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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-01-2018, 1:26 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
This article does not attribute Clinton's loss to gerrymandering. It much more concentrates on what we all know: The partially, the Republicans gerrymandered their way into unequal representation (as the Dems have done before). This is why I was confused. I have not seen the Dems completely blame Gerrymandering for her loss but they whine a lot


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
For the love of god this article is so full of sh*t it's unreal. Its a very good illustration of the lunacy that goes on in politics and the Dem party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
But, I do agree that gerrymandering can and would impact a Presidential election. However, simply saying "If only more had voted for me..." doesn't feed the bulldog. You have to tie it to more specifics, which is something very difficult to do as many of the factors are, more or less, ineffable. (Although, in the current situation, were we to accept that Republicans have an unfair advantage due to gerrymandering and control the Federal Legislature as a result, it could be argued that's why Trump hasn't been impeached already.)
I don't think it had any material impact on the elections for Senate races or the Presidency. I don't believe voters suddenly just follow their representatives. In particular we have seen the opposite happening in the last 20 years (at least). We often times (not always) end up with the Presidency held by a different party than the Senate and House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
So, at an intuitive level, it might not make sense that you could 'gerrymander' a Presidential election. At an emotional level, it seems more like sour grapes from Democrats and blame anyone/everyone but me from Hillary. At an intellectual level, it cannot be completely dismissed as having a potential effect.
I think it's materiality can be dismissed for the most part, but I agree with you. It is sour grapes but it might have had some minor effect on some voters in some corner of the electorate. That seems intellectually honest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It depends on how you define "over represented" and "watered down." In a straight democracy, such terms would be applicable. In a representative democracy, that's not necessarily the case. In fact, at its root, it's indicative of one of the problems we have today; especially in California. But, it's something often 'glossed over' in today's education.
Don't know about today's education but I understand the Electoral college backward and forward, and that while it's not perfect, its better than other alternatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post


That's direct democracy.

Is that really what you want for the U.S. as a whole?
I assume that is a rhetorical question :-)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As has been asked in relation to Hillary/Trump, would Carter or Mondale have done better in terms of guns (or just about anything else)? It's not so much about 'absolutes;' though I would be much more comfortable if it were. It's about 'relative to.' Also remember that he had to deal with Tip O'Neil and a divided legislature during most of his tenure, where Republicans never controlled both Houses. That means, for anything to get done, some form of 'compromise' had to occur.
Carter or Mondale would not have been better IMHO. The difference would be Carter and or Mondale would have not let weapons moved to our enemy and would have held people accountable. Reagan came at it from possibly a more pragmatic approach in that breaking the law was what was needed to "win". He was beating back the essential threat of communism. I kind of understand doing whatever it takes to win. My stance has softened on Reagan on that point. Him being afraid of guns in the hands of black folk I have only become more reticent about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That doesn't make the compromises good or right. It makes them inevitable, assuming you want to get anything done. I know it's a seemingly unique concept given recent Legislatures, but we're talking 30 years ago.
This is where it compromise was good IMHO. It DID work at the end of the day. The economy grew. People got back to work. We didn't get everything we wanted, but the country prospered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, it was the Republicans who 'balanced the budget.' Clinton was simply smart enough to sign it. Of course, this is a questionable area. A 'surplus' in the budget isn't really a 'surplus' if you have an even larger amount of debt that remains in need of being paid off. Otherwise, claims can and have been made that Trump as also done it...
We have no surplus now (that can be used to pay down debt) in a Year over Year budget (YET!). Clinton did not foolishly allow the congress to spend it all. He had to give up some and congress did. OMG, compromise again. :-) . Trump could do the same thing given wise spending. He has a chance.

And to your point, Jerry Brown is a fiscal conservative (a lot like a real Republican) but he won't be around long enough to save us financially. A tax and spend Democrat is coming and a bigger gun grabber than Brown as well. We don't realize how "good" we have it under Brown.. damn that's a sad statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That was actually Bush, Jr. Obama was simply smart enough to "allow" it to continue and bright enough to give the go-ahead. It's debatable if, given slightly different circumstances, if Obama would have given permission for the execution. However, can you imagine the public reaction if he'd been captured, then tried in a civilian court, and sentenced to imprisonment rather than the death penalty?
Bush was too mired in Iraq in to worry about Bin Laden. In fairness, the CIA never forgot but they certainly didn't re-ramp the process until we were getting out of Iraq for the most part and they could then re-dedicate resources to finding him. And when it came time to push the button, Obama did it. Can't take that away from the guy, like him or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It was also moot in that, as we've seen, it is not "Law" and could be discontinued at a moment's notice by a subsequent President. It's one thing to show "leadership." It's another to go outside your authority in terms of trying to 'push' the Legislature to do its job. That's why it's now a mess in the Courts.
Yes I agree. This is why I put the quotes. And if that defines his leadership moment, then what kind of leader was he? You can see where I'm going with it. Much like Reagan was defined by Iran-Contra. There are those that say treason, and it might be found that way if tried in a court of law. Both what Obama did and Reagan did were illegal (although much different levels. One was possibly criminal, the other not quite) but the idea is they both did what they thought needed to be done to "win". Ironic that they share that commonality.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-01-2018, 4:02 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If there is, in fact, a fire, there will likely be no consequences and it is possible you will be labeled an hero. If there is, in fact, no fire and your intent is to cause harm or create chaos, that's when your troubles truly begin.

Would that these politicians and the media would treat firearms similarly.
Having done a bit of research into this (thanks OP for the primer) I found that when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous quote “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” was from a **** case and had literally nothing to do with someone yelling fire in a theatre. The law from that case (Schenk) was all but overturned by the finding in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 which gave us the current limits on free speech, that speech must be directly responsible for inciting immediate violence for it to be criminalized.

If the same test was used for RKBA open carry would be the right and you would have to be shown to be the cause of immediate violence for it to be criminalized.

Anyone using the "Well the 1st amendment has it's limitations, so should the second" should be responded to with "let's apply the same test to the second as we do to the first, namely being directly responsible for inciting violence."
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-01-2018, 5:01 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,624
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I don't know about the "should" be limited part of that argument, as "should", to me, means there is a pressing reason. You bring up a good point there. I think probably that when some one is claiming one right "Should" be curtailed because another one is, they are simply lacking any stronger argument.

But the government "can" limit free speech, and almost any part of the constitution basically, or at least try. The court system or ballot box is then employed to decide if it passes Constitutional muster or the will of the people directly.

The "fire" in a crowded theater example from Schenck basically reiterates that which we already know, that some speech can be harmful, as in the sedition issue in Schenck. Harmful speech is not protected. For Heller it was unusual or dangerous weapons.
I think we should remember a few things about that quote and the Schenk decision. First, Schenk was overturned about 40 years ago in Brandenburg v. Ohio because one man's sedition is another man's free speech. The Schenk decision was a horrible restriction of free speech, as was the Debs case. And it seems to me yelling fire, whether false or true, relays no political thought to the public and doesn't qualify as free speech. I'm not sure what it may be, but it doesn't promote public discussion of political or social matters anymore than yelling "look-out!!".

So far as the exhortation causing harm and that political discussion can do the same, I would say that's almost never the case and if it is, so what? Do we suppose founders who used words to overthrow a government would deny its future generations the same right? Would men who spoke of tar and feathering Governor Hutchinson, hanging King George or members of Parliment today demurr from saying the President should be hanged and Congress sent "to the wall"? I don't think so.

Remember, we are dealing with folks who would deny the 2nd Amendment was designed as a bulwark against an oppressive government. The logic which protects the 1st Amendment, that our founders used speech to its harshest extent and greatest effect, so to suppose they would deny us that same right strains credulity, applies to the 2nd Amendment as well. They used arms to accomplish that which they publicly espoused. Is it reasonable to believe they would have contrived a system of rights that denied us the same opportunity for change?

I think we'd be much better off if the Supreme Court followed the dictates of Justice Black on the 1st Amendment and nowadays perhaps Justice Thomas on the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-01-2018, 9:48 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
This article does not attribute Clinton's loss to gerrymandering. It much more concentrates on what we all know: The partially, the Republicans gerrymandered their way into unequal representation (as the Dems have done before). This is why I was confused. I have not seen the Dems completely blame Gerrymandering for her loss but they whine a lot
Actually, if you read it AND understand how the Electoral College works, what they are saying is that the advantage Republicans gained via gerrymandering provided them an advantage in the selected Electoral College members. If you'll remember, there were calls for the Electoral College to ignore "the rules" and cast their votes for Hillary. However, you will not see Democrats "completely blaming" anything or anyone. Even Hillary has blamed how many dozens of people, organizations, natural causes, ideologies, etc. for her loss?

Saying that if they don't completely blame gerrymandering, then gerrymandering doesn't influence Presidential elections is...???

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
For the love of god this article is so full of sh*t it's unreal. Its a very good illustration of the lunacy that goes on in politics and the Dem party.
As I said, I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions. However, your statement was: "Gerrymandering to win the Presidency is not possible..." I'm simply pointing out that a theory has been put forth that it might not "win" the Presidency outright, but it can influence the outcome. Further, while it might not make intuitive or emotional sense, such a theory does hold some validity on an intellectual level. Just because it requires an almost perfect alignment of things to influence the election overall isn't the point. It is possible for gerrymandering to play a role. Being able to prove it, however, is something well beyond our capabilities on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I don't think it had any material impact on the elections for Senate races or the Presidency. I don't believe voters suddenly just follow their representatives. In particular we have seen the opposite happening in the last 20 years (at least). We often times (not always) end up with the Presidency held by a different party than the Senate and House.
You and I are free to believe what we want. Trust me. There are others who just as strongly believe the other way. That's why there have been recent court cases over redistricting. Likewise, the issue was gerrymandering and how it might influence a Presidential election. Remember, Electoral voters aren't simply made up of Federal Senators and Representatives.

For instance, in California... The party whose candidate wins the popular vote in California gets to choose the electors... I honestly don't know how common that is throughout the States; but, in theory, that means if gerrymandering favors a given Party, that Party then has an advantage in who is chosen to cast Electoral votes. Given that, as the Democrats announced long and loud in 2016, there are few, specific rules throughout many of the States on how Electoral College members are required to cast their votes (the article just linked to indicates 29 have a legal requirement), that means, again in theory, that such would provide a potential 'edge' in voting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I think it's materiality can be dismissed for the most part, but I agree with you. It is sour grapes but it might have had some minor effect on some voters in some corner of the electorate. That seems intellectually honest.
Just be careful in that it sounds like you're equating the "electorate" to the "Electoral College." While you may understand the Electoral College, not everyone does. But, that appears to have been the point of all the fuss in 2016 and the cries by Democrats that gerrymandering had an influence. There's just enough "reality" in their claims to cast a shadow of doubt on the institution.

Remember, the most effective lie is one that is, in many ways, true. Democrats have now lost in the Electoral College, twice, in recent memory. Thus, they do what many politicians have done, cast aspersions on the process, hoping to change things in their favor for next time. A form of 'gerrymandering,' if you will. Which brings us to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Don't know about today's education but I understand the Electoral college backward and forward, and that while it's not perfect, its better than other alternatives.
With today's... ahem... "education," I'm not sure many truly understand much of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I assume that is a rhetorical question :-)
Pretty much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Him being afraid of guns in the hands of black folk I have only become more reticent about.
I'm not sure Reagan was 'afraid of guns in the hands of blacks.' I'm assuming you're referring to his time as Governor and you have to remember the context rather than Adam Winkler's retrospective 'analysis.' The Black Panthers provide the context of the time. But, the key here lies in the phrase: "The display so frightened politicians..."

More than just politicians were 'concerned.' Yes. For some, there was a racist component. But, the Black Panthers weren't necessarily synonymous with "black people" as a whole beyond the obvious fact that the organization was made up of "black folk." Remember, the Panthers were considered a radical group and it wasn't just bolt action rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons they carried. (There were automatic weapons as well.)

Long story, shorter, they were a much better organized, arguably better armed (firearms and intellectually) group than today's "Open Carry" crowd or even the "new" incarnation of the Panthers in 2008...



Yet, you see the laws which resulted from the more recent movements in that regard. Now, go back to the 1960's, when such 'radical' displays weren't as much the 'norm' as they are perceived to be today. Think about King and the Kennedy's (JFK and Robert) having been shot.

If open carry marches are deemed too provocative, 'scary,' and even idiotic today by gun owners themselves, think about how something like this appeared in the 1960's...



(That's inside the California capitol building itself.)

So, while it was "black folk" who were the most public in the 1960's, it wasn't necessarily as strictly 'racist' as so-called "Historians" would now have you believe. Bear in mind that, for many Americans, such radical, public protests were largely 'new' as television coverage was still a largely unique phenomenon. It's part of why the Vietnam coverage is credited with changing the war or American's perception of it. It went from something happening "a distance removed" to being in people's living rooms on a nightly basis.

Has there been racism associated with gun ownership? Absolutely. But, pointing to Reagan's actions in the 1960's and declaring them 'racist' is, arguably, problematic; particularly given the ultimate impact to all races. The bottom line is that I suspect we would have ended up with something akin to the Mulford Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act regardless of Reagan and if it had been the KKK rather than Black Panthers marching, armed, into Capitol buildings or on the steps of those buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Trump could do the same thing given wise spending. He has a chance.
Just bear in mind that the President has comparatively little, legal control over how monies are actually spent. Clinton had the advantage of a "window in History" with the line-item veto; which is no longer available to Trump.

Oh well. We don't need to revamp Presidential History here.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-01-2018 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:10 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Having done a bit of research into this (thanks OP for the primer) I found that when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous quote “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” was from a **** case and had literally nothing to do with someone yelling fire in a theatre. The law from that case (Schenk) was all but overturned by the finding in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 which gave us the current limits on free speech, that speech must be directly responsible for inciting immediate violence for it to be criminalized.
Which is why I said, in Post #19...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...the expression - "You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." - is actually an inaccurate/incomplete metaphor to illustrate that prohibition...

The prohibition is against recklessly or maliciously attempting to create harm through speech; i.e., falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater to induce panic/carnage being an hypothetical example. Of course, we already have laws specifically against using firearms in a reckless, malicious manner with the intent to do harm. Thus, saying that such a specific, non-existent or hypothetical prohibition on the 1st Amendment is sufficient justification that can and should be used in limiting the 2nd Amendment is, to put it as kindly as possible, a canard.
I believe that's part of why rootuser referenced the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill
If the same test was used for RKBA open carry would be the right and you would have to be shown to be the cause of immediate violence for it to be criminalized.

Anyone using the "Well the 1st amendment has it's limitations, so should the second" should be responded to with "let's apply the same test to the second as we do to the first, namely being directly responsible for inciting violence."
Which is why I observed in the OP...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Would that these politicians and the media would treat firearms similarly.
It is, perhaps, one of the biggest fallacies associated with modern, 'gun control' legislation attempts. Yet, it is rarely discussed or publicized.

Laws are written as largely retroactive; i.e., if you do "X," then "Y" will happen.

Proposals for 'gun control' legislation are predominantly proactive; i.e., because someone MIGHT do "X," then "Y" will now be the law, where access to the tools which someone MIGHT use is restricted or forbidden.

This is why you hear so much about strict scrutiny when it comes to restricting fundamental rights, where the Government must not only show a compelling interest, but narrowly tailor the legislation to create the least infringement possible. Why? Because such laws effectively 'punish' people for things they have not done. Put another way, fundamental rights are infringed based on the actions of a very few and/or abuses which might occur.

Otherwise, it treads dangerously close to Minority Report or thought crime prohibitions; often making 'fiction' reality if it is not checked. Unfortunately, the courts have yet to standardize 'strict scrutiny' when it comes to cases related to protection of firearms. In fact, the 'standard' is currently much lower.

Which is a major factor in why we keep losing and why politicians seem not to fear 'consequences' for ads like those of Davis or Feinstein. The prohibitions against or limitations on passing and enforcing such legislation are not what they should be. Thus, politicians feel emboldened to follow the illusory (not to mention 'dangerous') dictate of: "There outta be a law..."

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-02-2018 at 3:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-02-2018, 9:53 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I think we should remember a few things about that quote and the Schenk decision. First, Schenk was overturned about 40 years ago in Brandenburg v. Ohio because one man's sedition is another man's free speech. The Schenk decision was a horrible restriction of free speech, as was the Debs case. And it seems to me yelling fire, whether false or true, relays no political thought to the public and doesn't qualify as free speech. I'm not sure what it may be, but it doesn't promote public discussion of political or social matters anymore than yelling "look-out!!".

So far as the exhortation causing harm and that political discussion can do the same, I would say that's almost never the case and if it is, so what? Do we suppose founders who used words to overthrow a government would deny its future generations the same right? Would men who spoke of tar and feathering Governor Hutchinson, hanging King George or members of Parliment today demurr from saying the President should be hanged and Congress sent "to the wall"? I don't think so.

Remember, we are dealing with folks who would deny the 2nd Amendment was designed as a bulwark against an oppressive government. The logic which protects the 1st Amendment, that our founders used speech to its harshest extent and greatest effect, so to suppose they would deny us that same right strains credulity, applies to the 2nd Amendment as well. They used arms to accomplish that which they publicly espoused. Is it reasonable to believe they would have contrived a system of rights that denied us the same opportunity for change?

I think we'd be much better off if the Supreme Court followed the dictates of Justice Black on the 1st Amendment and nowadays perhaps Justice Thomas on the 2nd Amendment.
Good points about Schenk. But I think it more reflected a change in times and what was "acceptable" given certain conditions. Also Schenk gave us the pseudo litmus test of yelling fire in a crowded theater which is still referenced today.

Schenk was decided at a time when the country as a whole found itself under a real threat. There was a "world war" happening and some one was trying to destroy morale of the troops supposedly. In wartime, stranger things have happened. Today, during a relative peace, we can't really understand it.

However one only needs to look at the patriot act for similar things, not to mention you still can't get on an airliner and talk aloud about bombs without expecting to be hauled off in handcuffs. Terrible violation of free speech, but you won't get anywhere trying to hide behind the 1A with the TSA, FBI, and HS up your rear.

The founding fathers used all 4 pillars of our version of democracy as you point out. They didn't only use the 2A which is admirable. I think they knew well enough that things would change with time. Their own fathers for example would have never conceived of sedition and going against the king. The brilliance of the constitution is it can adapt but keep it's moral foundations. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. Some think parts are "outdated" while using the internet to forward their own right to free speech. Hilarious.

All in all your points are valid IMHO and I really do wish we had more people who thought like Thomas on the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-02-2018, 10:51 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, if you read it AND understand how the Electoral College works, what they are saying is that the advantage Republicans gained via gerrymandering provided them an advantage in the selected Electoral College members.
I think everything you are getting at is the faithless electors? (I'm guessing here since you have not written that) There have been around ~160 faithless electors in our history I believe. Over half the states (although I don't know the exact number) bind electors to vote for whoever wins the state. I don't know if anyone has actually ever gotten in trouble for not following the rules of their state? Something I might have to look up.

Six people defected in the most recent election. Two from Trump and four from Clinton. None of it made any difference, and were completely symbolic.

Electors are not gerrymandered as normally they are selected by the parties based on some less than reasonable criteria (like who is the most "loyal" ) . I do not know how every state does it, so I suppose there could be a state that does it by district? It does get squirrelly with Maine and Nebraska since they do in fact split to 2 votes going to the winner and then each district vote going to winner of that district. So if those were illegally gerrymandered then you would have a situation that you describe. I do not think either map is under challenge, and a quick glance makes me think they are relatively fair more or less. Also being that it only represents 5 votes in play (with 4 of the 9 votes going to the "winner") I don't see any way that Gerrymandering has played a role.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I said, I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions. However, your statement was: "Gerrymandering to win the Presidency is not possible..." I'm simply pointing out that a theory has been put forth that it might not "win" the Presidency outright, but it can influence the outcome. Further, while it might not make intuitive or emotional sense, such a theory does hold some validity on an intellectual level. Just because it requires an almost perfect alignment of things to influence the election overall isn't the point. It is possible for gerrymandering to play a role. Being able to prove it, however, is something well beyond our capabilities on this site.
Fair point. If I want to play political conspiracy and Manchurian candidate, then yes, over the next 100 years (10 or so census cycles) you COULD re-arrange the map so violently and imprecisely that you might change the outcome of an election. You could change all states to be like Maine and Nebraska, then gerrymander them to tilt it. And being that anything is possible under God, then certainly, some one could figure it out. Nothing is impossible, ever. But we are talking really long odds here. And yes, Jesus Christ could return and convince every elector to have faith in him rather than the system and vote in the Libertarians, but, doubtful. So no, you really can't gerrymander a presidential election in the realm of current reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Just be careful in that it sounds like you're equating the "electorate" to the "Electoral College." While you may understand the Electoral College, not everyone does. But, that appears to have been the point of all the fuss in 2016 and the cries by Democrats that gerrymandering had an influence. There's just enough "reality" in their claims to cast a shadow of doubt on the institution.
Being made by man, the institution is fallible. There is nothing perfect. Just the way it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Remember, the most effective lie is one that is, in many ways, true. Democrats have now lost in the Electoral College, twice, in recent memory. Thus, they do what many politicians have done, cast aspersions on the process, hoping to change things in their favor for next time. A form of 'gerrymandering,' if you will. Which brings us to...
Yep. Cast doubt on anything but accepting your own culpability. Trump and the Dems have a lot in common. No wonder he was a dem for most of his adult life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I'm not sure Reagan was 'afraid of guns in the hands of blacks.'
Yes he was. He was a coward. Just my thoughts on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I'm assuming you're referring to his time as Governor and you have to remember the context rather than Adam Winkler's retrospective 'analysis.' The Black Panthers provide the context of the time. But, the key here lies in the phrase: "The display so frightened politicians..."
Context is important. There were a lot of racists in California apparently, not just the cowardly cowboy. Good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Long story, shorter, they were a much better organized, arguably better armed (firearms and intellectually) group than today's "Open Carry" crowd or even the "new" incarnation of the Panthers in 2008...
And thus why Reagan and a lot of racist cowards in CA were afraid. Not one of those rallies turned into a massacre with dozens killed etc. It has simply spread from black guys with guns, to all people with guns. The cowards are still cowards. If white people in CA at the time had the metaphorical sack to stand up to the racist elite trying to take the guns out of the hands of black people we might not be where we are today in CA in terms of 2A laws. No one stood up to the Nazi's and the Nazi's took the country. Same thing happened in CA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Yet, you see the laws which resulted from the more recent movements in that regard. Now, go back to the 1960's, when such 'radical' displays weren't as much the 'norm' as they are perceived to be today. Think about King and the Kennedy's (JFK and Robert) having been shot. If open carry marches are deemed too provocative, 'scary,' and even idiotic today by gun owners themselves, think about how something like this appeared in the 1960's...
Since more households in terms of % had guns then, it should have seemed much less of the threat. Now it's too late to reverse the trend.

All in all I don't disagree with your assessment, but that doesn't make Reagan any less of a coward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Just bear in mind that the President has comparatively little, legal control over how monies are actually spent. Clinton had the advantage of a "window in History" with the line-item veto; which is no longer available to Trump.
He has the power of veto which is very powerful. Not as powerful as line item which Clinton DID use, so maybe the surplus was more to his credit than I gave him. He really was the only balanced budget president recently.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-03-2018, 9:54 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,701
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There isn't any other right in the Bill that has as much restrictions and conditions as the 2nd amendment. Not even close.

The founders would probably say it's no longer a true right here but instead a regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-04-2018, 1:07 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 1 of 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I think everything you are getting at is the faithless electors?
Not quite everything.

If a State is gerrymandered such that one political party 'controls' the State Government, it gives that party an advantage when it comes to elections; not simply in drawing district maps. As I said earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
For instance, in California... The party whose candidate wins the popular vote in California gets to choose the electors... I honestly don't know how common that is throughout the States; but, in theory, that means if gerrymandering favors a given Party, that Party then has an advantage in who is chosen to cast Electoral votes. Given that, as the Democrats announced long and loud in 2016, there are few, specific rules throughout many of the States on how Electoral College members are required to cast their votes (the article just linked to indicates 29 have a legal requirement), that means, again in theory, that such would provide a potential 'edge' in voting.
That means 29 States have laws binding Electors. Bear in mind, however, that does not mean they are necessarily bound to vote for the candidate which won the popular vote in their State. As noted here...

Quote:
Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.
Note the portion I placed in bold/italic. Then note the next paragraph...

Quote:
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely... when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.
This reference is a little more specific in terms of the penalties for 'faithless electors'...

Quote:
...Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. No elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have these laws been fully vetted by the courts...

Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma and Washington impose a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed...
Again, note the part I placed in bold/italic.

In theory, a gerrymandered State gives a certain advantage to the political party the gerrymandering favors. In other words, while 'faithless electors' is part of the controversy, particularly given the largely irrelevant penalties, it's not the entirety of their argument. (Faithless Electors 'backfired' on Democrats in 2016 with more trying to break FROM Hillary than TO her).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Electors are not gerrymandered as normally they are selected by the parties based on some less than reasonable criteria (like who is the most "loyal" ) .
Again, it's not about gerrymandering the Electoral College. It's about gerrymandering creating advantage for a specific party and the party is what selects the Electors, where the Electors are not necessarily bound to their vote by Federal law and despite State/Local laws.

This is why we keep going back and forth. You keep looking for gerrymandering to be specifically applied to the process of the Electoral College and that's not the argument being made. As I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...what they are saying is that the advantage Republicans gained via gerrymandering provided them an advantage in the selected Electoral College members.
Think of it as the "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.
  • Gerrymandering favors a political party, therefore...
  • A political party gains advantage and since...
  • Electors are selected by political parties...
  • The political party with the advantage gained from gerrymandering also has an advantage in selecting/controlling Electors.

This presumed advantage isn't so much about "faithless electors," as such, since the 'faithless' can go (and have gone) either way. It has to do with the thought that Electors selected by a political party being more loyal to the political party that selected them than to the Electoral Party process. Meaning that while, ultimately, "faithless electors" might end up playing a role, it's more of an argument against the structure of the Electoral Party process as it currently exists to 'justify' changing that process.

As noted in a link provided earlier...

Quote:
In the years since the highly controversial 2000 presidential election, bills have been introduced in every state in the country to change the process for selecting electors. During the period of 2001-2006, most Electoral College reform bills proposed switching to the district system. None of these bills passed. In the years since, attention has largely shifted to the National Popular Vote (NPV). This is an idea that would allow states to bypass the Electoral College without amending the U.S. Constitution. When a state joins the NPV Compact, it promises that it will give all of its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. For instance, if the Democratic candidate won the popular vote in California, but the Republican candidate won the popular vote nationwide, California would be required to send the Republican slate of electors to the meeting of the electors. The NPV has not yet taken effect; states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes must join before it can function.
Again, note what I placed in bold/italic. Bypassing the Constitution without amending it. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton having won the national, popular vote, but losing via the Electoral College. Registered Democrats generally outnumbering registered Republicans; forgetting/ignoring that those who consider themselves Independents now outnumber those who consider themselves either Democrats or Republicans.

I wonder which "Party" is behind the movement to 'reform' the Electoral Process?

Of course, there are reasons I stated earlier that I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions. First, you have to be willing to play "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon." Second, you have to impugn the integrity of the Electors with no, real evidence, including historically, that the Electors would eschew the rules/tradition, let alone the electoral process, in favor of Party. Third, such machinations claimed possible can work either way in terms of party favoritism depending upon the States involved. More.

If your statement is: "Gerrymandering to win the Presidency is not possible..." and you limit it strictly to some form of redistricting directly impacting the Electoral College Vote, then, in theory, you might be able to count yourself correct.

I'm simply pointing out that a theory has been put forth that it might not "win" the Presidency outright, but gerrymandering can have an influence on the outcome. Such a theory does hold some validity, assuming an almost perfect alignment of 'nefarious' machinations. But, that's not the point. It is, again, in theory, possible for gerrymandering to play a role.

Ultimately, I don't find such theoretical possibilities significant enough, particularly in how reality has played out, to serve as justification for bypassing the Constitution; particularly without amending it. Although, as we saw with the rather complex and wide-ranging 'network' associated with the Parkland kids, I also don't put it beyond anti-civil rights/anti-American forces to attempt implementing such possibilities or beyond continuing attempts at bypassing the Constitution.

You see, while both of us agree that it would take a certain 'political conspiracy' (maybe including Manchurian candidates, particularly as Electors), it wouldn't, of necessity require a 'violent' re-arrangement of the map to influence a Presidential election and aren't accusations of 'gerrymandering' based on claims of 'imprecision' anyway?

So, again, when you declare - "...you really can't gerrymander a presidential election in the realm of current reality..." - you are, in effect, arguing a straw man as that's NOT what the argument is. What you did is focus on the first part of my reply to your declaration...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...Due to creative gerrymandering right now we have minority rule. More people voted for Democrats by quite a margin across the country than Republicans, but the Republicans hold...
I first cited Hillary and the popular vote, then I pointed out Democrats as a whole. Hillary won the popular vote, not by a majority, but by a plurality. Hillary lost in the Electoral College as Trump won more States; something Democrats have claimed was influenced by gerrymandering. Insofar as people casting more votes for Democrats, I acknowledged that was true; but...

You have to note where those votes were cast. I posted California and Louisiana as exemplars presented in the piece linked to; but, they are just that, examples, where more would be available if needed. This is precisely the reason the Electoral College was established, something I explained in an earlier post. If it weren't for that institution, roughly 1/3 of the States would (or could) now dictate to the rest of the country. Potentially, even more stark, would be the argument that an handful of large cities/metropolitan areas, would be dictating to the rest of the country.

Thus, it's not so much 'creative gerrymandering' as it is the Constitution working as intended or, at least, as the 'compromise' which created the Electoral College was intended. Without that 'compromise,' we likely wouldn't have the Constitution as we know it, let alone the country we now have. Does that mean gerrymandering isn't a problem or, in theory, couldn't pose a problem? Nope. But, as you have repeatedly pointed out, the theoretical problem hasn't come to fruition, so far as we can discern, on a national level when it comes to the Presidency.

When it comes to representation, it might be a different story. But, that would require an analysis of each State and District. I suspect that's beyond our abilities on this board. Frankly, when it comes to such gerrymandering, both major parties have 'dirty hands' and the screams/lamentations heard in the media and in court are more a function of whose ox is getting gored at that moment.

cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-04-2018 at 1:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-04-2018, 1:09 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 2 of 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Yes he was. He was a coward. Just my thoughts on it.
Well, given he signed the Mulford Act after an armed group made their way "to the back of the Assembly Chamber," as one point of a series of incidents (Kennedy assassinations, King assassination, Malcolm X assassination) through the 1960's and increasing 'violent rhetoric' from even non-violent civil rights groups (Robert F. Williams and C.O. Chinn come to mind; though King had even famously applied for a gun permit in the 1950's), I'm not sure 'cowardice' is completely accurate. Were the armed, open carry protests legal? At the time, mostly. The assassinations certainly weren't.

Again, the context of the time. Charles Whitman happened in 1966. It is still considered one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. History. While the media tends to focus on the more modern instances, you have to realize that the UT, Austin tower shooting in 1966 is considered to be "the beginning" by many, in part due to the media coverage then available. In other words, it was not as 'common' as it is perceived to be today.

So, look at a timeline...
  • JFK, 22 November 1963
  • Malcolm X, 21 February 1965
  • Watts Riots, August 1965
  • University of Texas Tower Shooting, 1 August 1966
  • Black Panther Capitol Protest, 2 May 1967
  • Long, Hot Summer of 1967; i.e., riots in several, major U.S. cities
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., 4 April 1968
  • Robert Kennedy, 5 June 1968

In the middle of all that, Reagan signed the Mulford Act on 28 July 1967; which banned openly carrying loaded weapons, primarily within incorporated areas. It's common to attribute this largely to the Black Panthers 'invasion' of the State Capitol, but the bill was actually introduced in April, 1967, before the Capitol protest on 2 May; the protest being in response to the legislation. What had been happening prior to that was groups of armed blacks 'following' police and recording their interactions vis a vis arrests, etc.

While some may argue that it was legal at the time and rely on oversight of "We the People" for governmental actors, was something like the Mulford Act a totally unpredictable response to such 'displays;' particularly in conjunction with the assassinations, increasingly violent rhetoric, actual violence, etc.?

Bear in mind that the Mulford Act was bipartisan legislation (2 R's, 2 D's), supported by the NRA at the time. So, was it truly an act of 'cowardice,' as you have long maintained, or a predictable reaction to a 'new' type of violence beginning to permeate the country and the pressure from political supporters being placed on politicians to "do something" about it?

If the standard is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Not one of those rallies turned into a massacre with dozens killed etc.
...then I'm not sure we're using the proper standard. Even today, people, including gun owners, want to know how someone is getting loaded firearms into schools, hotels in Las Vegas, etc. That's AFTER it's been declared illegal. In the 1960's, it wasn't always illegal to carry loaded weapons publicly; but, the idea of 'regularly' occurring assassinations, armed groups following police, riots, mass shootings, etc. was, relatively, new or, at least, unusual to the population at large.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
It has simply spread from black guys with guns, to all people with guns. The cowards are still cowards.
It's been portrayed that way by History. It was even thought, by many, at the time to be based in 'racism.' I would argue that while 'race' may have been a catalyst in terms of visibility (primarily in the media coverage) for some of the legislation that transpired, not ALL of the incidents leading to the elements of 'gun control' in the 1960's (legislation which opened the door to today's increasingly stricter gun control) involved racism toward 'black guys with guns.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Since more households in terms of % had guns then, it should have seemed much less of the threat.
That's not a 'fair' or even 'accurate' standard of measurement. Owning firearms and use of those firearms in 'violent' protest of Government are, for many, if not most, two, different realms of thought. Put another way, while a significant percentage of gun owners may believe the 2nd Amendment is, theoretically, about a check on Government power, seeing it actually applied that way is a whole different kettle of fish.

We even see discord among gun owners on this board regarding whether it was 'advisable' or 'smart' or 'effective' for the Open Carry crowd to do more recently what the Black Panthers did, at least initially (for the most part), through May 1967 in terms of staging largely peaceful, armed protests. (Initially, the Black Panthers for Self Defense were more peaceful; doing things in a manner very similar to what many suggest we should be doing today by way of protests for our 2nd Amendment rights, claiming that it was the media's focus or emphasis on "militancy" which gave them a bad, public reputation. Sound familiar? Late in 1967, things began to change, where they dropped "for Self Defense" and became more openly radical.) Of course, the latter day Open Carry movement resulted in the elimination of open carry entirely and many here deemed that 'predictable.'

That doesn't make anti-gun/anti-civil rights legislation Constitutional, the right thing to do, or acceptable; no matter the motivation. It does, however, suggest predictability and a certain tension, even among gun owners, as to the advisability and acceptability of what was and is being done in terms of using firearms as part of one's protests against Government, against racism, against violence, et al.

It is far too easy to ascribe cowardice, idiocy, or even nefarious intent to the players. I think what you declared in 2014 to be more accurate in terms of the overall scheme of things...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...the Democrats do the same crap and act like it's not like their responsibility to fix it.

Reagan brought us Mulford, Dukemejan brought us the AWB (89), Arnold banned the 50 cal BMG but ya know, ole career politician Jerry Brown gave us a lead ammo ban among other things. Democrats have been no better.

Basically in CA we have each political party and their politicians taking turns on us and our 2A rights...
Unfortunately, the rest of that post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
On the national stage the Republicans have been way better for the 2A. They also have the opportunity if they take the senate to undo the nuclear option that they cried about so heavily. Maybe if the Republicans set a good example nationally, Republicans in CA can follow.
Republicans in California have little to no power. Republicans took the Senate, but didn't undo the nuclear option. On the national stage, Republicans in Florida, bump stock ban, raising age limits, John Kasich, et al. Being "way better for the 2nd Amendment" as compared to Democrats isn't quite the distinction it should be; historically or otherwise.

But, until We the People get our back up... Oh, wait... We disagree on what to do in that case and how effective/ineffective, proper, or advisable the soap box, ballot box, jury box, and cartridge box is. Ummm...

Is that 'cowardice,' eroded respect for God-given/natural rights, lack of leadership, uncoordinated efforts, differing perspectives, potentially conflicting values/priorities, apathy, or all of the above and more?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-04-2018 at 5:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-04-2018, 10:20 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
This is why we keep going back and forth. You keep looking for gerrymandering to be specifically applied to the process of the Electoral College and that's not the argument being made. As I said...

Think of it as the "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.
  • Gerrymandering favors a political party, therefore...
  • A political party gains advantage and since...
  • Electors are selected by political parties...
  • The political party with the advantage gained from gerrymandering also has an advantage in selecting/controlling Electors.
You have to add to the end of the list: IF the elector can be swayed to become faithless then electoral advantage can be realized.

So my research shows about ~99% of electors have not been swayed. That is a fairly robust track record.

I personally argue for keeping the electoral college just as it is, because it works and any "advantage" is advantage on paper on not realistic. Nor is there any evidence to show that gerrymandering does in fact sway the college.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If your statement is: "Gerrymandering to win the Presidency is not possible..." and you limit it strictly to some form of redistricting directly impacting the Electoral College Vote, then, in theory, you might be able to count yourself correct.
Yep, that's all I'm saying. We don't have to worry about it and the Dems are just being sour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I'm simply pointing out that a theory has been put forth that it might not "win" the Presidency outright, but gerrymandering can have an influence on the outcome. Such a theory does hold some validity, assuming an almost perfect alignment of 'nefarious' machinations. But, that's not the point. It is, again, in theory, possible for gerrymandering to play a role.
I agree. Anything is possible under God, so I certainly can't discount the threat is possible. However for today, right now, it is not a threat, but in fairness to all your points, it could be in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
So, again, when you declare - "...you really can't gerrymander a presidential election in the realm of current reality..." - you are, in effect, arguing a straw man as that's NOT what the argument is. What you did is focus on the first part of my reply to your declaration...
Not exactly. I am trying to cut to the chase, that the Dems are just cranky pants and they want to "reform" or "Fix" the system that isn't broken. They lost because they put up the worst possible candidate in existence. Hillary was possibly the only person on earth that could have lost to Trump and she did. It's kind of hilarious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Thus, it's not so much 'creative gerrymandering' as it is the Constitution working as intended
100% agreed. The gerrymandering had nothing to do with anything on the presidential and or senate level, but to your later points, yes, in the House it certainly swayed the influence and the votes and the representation in quite a few states from what my research tells me. This also lets me know that the Republicans who are resigning right now seem to know the gravy train is coming to an end.

I don't ignore that some kind of influence can be gained by the parties choosing the electors. It can't be ignored, and you're right. We just don't have better way at the moment to choose electors that has any mass appeal. Your point isn't lost on me even though I sharpen my own point around particular areas. The system works, precisely (if only partially) because you can't gerrymander the Presidential election in today's reality. But I do acknowledge the reality could change and there is a danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Well, given he signed the Mulford Act after an armed group made their way "to the back of the Assembly Chamber," as one point of a series of incidents (Kennedy assassinations, King assassination, Malcolm X assassination) through the 1960's and increasing 'violent rhetoric' from even non-violent civil rights groups (Robert F. Williams and C.O. Chinn come to mind; though King had even famously applied for a gun permit in the 1950's), I'm not sure 'cowardice' is completely accurate. Were the armed, open carry protests legal? At the time, mostly. The assassinations certainly weren't.
Of course there wasn't solely racism at play, I acknowledge that. Some people were just cowards, not racist cowards :-) . And context is in fact important in realizing exactly how racist and OR cowardly California was at that point. There were assassinations, and certainly just chewing away at the "bear" part of the 2A wouldn't hurt and everyone would now be safe! Oh wait, the politicians would be safe, the murder rate continued to climb, so the rest of us weren't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In the middle of all that, Reagan signed the Mulford Act on 28 July 1967; which banned openly carrying loaded weapons, primarily within incorporated areas.
You are right, it really was during a glut of bad things, however isn't that the greatest opportunity to be a leader? Stand up for what's right? If we all followed Reagan's lead here we'd ban "assault weapons" immediately because of school shootings, handguns because of St Louis and Baltimore, and maybe in Chicago we could declare martial law. It would keep people "safe".

Obviously I play the antagonist on TV, but I understand why all this happened. I also know there aren't but a handful of politicians from either party that I respect and I have said time and time again, let's vote them ALL out. Both sides. Too many around here are quick to defend Republicans when they violate the constitution and refuse to give credit to Dems on for the few times they defend the constitution. The 2A is not purview of one party or another, it is an American, fundamental, god given right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Bear in mind that the Mulford Act was bipartisan legislation (2 R's, 2 D's), supported by the NRA at the time. So, was it truly an act of 'cowardice,' as you have long maintained, or a predictable reaction to a 'new' type of violence beginning to permeate the country and the pressure from political supporters being placed on politicians to "do something" about it?
Unfortunately the NRA did support it, that is a good point. The was at a time when the NRA was naive and thought it would end at only loaded weapons. If it had ended there it wouldn't have been so bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's been portrayed that way by History. It was even thought, by many, at the time to be based in 'racism.' I would argue that while 'race' may have been a catalyst in terms of visibility (primarily in the media coverage) for some of the legislation that transpired, not ALL of the incidents leading to the elements of 'gun control' in the 1960's (legislation which opened the door to today's increasingly stricter gun control) involved racism toward 'black guys with guns.'
Of course that is reasonable. I still think it was racist as hell, but it has transcended the racist agenda of the 60s. It wasn't all racist of course that would be over simplification of a complex issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's not a 'fair' or even 'accurate' standard of measurement. Owning firearms and use of those firearms in 'violent' protest of Government are, for many, if not most, two, different realms of thought. Put another way, while a significant percentage of gun owners may believe the 2nd Amendment is, theoretically, about a check on Government power, seeing it actually applied that way is a whole different kettle of fish.
You put "violent" in quotes and I think that's important. Violent is certainly subjective on this point. If no one is shooting anyone with these loaded guns, is it violent? It turned violent in a lot of other ways with rocks and bottles etc throughout that era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We even see discord among gun owners on this board regarding whether it was 'advisable' or 'smart' or 'effective' for the Open Carry crowd to do more recently what the Black Panthers did, at least initially (for the most part), through May 1967 in terms of staging largely peaceful, armed protests. (Initially, the Black Panthers for Self Defense were more peaceful; doing things in a manner very similar to what many suggest we should be doing today by way of protests for our 2nd Amendment rights, claiming that it was the media's focus or emphasis on "militancy" which gave them a bad, public reputation. Sound familiar? Late in 1967, things began to change, where they dropped "for Self Defense" and became more openly radical.) Of course, the latter day Open Carry movement resulted in the elimination of open carry entirely and many here deemed that 'predictable.'
I freely admit I think open carry hurts more than helps at this point. Scare the sh*t out of people and they do stupid things. The cowardly cowboy (among others) got really scared of black dudes with guns and we ended up with the Mulford act. We had people then in CA carrying unloaded guns AND we lost that too as a result. The "shock" value caused us to lose another part of the 2A right because people were foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It is far too easy to ascribe cowardice, idiocy, or even nefarious intent to the players. I think what you declared in 2014 to be more accurate in terms of the overall scheme of things...
I know, I antagonize and over simplify on purpose. It illustrates the point that we can't trust politicians period. An R before some ones name is not a reason to vote for them. I coin myself as a recovering Republican. I was very active until Republicans got stupid, now I focus more on the NRA than the Republican party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Is that 'cowardice,' eroded respect for God-given/natural rights, lack of leadership, uncoordinated efforts, differing perspectives, potentially conflicting values/priorities, apathy, or all of the above and more?
I think partially cowardice, partially avarice, an under-educated, disengaged electorate, etc. It's not any one thing, you have a good point. I just like to remind people, Republicans are as useless as Democrats in most situations that don't forward their own grab for power. What have they done for our 2A rights on a the national level since taking power going on two years ago?? ...... yeah nothing. So to the original premise: Maybe the 2A is for sale and we buy the Republicans to actually DO something about it. God knows their feigned ideology hasn't helped us one bit.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-16-2018, 5:45 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Here's an interesting little piece that appears in The Washington Times this morning...

God-given, not government granted, guides 2nd Amendment



I always hate it when some idiot says the 2nd Amendment should be limited because you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If there is, in fact, a fire, there will likely be no consequences and it is possible you will be labeled an hero. If there is, in fact, no fire and your intent is to cause harm or create chaos, that's when your troubles truly begin.

Would that these politicians and the media would treat firearms similarly.

Instead, we get a deliberate and misleading conflation of "assault rifles" with so-called "assault weapons."



Then again, this is the Republican, John Faso, he's running against...

Representative John Faso on Gun Control and School Safety

Aren't you glad you live in California and don't have to make such choices?
Then I guess immigrants have the same rights as citizens if they are "God given".
__________________
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”


― Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-16-2018, 8:23 PM
2761377's Avatar
2761377 2761377 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the V ring
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Then I guess immigrants have the same rights as citizens if they are "God given".
as long as they haven't broken U.S. law to get here. Yes, it's well established they have the same basic freedoms.

your supercilious attitude makes it clear you do not differentiate illegal immigrants from those that obey our law.

your motto- "yo no creo en fronteras"
__________________
MAGA
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-16-2018, 9:13 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2761377 View Post
as long as they haven't broken U.S. law to get here. Yes, it's well established they have the same basic freedoms.

your supercilious attitude makes it clear you do not differentiate illegal immigrants from those that obey our law.

your motto- "yo no creo en fronteras"
Put another way, God-given, Natural rights apply to ALL individuals, regardless of location of birth or place of residence.

However...

The degree to which governments can morally, legally, ethically, and practically infringe upon those rights is very much dependent upon citizenship and/or legal status within a given government's sphere of influence/control; not to mention the deference (or apathy) of the People as a whole.

Which was pretty much the point made with the Declaration of Independence and the rules laid out in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-16-2018 at 10:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-27-2018, 10:42 AM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 486
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2761377 View Post
as long as they haven't broken U.S. law to get here. Yes, it's well established they have the same basic freedoms.

your supercilious attitude makes it clear you do not differentiate illegal immigrants from those that obey our law.

your motto- "yo no creo en fronteras"
Sorry, champ. You can't have it both ways. If they are "God given" they are God given to everyone, not just white Mericans.

I guess you are not a Christian.
__________________
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”


― Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-04-2018, 6:58 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Sorry, champ. You can't have it both ways. If they are "God given" they are God given to everyone, not just white Mericans.

I guess you are not a Christian.
The rights we enjoy are God given ! Those from other nations also have God given rights. Unfortunately they have not fought for those rights so their governments do not recognize them.

BTW breaking our laws to get here does not entitle them to any rights enjoyed by legal immigrants or citizens !

In fact the only reason they come here is to get freebies and vote for gun grabbing democrats!

As a side Carlos when are you being released from prison for sexting that 15 year old girl ?
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
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 3:28 PM.




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.