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 01-26-2010, 4:07 PM
BillCA's Avatar
BillCA BillCA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 3,833
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Our firearms rights are a social issue. In California, they first demonized drunk driving (remember the MADD campaigns?) and made it socially unacceptable. Shortly thereafter, groups like HCI/Brady began demonizing guns and "dealers". A few years ago, the anti-smokers began demonizing not just the tobacco companies, but their "victims" - making it a crime to smoke in your own car with kids inside.

As much as none of us should be single-issue voters, I find that if a candidate does not support the RKBA - an explicitly defined and enumerated right - I cannot expect that candidate to support individual rights generally. Even if their fiscal policies are prudent, if the candidate doesn't respect our basic rights then we end up losing.

This state has seen forty years of Democrat control of the legislature (except for only 2 years) and during that time the golden sheen of California has diminished to that of tarnished brass. California's legislature has always pushed to spend more than it takes in, relying upon "growth" to pay the bills. Now that Democrats have allowed special interests and legislation to inhibit and impair growth, they cannot face cutting the unnecessary items from the budget.

At this point, I doubt the Republicans could do much better. They'd simply be lambasted in the media for cutting the amount of public dole money and being "cruel" to illegals, the poor or the unemployable. California's GDP accounts for 13% of the US GDP and it would be the 8th largest "country" GDP if it were its own soverign entity.

The fact that the political caretakers in its legislature have allowed the state to slide to the brink of bankruptcy speaks volumes about their inability to deal with fiscal matters.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:09 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If you are dead non of the rest matters. My guns keep me alive. Single issue voter here.

I don't care who you screw.

Fighting global warming is at best a waist of time and at worst designed to destroy our economy.

There are certain times in the life of all people when we must depend on others to survive: When we are very old, very sick, or very young. The question is not if a choice will be made; the question is who will make it.
Who do you want to make the choice? Your government or your family? Think about it. If the arbiter can say no, they can also say yes. Personally I'd rather trust my mother, and I don't even like my mother.

If all this confuses you remember I am a single issue voter and the issue is firearms because if you are dead nothing else matters.




Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishMike View Post
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:10 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm wondering how important the second amendment issue will be, once it's incorporated to the states. I know that some politicians will still try to make more restrictive gun laws, however, when they face strict scrutiny, will they be as ready to compete against that in much the same way as say trying to compete with the 1st amendment? And if they are humbled by incorporation, will Brown really be that necessary to ensure our 2A rights aren't trampled. When I look at it from that point of view, I'm rather hesitant to throw my vote to moonbeam.

Going off track for a moment and touching on homosexual marriage, I am absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage because of the doors it opens up. If homosexual marriage is recognized in this state as a "right", I would fully expect homosexual couples to assert their rights and demand clergy, who oppose homosexual marriage, marry them or face legal actions for violating their civil rights.

I've heard people attempt to refute this position as a weak argument, however, I find it highly unlikely that radical homosexuals won't seize on this opportunity to use Christian clergy as an example to make a point. The problem is, until such time as homosexual marriage is legal, they are unable to show their true intent. If homosexual marriage becomes a civil right in this state, then it will be too late. If homosexual couples were to restrict themselves to clergy who would be willing to marry them, I wouldn't be so quick to oppose that kind of union, regardless of how perverted I believe it is. But, I don't believe they will restrict themselves to ELCA Lutheran churches, liberal Episcopalian priests, or for that matter, Unitarians. So, I oppose homosexual marriage because past activities in the homosexual community almost guarantee that Christian clergy will come under fire from homosexuals who will aggressively assert their will against anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:14 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Yep, it's just you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
"Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects."

Stuff like this worries me considerably. This is not what California needs. There are of course plenty of other things that Brown is not good on. Fine, he is okay on RKBA issues, but they are not the end-all, be-all of issues when it comes to choosing which candidate to vote for. A high priority, sure, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who I think is terrible on the bulk of issues. When you weigh these things on a scale, the RKBA stance does not outweigh them. Personally, I think it is unethical to be a single-issue voter. If you can't consider all of the issues, you should not vote, but that's just me I guess.

While Meg Whitman isn't assured to be the GOP candidate, she is nonetheless also terrible, possibly even moreso than Brown. Two bigtime leftists as the main candidates would really make it a battle to see who is the lesser of two evils. I think the difference won't be much, when all things are considered. If Whitman gets the nomination, given my issues with Brown, I may have to vote for a non-major candidate in the gubernatorial election. If someone asked me, to use a gun-related analogy, if I'd rather be shot in the face with a .380 or a 9mm, my answer would obviously be neither, and if the scenario is to be made analogous to the election, I do have that choice, even if it means I might get shot in the face anyways.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:23 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

One rifle, one shotgun, and one handgun will pretty much handle it unless you are an enthusiast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtec44 View Post
Wow, I thought he owns more than 3 guns.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:31 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Bill:

I'm pretty much on your but Equal Protection will not float.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Irrelevant argument.

Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc.

If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved.

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.


You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are proscribing morality if you support that.



What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:31 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,610
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat View Post
I am just wondering - I am two issues voter ( guns and taxes ). Is it ethical for me to vote?
I have a system that has worked well for many years, I learned it up many years ago from Professor Irwin Corey a fellow with whom some of you may be aquainted - although if you don't know Bull Conner you may not know the Prof.

During the previous 10 months of an election cycle I list all the subjects taken from page one and the editorial page and if in a liberal city I assign a factor based on the paper's circulation relative to the population of that city but if in a conservative city I assign a factor based on the number of banks per square mile divide by average family income but of course exlude credit unions as those are run by charlatans allowing me to assign an exact whole number to each subject of 1 to 15 after which I subtract from the states GDP divided by the number of counties in the state excluding Indians not taxed.

Then I vote on guns only.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:38 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
I'm wondering how important the second amendment issue will be, once it's incorporated to the states. I know that some politicians will still try to make more restrictive gun laws, however, when they face strict scrutiny, will they be as ready to compete against that in much the same way as say trying to compete with the 1st amendment? And if they are humbled by incorporation, will Brown really be that necessary to ensure our 2A rights aren't trampled. When I look at it from that point of view, I'm rather hesitant to throw my vote to moonbeam.

Going off track for a moment and touching on homosexual marriage, I am absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage because of the doors it opens up. If homosexual marriage is recognized in this state as a "right", I would fully expect homosexual couples to assert their rights and demand clergy, who oppose homosexual marriage, marry them or face legal actions for violating their civil rights.

I've heard people attempt to refute this position as a weak argument, however, I find it highly unlikely that radical homosexuals won't seize on this opportunity to use Christian clergy as an example to make a point. The problem is, until such time as homosexual marriage is legal, they are unable to show their true intent. If homosexual marriage becomes a civil right in this state, then it will be too late. If homosexual couples were to restrict themselves to clergy who would be willing to marry them, I wouldn't be so quick to oppose that kind of union, regardless of how perverted I believe it is. But, I don't believe they will restrict themselves to ELCA Lutheran churches, liberal Episcopalian priests, or for that matter, Unitarians. So, I oppose homosexual marriage because past activities in the homosexual community almost guarantee that Christian clergy will come under fire from homosexuals who will aggressively assert their will against anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:50 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I have a system that has worked well for many years, I learned it up many years ago from Professor Irwin Corey a fellow with whom some of you may be aquainted - although if you don't know Bull Conner you may not know the Prof.

During the previous 10 months of an election cycle I list all the subjects taken from page one and the editorial page and if in a liberal city I assign a factor based on the paper's circulation relative to the population of that city but if in a conservative city I assign a factor based on the number of banks per square mile divide by average family income but of course exlude credit unions as those are run by charlatans allowing me to assign an exact whole number to each subject of 1 to 15 after which I subtract from the states GDP divided by the number of counties in the state excluding Indians not taxed.

Then I vote on guns only.
I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:55 PM
JohnJW JohnJW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlock Tom View Post
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.
For me, the ONLY thing Brown has going for him is his stand on gun rights.
IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation."
He is also, IMO, on the wrong side of "the underground economy" (illegal aliens) and "Global Warming".
Is it illegal for AG to not defend proposition passed by the voter? In my mind, not defending a law against legal challenges is very different from not enforcing the law.

I laugh at the hoopla over "Global Warming" but hey if it means reducing our energy consumption and dependency on foreign energy rich authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, I am all for it.

Base on what I've read Jerry Brown sounds like a pretty good candidate, someone with a real position of his own rather than what he thinks the voters want to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:55 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

So it really all boils down to a definition of a word? I am with bwiese.

Abolish marriage. No such thing. Civil Unions and equal protection for all.

As for thw question about why government is in the business of marriage is because one of the primary functions of government is to provide documents that facilitate trade.

How do you prove you own a car when you present it for sale to someone? Title.

How do you prove you and your partner shared an oath and have legal rights? Certificate of Marriage. That is the only reason, no other.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:56 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,562
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right.
Set up a spreadsheet. It's how I do my sales taxes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:02 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,861
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
So it really all boils down to a definition of a word? I am with bwiese.

Abolish marriage. No such thing. Civil Unions and equal protection for all.

As for thw question about why government is in the business of marriage is because one of the primary functions of government is to provide documents that facilitate trade.

How do you prove you own a car when you present it for sale to someone? Title.

How do you prove you and your partner shared an oath and have legal rights? Certificate of Marriage. That is the only reason, no other.
The government should concern themselves with the issue of civil rights, not marriage, an issue for the individual churches. If they want to license relationships (yuck, from the libertarian perspective) knock themselves out doing so. BTW, common law spouses don't have paperwork to prove their relationship, but are regarded under the law in most states as a legal relationship with the same honors as "marriage", so IMHO, your argument that the government has a function to facilitate trade (in this case you equate "trade" with "marriage")seems a bit weak.
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:04 PM
Centurion_D's Avatar
Centurion_D Centurion_D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 1,975
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smogcity View Post
With this being a gun forum and all, lets just let the issue of gay rights be debated on calgayrights.net.

Gov. Moonbeam's got my vote. This will be the first Dem I've voted for in many years...
+1...for all us calgunners he's our best choice for gov.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:05 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

That is fine with me Bill. I don’t care who anyone lives with, and I don’t care if it leads to polygamy and bestiality. Those are moral questions the state has no business being involved with. My problem is that I believe that hospital visits and inheritance etc. are red herrings. The real agenda is for vindictive people in that community to use this to punish people they don’t like.


I am a man of my word. I will spend a thousand dollars to make good on a ten cent promise. If you can get the majority, 51% by head count, of gay rights organizations to promise they will not sue or prosecute anyone like wedding photographers and caterers for refusing to provide services to them as a matter of conscience, and put 8 back on the ballot I will vote for it. I don’t think they are willing to do it. I think they want revenge. There are a lot of ways to solve the visitation and inheritance problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:09 PM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
It's amazing how many "gun rights advocates" will cheerfully support all kinds of other ridiculous prohibitions. Many of the arguments against gun control can be used, very effectively, against prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, etc.
Bingo. Over in off-topic, I transformed an anti-pot argument into an anti-gun argument simply by replacing the nouns.

Flintlock Tom made the key point above: Jerry Brown flip-flopped on his Prop 8/gay marriage stance. That means he flip-flopped with regard to a right. How fundamental must a right be before Jerry stops changing his mind about it? Today he believes "Gun ownership is a fundamental right." What will he believe later if he gets elected?
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:13 PM
Centurion_D's Avatar
Centurion_D Centurion_D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 1,975
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Is Tom running for Gov.?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:18 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Those that think this way are not looking enough moves ahead in the chess game. It's over simplistic. It will lead to the state making choices of winners and losers in questions of morality that are none of it's business. We must in the end separate marriage and state altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:19 PM
JohnJW JohnJW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:21 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't know why everyone gets all worked up about gay marriage. It's just crazy to care about trivialities like that.

Let me tell you what does get my goat: people who shoot .38s out of their .357s. And sometimes they even mix the cartridges up!

And why, I ask you, WHY must the .357 co-habitate with .38s. Is it because .38s are special??

.38s working and living with .357s, whatever IS the world coming to?

It's the end of Western Civilization, I'm telling you. THE END OF EVERYTHING!

__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:22 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
I'm all for Jerry Brown. He is used to running a California with a much smaller government. He'll do it again. and well too.

I plan on putting together at least one fund raiser for him.

If we can raise $100,000+ for his campaign he can not help but notice us and remember us when in office. Also opens doors for CalGuns Foundation.

If every active member just contributed $10 we could give him a check for over $130,000.

A good investment in my book.
And notice to other politicians that we reward our friends.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:34 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,668
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm ready to vote for Brown for Governor! He has earned it, with his statements and his Amicus brief.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:37 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You have my sympathy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJW View Post
I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-26-2010, 5:40 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I don't know why everyone gets all worked up about gay marriage. It's just crazy to care about trivialities like that.

Let me tell you what does get my goat: people who shoot .38s out of their .357s. And sometimes they even mix the cartridges up!

And why, I ask you, WHY must the .357 co-habitate with .38s. Is it because .38s are special??

.38s working and living with .357s, whatever IS the world coming to?

It's the end of Western Civilization, I'm telling you. THE END OF EVERYTHING!

__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-26-2010, 6:00 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.
Is that the best you can do?

It's not the same thing, regardless of what people said 50 years ago. Looking at it by today's standards, Christian clergy will marry an interracial couple with no problem, they will refuse to marry a homosexual couple, and that's the argument. Stop trying to replace apples with oranges.

Since this thread is about moonbeam and his support of the second amendment, I'll steer this thread back on track. Since it appears that incorporation will occur before November, how important will moonbeam's election be to gun owners. I think not much when you consider that legislators will have to walk their bill through a gauntlet of scrutiny before they can get the bill passed. Even if they manage to pass the bill, then groups like the NRA, SAF, and CGF will be doing their dead level best to get it overturned.

Last edited by Roadrunner; 01-26-2010 at 6:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-26-2010, 6:11 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,610
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I'd use this system, if I thought I could get the math right.
No numbers - all sounds.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-26-2010, 6:15 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,610
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
Since this thread is about moonbeam and his support of the second amendment, I'll steer this thread back on track. Since it appears that incorporation will occur before November, how important will moonbeam's election be to gun owners. I think not much when you consider that legislators will have to walk their bill through a gauntlet of scrutiny before they can get the bill passed. Even if they manage to pass the bill, then groups like the NRA, SAF, and CGF will be doing their dead level best to get it overturned.
One aspect to consider electing a Democrat as Governor is - won't he make the Democratic Party in CA stronger and isn't that bad for us? I do plan on voting for Brown, but I'd hate like hell to eventually end up like MA with 35 Democrat State Senators and 4 Republican State Senators, similar set up in the House.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-26-2010, 6:25 PM
cortayack's Avatar
cortayack cortayack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJW View Post
I used to be a single issue gun voter. It was even worst when I was 18 when I used to just vote for Republican candidates whenever in doubt. I used to buy into the argument that gun equals freedom, but as I grow older I realize that in a democratic society guns merely offers the illusion of freedom. Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to due process, etc. 2A by itself cannot stand alone, what good can your guns do for you if your government can arbitrarily imprison and torture you without evidence, with the support of the majority.

I've always wonder what would happen had the 442nd turned their gun around and fought for their family's freedom? They certain don't lack the courage. Yet, I am thankful that they were willing to suspend their own "freedom" for the greater good.

So as far as I am concerned, guns are for wimps especially AWs. If you are brave enough you will fight on with your bare hands if needed. And, yes, I'm a pretty big wimp, but at least I don't live under the illusion of machismo where guns are the only thing that matters.

Didn't the founding fathers and those who followed them use guns to free themselves. Maybe they should've used their bare knuckles and the British would've threw their guns down and did the same....


The vote is open to me and no candidate looks good! Only time will tell..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-26-2010, 6:45 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,679
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.

It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.
Bingo.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:06 PM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,277
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default As a politician don't you think he'd be willing to offer up a lamb?

As a dem he's going to have to sign or not sign many things that come across his desk. I've always thought of him as a shrewd businessman. His business is to stay employed in the public sector.
It's the economy, economy, economy. If you disregard that fact when elections come around it will bite you on the ***. Is he the kind of upstanding defender of rights and freedoms that will weather that kind of pressure?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:13 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage" and that's how you sound to me.
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:18 PM
JohnJW JohnJW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cortayack View Post
Didn't the founding fathers and those who followed them use guns to free themselves. Maybe they should've used their bare knuckles and the British would've threw their guns down and did the same....


The vote is open to me and no candidate looks good! Only time will tell..


I think our founding fathers took up arms and risk everything they have so we don't have to. Of votes, courts, and bullets? Which is the most likely venue for winning and maintaining 2A? Do you have what it takes to stomach an armed revolution in your own backyard? Talk of guns as a mean to win back rights in a democratic society will only cost us votes in elections.

I believe in fighting for 2A rights, but I under no illusion that the guns in my safe are for my enjoyments only and nothing more. Maybe I'm growing old and soft but talk of guns being the ultimate solution to everything doesn't resonate with me anymore.

I am more likely to vote for pro-gun candidates but I don't vote for everyone pro-gun candidates because there is more to life than just guns.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:25 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJW View Post

I am more likely to vote for pro-gun candidates but I don't vote for everyone pro-gun candidates because there is more to life than just guns.
This is true. However, in California all of the politicians truly suck. When you come right down to it, they're all big-government statists who only want to pass as many laws as possible so that you have no choice but to break a law every now. That way they can throw you in jail if you annoy them.

Since they're all the same, I might as well vote for the ones that look even minimally good for gun rights, because the alternatives are bad too, only they also want to take your guns.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:28 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJW View Post
Maybe I'm growing old and soft but talk of guns being the ultimate solution to everything doesn't resonate with me anymore.
Guns are not the ultimate solution to all things, however: Guns are the refuge of last resort against an oppressive government.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:37 PM
gvbsat gvbsat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 994
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default No, I didnt read past the first page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat View Post
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.
But that right there, made me laugh.

On a side note, I for one think individual rights is fundamental. Doesnt matter if you are out on the streets with a white hood one your head exercising your 1st ad right, or exercising it protesting to marry the same sex, or otherwise known as "gay marriage". Doesnt matter, it is all the same, you cant pick and choose what you want out of the constitution. I for one, did vote for prop 8. If you didnt because of YOUR belief, you should read article six of the United States Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:38 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The problem with having guns being too distant a resort is how bad things are allowed to get, almost to the point of having everything that you want to save destroyed first. It's like waiting to start dieting and exercising until after first having a heart attack.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-26-2010, 7:39 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
One aspect to consider electing a Democrat as Governor is - won't he make the Democratic Party in CA stronger and isn't that bad for us? I do plan on voting for Brown, but I'd hate like hell to eventually end up like MA with 35 Democrat State Senators and 4 Republican State Senators, similar set up in the House.
I am a staunch Republican, but I'm extremely disappointed with the California Republican party in that a lot of RINO's have infiltrated the party. Unfortunately, the democrats, with the help of the brain dead and socialist sponges that keep electing them, dominate the seats of the California legislature. Since I consider Meg Witman to be as much a RINO as Arnold, I'm in somewhat of a quandary over who exactly to vote for. Witman claims to be fiscally savvy, while Brown shouts long and hard about how pro 2A he is. What could happen for me is to have some third party be fiscally and socially conservative as well as 2A friendly. That candidate I will vote for, win or lose. The alternative would to be just stay home and sit this election cycle out. But I digress.

We've had a majority of dems up to this point, and I don't see it changing any time soon.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-26-2010, 8:28 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Replace the words "homosexual marriage" with "polygamous marriage" or "incestuous marriage."
Don't forget bestiality marriage! And yes, all of these should be equally legal. I'm not kidding. The point is, wtf does anyone care what other people are doing? Unless you violate another person's right to life, liberty, or property, then it should be legal.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-26-2010, 8:40 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,953
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat View Post
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.
You mean like Mike Bloomberg or Bill Lockyer? Lincoln Chafee?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-26-2010, 9:40 PM
rabagley's Avatar
rabagley rabagley is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near Seattle, WA
Posts: 7,187
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Wow Bill, thanks for the post about Jerry Brown's position on RKBA. Sounds like a rational Democrat. Don't see that too often, and he may get my vote as a result.

Too bad you walked into a giant pissing contest by being consistent and rational about rights.

My little take: If the government grants a benefit or privilege, the government must grant that benefit or privilege to all citizens or people, as appropriate, without restriction or bias. Any other approach makes a travesty of this country and the men who've died to keep it free.

Short form: let them marry, it harms nobody.
__________________
"Ecuador offers the United States $23 million a year in economic aid, an amount similar to what we were receiving under the tariff benefits, with the purpose of providing human rights training that will contribute to avoid violations of people's privacy, that degrade humanity," --Fernando Alvarado
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.