not just because of 2A rights but many other reasons, but once I move I'm not gonna pretend that I am not hurting 2A right in CA.
__________________

-Rich
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-12-2012, 7:24 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When I was in Afghanistan I was equipped and fed directly and indirectly by civilians. Without civilian support (much of it very far away) we could not have carried out the fight.

Yeah, they weren't humping the ruck or taking the same chance at being a bullet-sponge, but that doesn't mean that they were irrelevant to the fight.

People who are not in California can still be helpful and supportive. IIRC, Gray doesn't live in California but he is a real champion of our rights here in California.

The essential fight is here. I will miss those who go elsewhere but I will not consider them irrelevant. But if too many fighters for our rights leave the California field of battle, those who oppose liberty will take the fight elsewhere with potentially unbearable results.

We can win here and the nation cannot afford the cost of losing here.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-12-2012, 8:12 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
A couple of points to be made:

1. Oaklander, there is some similarity between your graphic and the Pournelle Axes. Pournelle got some of the assignments of groups wrong, but his axes are interesting nonetheless.

2. It is important to distinguish between motivations. Some of us are "soldiers" and some of us are "civilians". A soldier will seek to engage and defeat the enemy and the civilians may not do so. It can sometimes be difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand each other's perspective.

3. Eventually you have to bring the fight to the OPFOR if you plan to win (there are some exceptions but they are not common). In our case, we are where the OPFOR is and if we are going to win we will have to use strategy and tactical planning along with maneuver and fires to successfully engage the OPFOR. To go elsewhere is to leave the battle - and the enemies of freedom will simply go where you've gone in order to enslave you there. Enough of us must stay and fight.

4. "Civilians" are essential. They make the fight worthwhile and their support for the fighters is essential. Also, there are strategic moves which they make possible. Support can come from a distance.


But we have to understand. The battle in California is key to securing our civil rights for our country. California won't do it alone, but I think that without the vigorous engagement by CGF here in California that our gains will/would be lost.

I think that as recently as one year ago I did not understand just how crucial the CGF fight really is on a national basis. But I'd bet that Alan Gura has several of our CGF board members and maybe a couple of CGNers on his speed dial - and for good reason.

The fight is here.
Indeed it is. I help in California primarily because California will set the constitutional minimum for the 9th Circuit, which includes my state, Washington. Also, I'm tired of people getting killed in California.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-12-2012 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:02 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

REALITY CHECK: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02...commentlistpos

Note the COMMENTS. . .

WE are not the only people who think this court decision does not make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-12-2012, 10:42 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
REALITY CHECK: http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02...commentlistpos

Note the COMMENTS. . .

WE are not the only people who think this court decision does not make sense.
I must admit, I'm a bit impressed at the comments at the SFGate article which seem to offer principles that support our cause... -> "a plant is an inanimate object, a gun is an inanimate object. Both are incapable or moral decisions..."

This might be a whole lot easier than we are all making it out to be... just maybe.
__________________
member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-13-2012, 12:11 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewalker View Post
I must admit, I'm a bit impressed at the comments at the SFGate article which seem to offer principles that support our cause... -> "a plant is an inanimate object, a gun is an inanimate object. Both are incapable or moral decisions..."

This might be a whole lot easier than we are all making it out to be... just maybe.
One thing I do, if the comments are on a site that uses FB, is to reach out to people who are sympathetic. There are a lot of gun owners out there who do not yet realize that CGN, RCC, SAF, CRPA, etc. . . even exist. . .

The basic mantra is "recruit," "recruit," "recruit."

Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-13-2012, 7:24 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

Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.

I'll send some cash back over there wire when I get settled. Of course we arent gone yet, and I still do what I can, probably more than some people do in free states because they dont see the need. I sent out a half dozen NRA memberships this year, including one for my 14 year old neighbor. Along with taking him shooting, getting him, and his family, into the NRA now will create life long 2A voters, well after I am gone (I hope). That is my greatest contribution in my opinion. We all only get one vote, so the more of "us" there are, the better.

The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Last edited by SanPedroShooter; 02-13-2012 at 7:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-13-2012, 8:07 AM
javalos's Avatar
javalos javalos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Valley Springs, CA
Posts: 879
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Only in California
__________________
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
__________________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-13-2012, 8:39 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.
.
.
.
What you have done and will do are appreciated. The state will be the poorer for your absence, but family matters a lot/hugely.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-13-2012, 10:47 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,838
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Oi.

People v SOLOMON ABYABWI GABRIEL, B228244
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA048498)

Opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/B228244.PDF
(Fixed link - thanks, blakdawg! I really did download it...)



See also SFGate - http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/02...commentlistpos

h/t Alphecca
Does the mere possession of an oven demonstrate clear evidence that the owner intends to open a concentration camp?

It isn't the misuse of an item that defines the item's use. It is the common and intended use that does so. Our military has been in possession of actual assault rifles (and far more serious hardware). In nearly all cases, there have been no immoral uses. Many of the posters on this forum own the arbitrarily defined "assault weapon", yet in nearly all cases the weapon itself hasn't been used to commit an atrocity.

I'm not following the reasoning. This statement would concern me enough if it came from just any ordinary member of society.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-13-2012, 4:03 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,340
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Crimes involve moral turpitude when they reveal dishonesty, a “„general readiness to do evil,‟”
Let me see if I understand what he's saying here:
  • I own a registered AW
  • This means that I informed myself about the law
  • I completed the legal requirements (including updating my records when I move)
  • I'm fully informed about the ridiculous transportation restrictions on AWs and I comply with them
  • I've had extensive professional training in the use of my AW
  • I've never been arrested or misused a firearm

And he's saying that, after all that, I've shown a "general readiness to do evil", and I have "moral turpitude".

Wow, thanks for taking such a level-headed and reasonable approach to things, your honor.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-13-2012, 6:24 PM
Brian S Brian S is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"...the mere possession of such a weapon demonstrates a „“general readiness to do evil.”

I wonder what the judge thinks about our government possessing nuclear weapons. Is our country in readiness to do evil too? I'm sure a few countries think we are.

If AWs are evil...what does that say about the people who designed and manufactured them? How about the BATF who approved them for general sale? What about the gun dealer who profited from the sale and the state that collected the sales tax?

How does mandating registration make them any less evil? If law makers allowed people to keep them, they must be part of the evil conspiracy. The majority of other states have little or no restrictions on them so obviously the evil is more widespread than the judge ever thought.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-13-2012, 7:03 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.
Something Rep. Dan Lundgren said about California's perspective on HR 822 some months ago sticks with me to this moment. He stated on the House floor that California's gun laws were too liberal, and that if said bill passed as law the California legislature would be 'forced' to rescind CCW from the laws entirely.He stated on CSPAN live for all to hear that California follows Illinois as a 'sister state' in common sense gun laws, and would follow Illinois' brave and trend setting laws on gun violence.

With that kind of hubris, is it so hard to understand why someone in a different state would think you guys are beyond NUTS for living under the rule of these autocrats?


An attitude many gun owners in the Free-er states have is that 'what happens in California or New Jersey stays in California, so its not my problem'. Most people with that attitude have always been around firearms and relatively unrestricted access to them,and thus consider anyone who would willingly live in a place that infringes so heavily on their rights to be foolish.

To understand that attitude, the following is in order.

I grew up in a place that in spirit is identical to many parts of California, and in measurable ways Chicago is worse than any place in California. I know what its like to see the politicians use the latest shooting as an excuse to tighten the noose around what remnants exist of the civilians' rights. I know what it is like to have to study firearms law like a practicing attorney just to stay out of jail. After having escaped such a place, I completely understand why someone would say "pack up".

The first time I walked into a South Dakota gun store and tried on an AR15 rifle-a weapon that would be illegal for me to touch under Illinois law without a permit and a smaller magazine-I swore to never go back to that corrupt state or any with like policies. The first time you walk into an FFL and aren't treated like a criminal, but like a citizen with dignity and the right to determine your own way, well, its a way of thinking that I wouldn't dare yield.


It is a beautiful thing to be able to put your rifles, pistols, and ammo in the trunk or pickup bed for a day at the range without being frightened of going to jail. There's a peace of mind for being able to go to and fro with your weapons without freaking out because according to Plaintiff vs Leftist Government Entity what you're doing is technically legal, but if you get stopped on Tuesday in the wrong city you'll still get arrested.

There is something to be said for knowing that even though you might get stopped by the police, they won't freak out because you are armed.

The mental peace of mind to be able to walk into a gun store, see a nice pistol, and plunk down your cash and leave in the same hour with that gun knowing that you won't be on some watch list or involved with an ATF investigation because said pistol wasn't on a government mandated purchase list.

Many of you on this board know what I speak of . Many sadly do not. You all are absolutely right in stating that just because one leaves the area of oppression, it does nothing to stop the oppression.I am stating that just because a citizen is fed up with being oppressed, he should not be made to feel like a leper because he isn't staying put to be subjugated. Life is too short to live in fear of the G-man because his minions and electorate supporters think you and your AR-15 are 'morally questionable'.

I assure you all, my presence in Chicago and my vote will count not an ant's sneeze towards shutting down the Democrat Machine and its agenda of citizen subjugation. All I would be in that place is another disarmed victim waiting to happen, and I refuse to live that way. If that counts as cowardice, so be it. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States, and as a veteran I refuse to reside in territory that spits on it as public policy.

If Rep. Lundgren is any sign of the attitudes of your state government ,to use the battlefield analogy the CGN and 2nd Amendment Foundation all are the 300 Spartan troops in the 'Hot Gates' facing a Persian Army of liberal voters and the assorted Xerxes-type political figures intent on making slaves of you all. I won't be joining you guys in the shadow of the arrows, but ill send you guys a quiver or too when I can.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-13-2012, 11:00 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Dude, I hear what you are saying. And that's one thing that I am missing. I am somewhat estranged from my birth family right now. I guess I just got too deep into all of this, and just didn't reach out like I should have.

This stuff DOES take a toll. And I am not complaining. WE ALL do this stuff because we love the work, but I just got done communicating with someone who lost what would have been a life savings, pursuing our rights.

That someone would think that WE are the bad ones here? That is sickening. We are the right ones. The rights ones. And the ones who are right. I have never seen a more clear moral thing in my life, our self-defense rights.

And you were a part of it, and for that, you are to be commended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
Great arguments, none of them are enough to justify staying to my dependants. We all do what we think is best. My unborn children will not be raised here, period.

I'll send some cash back over there wire when I get settled. Of course we arent gone yet, and I still do what I can, probably more than some people do in free states because they dont see the need. I sent out a half dozen NRA memberships this year, including one for my 14 year old neighbor. Along with taking him shooting, getting him, and his family, into the NRA now will create life long 2A voters, well after I am gone (I hope). That is my greatest contribution in my opinion. We all only get one vote, so the more of "us" there are, the better.

The fight in 'rights denied' states will set the tone and the baseline for the rest of the country. I think that fact is overlooked when it comes to the importance of groups like CGF. When courts all over the counrty look to the minimum standard of the 2A, they will look to how states like this one have infringed on our rights and how they have been pushed back to set the median. California seems to be leading from behind.
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 6:07 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.