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 06-11-2018, 9:41 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,657
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
You might actually try reading the article before commenting. My understanding is that the NRA does not lobby. The NRA received $2,500 from Russian sources. The NRA-ILA is the lobbying organization affiliated with the NRA. It does not disclose its donors. From the article:

He who laughs last laughs best.
So, what you're saying is the Trump won due to $2500, or, the equivalent of a used '02 Honda civic.......

Seeing as the democrats funneled orders of magnitude more than that via similar channels and still lost proves conclusively that Trump and the NRA use money significantly more effectively than the democrats. That, and russian gun manufacturers want to make guns for us to buy, and are willing to support that financially, which I support.

Trust us, there's laughing going on, but it ain't what you think it is.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-12-2018, 6:42 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
You might actually try reading the article before commenting. My understanding is that the NRA does not lobby. The NRA received $2,500 from Russian sources. The NRA-ILA is the lobbying organization affiliated with the NRA. It does not disclose its donors. From the article:
I'm not sure what is meant by the "NRA doesn't lobby" unless a distinction is being made between NRA and their ILA division.

Regarding whichever pro-gun organization one may belong to, as in business it's best to speak well of one's own endeavors rather than belittling the efforts of others. "The other guy sucks" doesn't tell folks much about one's own organization. Why sacrifice the opportunity to speak well of one's own on the off chance speaking ill of another's may be positively received? It's usually not.

As demonstrated by the win in IL against the Deerfield AW ban, with SAF, IL Rifle and Pistol and NRA participating, we're supposed to be in this together.

Last edited by dfletcher; 06-13-2018 at 9:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:16 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hey, Carlosdanger, still waiting on a viable
reply to some simple questions:




Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
I am fully supportive of Second Amendment rights -- always have been and always will be.

<<< Remainder of post snipped for Brevity >>>
Quote:
So, Carlosdanger,
What Pro 2nd Amendment Organization do you belong to ?



Noble


Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
The Pro Second Amendment Organizations I belong to are not right wing lobbying groups disguised as gun rights organizations. Did you know the NRA tried to derail the Heller decision three times?

The Pro Second Amendment Organizations I belong to would never throw a gun owner or lawful concealed carrier under the bus because of the color of his skin.

The Pro Second Amendment Organizations I belong to would never endorse a cowardly draft dodger for president let alone one who claims to be a great patriot or have a draft dodging pedophile on their board of directors.

By the way this post is not about me it is about the NRA and it smells to high heaven. You might want to address that and skip the personal attacks. It is not very "noble"


Personal attack ? Lol.

You claimed to support the 2nd Amendment.

I asked for your Bona Fides to back up your assertion, and you replied
with an series of attacks on the NRA, the biggest and most effective
defender of the 2nd Amendment we currently have.

And you didn't Answer a rather simple question, so I will ask you again:

So, Carlosdanger,
What Pro 2nd Amendment Organization do you belong to ?



And a follow up question:

What is Your Plan on how best to defend our 2nd Amendment Rights ?


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:17 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
So, what you're saying is the Trump won due to $2500, or, the equivalent of a used '02 Honda civic.......

Seeing as the democrats funneled orders of magnitude more than that via similar channels and still lost proves conclusively that Trump and the NRA use money significantly more effectively than the democrats. That, and russian gun manufacturers want to make guns for us to buy, and are willing to support that financially, which I support.

Trust us, there's laughing going on, but it ain't what you think it is.
Emphasis Mine.

Yep.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:22 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

meh, we have millions of foreign nationals here illegally trying to influence every election and policy decision, and some even voting illegally.

hypocrite libtards don't want to hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-13-2018, 8:15 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Hey, Carlosdanger, still waiting on a viable
reply to some simple questions:
Do you really believe that the NRA is the most effective defender of our 2nd Amendment rights? What do you base that assertion on? Who brought the Heller case and why did the NRA try to derail it and why did the NRA try to screw up Alan Gura and the McDonald decision. It seems to me that nationally the Cato Institute is more effective than the NRA and in California the CRPA and the FPC are far more effective than the NRA. So lets have your proof.

I belonged to the NRA for about 30 years. I owe them a lot. I learned to shoot four position small bore in one of their programs. The first hint of trouble came when the Black Panthers appeared at the Capitol loaded open carrying. The NRA and Ronald Reagan immediately supported a bill to outlaw loaded open carry. Now they could have crafted a much narrower bill, say one prohibiting firearms in government buildings but they chose to go with the much more general prohibition which is why we do not have loaded open carry to this day.

The second indication that the NRA was shifting from an organizations which encouraged shooting, shooting sports, hunting, and firearm safety was when they built that huge building. An edifice like that takes a lot of money to maintain and so they adopted a strategy of trying to get far right wing lobbying money and branched out from gun rights to a number of right wing causes. No doubt that strategy had some benefits in states that are extremely red but in blue states like California it has been a disaster. Right now the Republican Party is in third place behind the Democratic Party and No Party Preference and sinking fast. In addition the trend across the country and not just in California is that more and more people are not identifying with any political party. In that atmosphere, hitching your wagon to either political party is a recipe for disaster. We have the gun laws we do because the NRA has bungled things so badly.

So I belong to the CRPA, and the LGOA and I contribute to the FPC. That way I know that my money is not being used to pay off Stormy Daniels.

It seems to me that one of the most vital things the NRA can do is to encourage shooting and shooting sports and revitalize the programs like the one that brought me into the sport. Gun ownership is declining in terms of percentage of people owning guns and we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to anyone who shows an interest in shooting especially millennials.
I try to take as many people as I can to the range to learn how to shoot. It doesn't seem like much but it's grass roots support that has the potential to turn things around.

We also need to reduce gun deaths and violence in our society. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. 90% of those are males. The largest cohort is the age group from 45-64. We need to provide them with universal health care including mental health. We need to establish programs to reach out to them and we need to make the economy work for them which it is not.

The remaining 10,000 deaths are murders. The single biggest driver of violence in this or any other society is economic inequality. We need to solve the problems of the inner cities where most of these deaths occur. We need to improve education, establish job training programs, target at risk youth, abandon the war on drugs and put the money into rehabilitation programs, we need to improve the possibility of upward mobility and restore hope.

So now that I have answered your question I have one for you. I received the same notice your Dear Leader got. I went down and enlisted while he ran home and hid under the bed. Now he claims to be a great patriot. How can you support a draft dodger when so many patriotic Americans gave their lives? I lost some good friends over there and I will never consider Hanoi Donald my president.
__________________
“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
  #47  
Old 06-13-2018, 8:27 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I'm not sure what is meant by the "NRA doesn't lobby" unless a distinction is being made between NRA and their ILA division.

Regarding whichever pro-gun organization one may belong to, as in business it's best to speak well of one's own endeavors rather than belittling the efforts of others. "The other guy sucks" doesn't tell folks much about one's own organization. Why sacrifice the opportunity to speak well of one's own on the off chance speaking ill of another's may be positively received? It's usually not.

As demonstrated by the win in IL against the Deerfield AW ban, with SAF, IL Rifle and Pistol and NRA participating, we're supposed to be in this together.
Well that is a pleasant thought but are we really all in this together? Look at the post below. If you are pro Second Amendment and you do not toe the far right line you are a "libtard" and people question whether you even own guns. Go over to OT. Are there any liberals there? No, they all miraculously violated the rules and got kicked out. But you can have a Pepe the Frog avatar.

Now any sensible person would try to form a broad coalition across party lines especially in a deep blue state like California but that is not what is happening. It has already cost us a great deal of our gun rights in California and it will no doubt cost us more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theLBC View Post
meh, we have millions of foreign nationals here illegally trying to influence every election and policy decision, and some even voting illegally.

hypocrite libtards don't want to hear it.
Oh, yeah we are still waiting for the list of 3,000,000 undocumented people who voted illegally and gave Hillary the popular vote. It has been over a year and a half now. Let me know when you have some proof. LOL
__________________
“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
  #48  
Old 06-13-2018, 8:39 PM
frankm's Avatar
frankm frankm is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Occupied Vespuchia
Posts: 10,235
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

wow, they can get rid of Russia, Trump, and the NRA all in one fell swoop!!!
__________________
RKBA Clock: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box (moved right 5/29/18)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-14-2018, 2:10 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Well that is a pleasant thought but are we really all in this together? Look at the post below. If you are pro Second Amendment and you do not toe the far right line you are a "libtard" and people question whether you even own guns. Go over to OT. Are there any liberals there? No, they all miraculously violated the rules and got kicked out.
When I say "we are all in this together" I make a presumption of same or substantially same goals regarding gun rights. Further, that there is intellectual honesty regarding one's actions in the voting booth and the results. I don't visit OT and may be out of touch however if the issue is being a 2nd Amendment supporter but voting and supporting "liberal" candidates that are hostile to the 2nd Amendment - I wouldn't call names but I'd suggest that sort of behavior doesn't help us. And it's understandable that some would question the practical effect of that individual's fealty to the 2nd Amendment.

If a person honestly states to the effect "I own a few guns but am voting for Gavin Newsom" I would suggest that person is not an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter and they ought not present themselves as such. That would apply to supporting, with a time, money donation or vote, Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 campaign. So far as they may allocute to that circumstance, OK - who am I to tell someone how to vote? But it seems to me many self-described liberals must confront an issue that I as a conservative need not on guns. And that is how does one balance all those liberal issues and the politicians they might naturally agree with against the single issue of gun rights? I understand if they allow that "gun rights aren't the top of the list" but it is irksome to hear "I'm a gun rights, gun owning Democrat …. who votes for Senator Feinstein" or asserts no difference between the Rs and the Ds. A little honesty, that's all.

By way of a fairly easy illustration, if I said I was a strong supporter of civil rights but belonged to the Citizens Council and voted for David Duke, most folks would question my civil rights dedication or my honesty. If I posted on a union website that I'm a union member and supporter, but I voted for politicians who push right to work - I don't think the reception would be very warm. Hot, but not warm. And we can add supporting same sex marriage while voting for conservative politicians, supporting immigration controls but voting for liberal politicians.

If a person is liberal at heart and in their personal behavior, all well and good. The first politician I campaigned for was Hubert Humphrey. But if they vote for liberal politicians that eventuality creates a conflict. If it's addressed by saying they balance and don't hold 2nd Amendment rights in highest or particularly high regard I'd say that's an honest response. But if the assertion is "I do no harm, I support the 2nd as well as any right wing or conservative" I'd say that person is beguiling themselves.

Regardless, it does no one any good and certainly doesn't uplift one's own organization to simply demean another. If a person belongs to SAF, GOA or another organization they ought to speak well of them and use their accomplishments to state their case.

Last edited by dfletcher; 06-14-2018 at 3:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-14-2018, 7:52 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Ball Pimp 4 Border Collie
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 7,290
iTrader: 282 / 100%
Default

All good points Carlos. The problem with your arguments are they are based on logic, not dogma. Dogma and orthodoxy are in style. Logic is not.

Unfortunitly you speak truths people don't want to hear. Don't quit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Well that is a pleasant thought but are we really all in this together? Look at the post below. If you are pro Second Amendment and you do not toe the far right line you are a "libtard" and people question whether you even own guns. Go over to OT. Are there any liberals there? No, they all miraculously violated the rules and got kicked out. But you can have a Pepe the Frog avatar.

Now any sensible person would try to form a broad coalition across party lines especially in a deep blue state like California but that is not what is happening. It has already cost us a great deal of our gun rights in California and it will no doubt cost us more.



Oh, yeah we are still waiting for the list of 3,000,000 undocumented people who voted illegally and gave Hillary the popular vote. It has been over a year and a half now. Let me know when you have some proof. LOL
__________________
I love America for the rights and freedoms we used to have.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:42 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
When I say "we are all in this together" I make a presumption of same or substantially same goals regarding gun rights. Further, that there is intellectual honesty regarding one's actions in the voting booth and the results. I don't visit OT and may be out of touch however if the issue is being a 2nd Amendment supporter but voting and supporting "liberal" candidates that are hostile to the 2nd Amendment - I wouldn't call names but I'd suggest that sort of behavior doesn't help us. And it's understandable that some would question the practical effect of that individual's fealty to the 2nd Amendment.

If a person honestly states to the effect "I own a few guns but am voting for Gavin Newsom" I would suggest that person is not an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter and they ought not present themselves as such. That would apply to supporting, with a time, money donation or vote, Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 campaign. So far as they may allocute to that circumstance, OK - who am I to tell someone how to vote? But it seems to me many self-described liberals must confront an issue that I as a conservative need not on guns. And that is how does one balance all those liberal issues and the politicians they might naturally agree with against the single issue of gun rights? I understand if they allow that "gun rights aren't the top of the list" but it is irksome to hear "I'm a gun rights, gun owning Democrat …. who votes for Senator Feinstein" or asserts no difference between the Rs and the Ds. A little honesty, that's all.

By way of a fairly easy illustration, if I said I was a strong supporter of civil rights but belonged to the Citizens Council and voted for David Duke, most folks would question my civil rights dedication or my honesty. If I posted on a union website that I'm a union member and supporter, but I voted for politicians who push right to work - I don't think the reception would be very warm. Hot, but not warm. And we can add supporting same sex marriage while voting for conservative politicians, supporting immigration controls but voting for liberal politicians.

If a person is liberal at heart and in their personal behavior, all well and good. The first politician I campaigned for was Hubert Humphrey. But if they vote for liberal politicians that eventuality creates a conflict. If it's addressed by saying they balance and don't hold 2nd Amendment rights in highest or particularly high regard I'd say that's an honest response. But if the assertion is "I do no harm, I support the 2nd as well as any right wing or conservative" I'd say that person is beguiling themselves.

Regardless, it does no one any good and certainly doesn't uplift one's own organization to simply demean another. If a person belongs to SAF, GOA or another organization they ought to speak well of them and use their accomplishments to state their case.
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response. I do not consider myself a "liberal" but I am definitely on the Left and as you point out, as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and gun rights, it is difficult to find an acceptable candidate. Feinstein, DeLeon, Newsome and Hillary Clinton are obviously out which is why I have not and did not vote for any of them. But how can I support a candidate on the other side who calls my daughter a "pervert" because of whom she loves and has chosen to marry. As you can see it is quite a predicament.

There appear to be some parallels in our lives. The first candidate I worked for was Barry Goldwater and for many years I was a conservative. As a conservative I assume you believe in maximizing individual freedom and liberty and see the Constitution as a necessary limit on governmental overreach. It must be difficult for you to find candidates also. Most of the candidates who staunchly profess to support the Second Amendment also seem to have little trouble with the government spying on its own citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Feinstein likes this also). They also seem to applaud the Gestapo like tactics of ICE. Most also seem to want government to intrude into people's bedrooms and into the choice of who to marry. A lot of them claim to be patriotic to the Nth degree but then it turns out that when it came time to serve in the military they were strangely absent.

I am not calling out any gun rights organization but when an organization claims to be a gun rights organization and then becomes involved in a lot of peripheral issues having nothing to do with gun rights it seems to be they forfeit their standing as a gun rights organization. I suppose for me that is the bottom line. When the NRA was a gun rights organization, I was a member. When it ceased to be so, I quit.
__________________
“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
  #52  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:46 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbapug1 View Post
All good points Carlos. The problem with your arguments are they are based on logic, not dogma. Dogma and orthodoxy are in style. Logic is not.

Unfortunitly you speak truths people don't want to hear. Don't quit.
While yours is certainly more politely worded isn't the sentiment no different from the "libtard" comment? In each case there's a dismissal of the other's point of view and an out of hand rejection there's an issue to address. It seems to me the issue involves conflict, opportunity and responsibility.

I presume we express ourselves politically by voting and the groups we support. There is a conflict between being a gunowner and a liberal because if one expresses themselves politically they would tend to support legislators who would restrict gun rights. It may be that the gunowner disagrees with that legislator, or agrees with their restrictions. In either case that seems to me an issue to be addressed.

But there is opportunity, on both sides, if folks deal with one another honestly and constructively. That's where responsibility comes in.

Neither I nor folks like me are going to ever sway candidate Newsom, Senator Feinstein or Representative Pelosi on guns because the list of where we part company is too broad. They know we'll never vote for them. However a gunowner who identifies as liberal, perhaps Independent or Democrat - they can influence because they may be inclined to vote for them. To that end, during the 2016 Presidential campaign, when Governor O'Malley touted his AW ban and Mrs Clinton spoke of "Australian style" gun control where were the liberal gunowner voices opposing them? Was there any effort to organize, in even a modest manner, and send a message that such gunowners deeply opposed their position? I followed fairly closely and saw none.

There is unfortunately now a terrific opportunity for such gunowners to make a statement in the CA election. Not by supporting Cox but by voicing opposition to Newsom. It wouldn't take much in today's internet environment to create a "Liberals for Gun Ownership" and at least get noticed.

Having poked around here for a few election cycles I've not seen a suggestion from our more liberal fellow gunowners to send e-mails, telephone calls to any particular candidate the simple message of "I can't support you because of your position on gun control". I've mentioned it, doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Granted I'm making an assumption that liberal gunowners generally oppose the restrictions their legislators may propose. I don't want to get too deep into detail such as UBC, waiting periods, NCIS checks but rather stick with bigger issues such as AW ban or other wholesale prohibitions. If that's not the case our differences are much more complicated.

From the conservative gunowner there ought to be the prospect of engaging and working with liberal gunowners. From liberal gunowners there ought to be acknowledgement their inclinations and votes are likely contrary to our gun rights interests. If conservatives stop calling them "libtards" and liberals stop calling conservatives names and do a bit of organizing maybe we end up making a gain or two. Or start to anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:49 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Oh, yeah we are still waiting for the list of 3,000,000 undocumented people who voted illegally and gave Hillary the popular vote. It has been over a year and a half now. Let me know when you have some proof. LOL
it isn't worth trying to help people with mental disabilities, but i will go as far as to say that nobody i know has claimed that 3 million illegals voted.

hope that helps. good luck with your condition.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:52 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

@ carlos

i can't believe anyone actually supports libtards.

illegal alien criminals overwhelmingly target only other vulnerable immigrants that are afraid to interact with law enforcement.

thus, between 50-70% of crimes committed by illegal immigrant criminals are not even reported - much to the glee of libtards that use "official" statistics to defend illegal immigrants.

the libtards and white knight scum are actually causing more suffering for the people they claim to be protecting.

Trump wants to stop the victimization of our most vulnerable residents.
why are you such a farking racist that you would side with the libtards that want to keep them illegal so they can be used as a political tool?

Last edited by theLBC; 06-15-2018 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:56 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkvsE5Xitrs
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-15-2018, 1:18 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response. I do not consider myself a "liberal" but I am definitely on the Left and as you point out, as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and gun rights, it is difficult to find an acceptable candidate. Feinstein, DeLeon, Newsome and Hillary Clinton are obviously out which is why I have not and did not vote for any of them. But how can I support a candidate on the other side who calls my daughter a "pervert" because of whom she loves and has chosen to marry. As you can see it is quite a predicament.

There appear to be some parallels in our lives. The first candidate I worked for was Barry Goldwater and for many years I was a conservative. As a conservative I assume you believe in maximizing individual freedom and liberty and see the Constitution as a necessary limit on governmental overreach. It must be difficult for you to find candidates also. Most of the candidates who staunchly profess to support the Second Amendment also seem to have little trouble with the government spying on its own citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Feinstein likes this also). They also seem to applaud the Gestapo like tactics of ICE. Most also seem to want government to intrude into people's bedrooms and into the choice of who to marry. A lot of them claim to be patriotic to the Nth degree but then it turns out that when it came time to serve in the military they were strangely absent.

I am not calling out any gun rights organization but when an organization claims to be a gun rights organization and then becomes involved in a lot of peripheral issues having nothing to do with gun rights it seems to be they forfeit their standing as a gun rights organization. I suppose for me that is the bottom line. When the NRA was a gun rights organization, I was a member. When it ceased to be so, I quit.
I'm conservative but modestly pro-choice. I think that helps with the "liberal gunowner" challenge and provides perspective.

I didn't reference it in my recent post but I think the better approach isn't to get gunowners inclined to vote for a Democrat or more liberal candidate to vote Republican or conservative, nor to become a Republican. But rather for them to influence their legislators to moderate their anti-gun behavior. That's where the gain is, it seems to me, and that's where each side falls flat. Conservatives by rejecting wholesale any interaction with gunowners to their left, and by those on the left being somehow unable to approach saying what you just said - that the politicians with whom you mostly agree aren't very good and can injure gun rights, but what's the alternative.

Put another way, for perspective. How many conservative gunowners would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was pro-gun but otherwise held all her current political positions? I can picture a whole lot of sour faces out there as that is contemplated, if only in theory. Vote for "pro-gun Nancy"?

"Liberal" or to the left gunowners don't need a pat on the back or be in sync with conservatives to do something about gun rights. GOA, SAF and NRA hardly hold hands. There's noting to prevent them from organizing, making noise and letting politicians like Newsom and Becerra know "sorry, you don't get my vote" and it's because of guns. I'd like to see that done and think it would have a lot of value.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-15-2018, 1:27 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I'm conservative but modestly pro-choice. I think that helps with the "liberal gunowner" challenge and provides perspective.

I didn't reference it in my recent post but I think the better approach isn't to get gunowners inclined to vote for a Democrat or more liberal candidate to vote Republican or conservative, nor to become a Republican. But rather for them to influence their legislators to moderate their anti-gun behavior. That's where the gain is, it seems to me, and that's where each side falls flat. Conservatives by rejecting wholesale any interaction with gunowners to their left, and by those on the left being somehow unable to approach saying what you just said - that the politicians with whom you mostly agree aren't very good and can injure gun rights, but what's the alternative.

Put another way, for perspective. How many conservative gunowners would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was pro-gun but otherwise held all her current political positions? I can picture a whole lot of sour faces out there as that is contemplated, if only in theory. Vote for "pro-gun Nancy"?

"Liberal" or to the left gunowners don't need a pat on the back or be in sync with conservatives to do something about gun rights. GOA, SAF and NRA hardly hold hands. There's noting to prevent them from organizing, making noise and letting politicians like Newsom and Becerra know "sorry, you don't get my vote" and it's because of guns. I'd like to see that done and think it would have a lot of value.
even if pelosi was pro-gun, i would never vote for her
she likes ms-13
she likes illegal alien criminals that target me and my neighbors that live in hispanic neighborhoods, while she is safe in her upscale white neighborhood.
she wants to take more of my paycheck and give it to foreign invaders who assault, rape and kill my neighbors.

eff pelosi.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-15-2018, 2:58 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theLBC View Post
even if pelosi was pro-gun, i would never vote for her
she likes ms-13
she likes illegal alien criminals that target me and my neighbors that live in hispanic neighborhoods, while she is safe in her upscale white neighborhood.
she wants to take more of my paycheck and give it to foreign invaders who assault, rape and kill my neighbors.

eff pelosi.
Well, I wouldn't either and I live in her district. Like it or not, the way you and I feel about her is how alot of liberal gunowners feel about some of our pro-gun legislators. But as I mentioned, I don't want them to vote for our guys, I want them to change theirs.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-15-2018, 3:40 PM
theLBC's Avatar
theLBC theLBC is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Well, I wouldn't either and I live in her district. Like it or not, the way you and I feel about her is how alot of liberal gunowners feel about some of our pro-gun legislators. But as I mentioned, I don't want them to vote for our guys, I want them to change theirs.
and you're making total sense, except the liberals are responsible for rapes, assaults, molesting, trafficking, robbing etc...done by criminals they want here.
it makes sense to resist their agenda.

what are conservatives doing to hurt anyone?
liberals fear them because they need free or cheap govt subsidized abortions?

Last edited by theLBC; 06-15-2018 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-15-2018, 6:38 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I will be invoking Brandolini's Law in my response to Carlosdangers
elongated post, which states:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of
magnitude bigger than to produce it."


I'm not going to bother with a comprehensive reply to Carlosdanger
meandering post, not because I don't have an answer, but because
its not worth the considerable effort to address each and everyone of his
points to an audience that is diminishing in this older thread and its highly
unlikely Carlosdanger will change his views, as demonstrated in
previous encounters.

I will address some of the issues, primarily to show that Carlos
can make a 1 or 2 sentence statement, that will require a response
considerably longer than that to properly refute, per Brandolini's Law.

If enough people indicate they are interested in a more comprehensive
response from yours truly, I will consider adding to my response.

My replies are below his post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Do you really believe that the NRA is the most effective defender of our 2nd Amendment rights? What do you base that assertion on? Who brought the Heller case and why did the NRA try to derail it and why did the NRA try to screw up Alan Gura and the McDonald decision. It seems to me that nationally the Cato Institute is more effective than the NRA and in California the CRPA and the FPC are far more effective than the NRA. So lets have your proof.

I belonged to the NRA for about 30 years. I owe them a lot. I learned to shoot four position small bore in one of their programs. The first hint of trouble came when the Black Panthers appeared at the Capitol loaded open carrying. The NRA and Ronald Reagan immediately supported a bill to outlaw loaded open carry. Now they could have crafted a much narrower bill, say one prohibiting firearms in government buildings but they chose to go with the much more general prohibition which is why we do not have loaded open carry to this day.

The second indication that the NRA was shifting from an organizations which encouraged shooting, shooting sports, hunting, and firearm safety was when they built that huge building. An edifice like that takes a lot of money to maintain and so they adopted a strategy of trying to get far right wing lobbying money and branched out from gun rights to a number of right wing causes. No doubt that strategy had some benefits in states that are extremely red but in blue states like California it has been a disaster. Right now the Republican Party is in third place behind the Democratic Party and No Party Preference and sinking fast. In addition the trend across the country and not just in California is that more and more people are not identifying with any political party. In that atmosphere, hitching your wagon to either political party is a recipe for disaster. We have the gun laws we do because the NRA has bungled things so badly.

So I belong to the CRPA, and the LGOA and I contribute to the FPC. That way I know that my money is not being used to pay off Stormy Daniels.

It seems to me that one of the most vital things the NRA can do is to encourage shooting and shooting sports and revitalize the programs like the one that brought me into the sport. Gun ownership is declining in terms of percentage of people owning guns and we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to anyone who shows an interest in shooting especially millennials.
I try to take as many people as I can to the range to learn how to shoot. It doesn't seem like much but it's grass roots support that has the potential to turn things around.

We also need to reduce gun deaths and violence in our society. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. 90% of those are males. The largest cohort is the age group from 45-64. We need to provide them with universal health care including mental health. We need to establish programs to reach out to them and we need to make the economy work for them which it is not.

The remaining 10,000 deaths are murders. The single biggest driver of violence in this or any other society is economic inequality. We need to solve the problems of the inner cities where most of these deaths occur. We need to improve education, establish job training programs, target at risk youth, abandon the war on drugs and put the money into rehabilitation programs, we need to improve the possibility of upward mobility and restore hope.

So now that I have answered your question I have one for you. I received the same notice your Dear Leader got. I went down and enlisted while he ran home and hid under the bed. Now he claims to be a great patriot. How can you support a draft dodger when so many patriotic Americans gave their lives? I lost some good friends over there and I will never consider Hanoi Donald my president
.
The problem with Carlosdangers viewpoints regarding the NRA is summed
up in this quote attributed to Winston Churchill:

"Don't let Perfection get in the way of Progress."

No large organization is going to be "Perfect", humans by there very nature
are imperfect, and to demand they conform to your ideals in every way
before you would support them is not realistic.

Put another way:

"We go to War with the Army we have, not the Army you might Wish For."

If you want to influence how the NRA operates, become a Voting Member.

One of the reasons the NRA is the most effective defender of 2A, is its huge
size, which brings millions of voters to the polls when they mobilize.
And at an estimated 6 Million members, it is the largest by far.

And its influence is even larger.

Pew research conducted a study in which they estimated 14 Million people
claimed to be NRA members, showing that many more people support
the NRA than the estimated 6 million paying members:

Among gun owners, NRA members have a unique set
of views and experiences

Pew Research Center. July 7, 2017
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-experiences/
Quote:
Three-in-ten U.S. adults say they currently own a gun, and of that group,
19% say they belong to the National Rifle Association. While the demographic
profile of NRA members is similar to that of other gun owners, their political
views, the way they use their firearms and their attitudes about gun policy
differ significantly from gun owners who are not members of the organization.
The effectiveness of this was demonstrated in 2016 Election:



The NRA 2016 Election Wins have resulted in:

Neil Gorsuch appointed to SCOTUS, instead of a Ginsburg Clone from Hillary.
That alone was worth winning the election for, no matter what you think
of Trump.

Another Win, Federal Judges to lower courts:
President Trump continues to appoint Federal Judges that support the
Constitution at a Rapid pace, in addition to the Judges already confirmed,
there are currently 83 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate
action, including 11 for the Courts of Appeals and 72 for the District Courts.

Lets not forget Trump has stated he will sign a National Reciprocity Bill,
and Concealed Carry Reciprocity has passed the in the House and is now
waiting for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get off of his @ss
and actually do something to push it forward:

Mitch McConnell Has Ignored National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
for Over a Year

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...r-over-a-year/

And speaking of CCW, the NRA has successfully spread CCW across the Nation:

The Right-to-Carry Movement in America
BY CHRIS W. COX | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...ent-in-america
Quote:
The vast majority of states were either “no-issue,” where carrying firearms
concealed is prohibited, or “may-issue” jurisdictions where permits are
issued on a discretionary basis. Today, however, nearly three-quarters of
Americans live in a shall-issue RTC state and the number of concealed-carry
permits is estimated at more than 16 million. Within our lifetimes, NRA
members and our supporters have changed the political and legal landscape

in the vast majority of states so that law-abiding citizens can defend
themselves against violent attack while in public. This is more than just
a remarkable feat. It’s a political phenomenon.
Working together, we’ve made history.
But hey, no reason to take my word on how powerful the NRA is:

5 charts that show how powerful the NRA is
Business Insider. Feb. 20, 2018
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-p...ontrol-2017-10
Quote:
The National Rifle Association represents less than a fifth of all American
gun owners, yet it remains one of the most powerful gun rights lobbies in
the United States.
For decades, the NRA has successfully blocked federal action — including
government-funded gun violence research and a proposed assault weapons
ban— that it believes threatens gun owners' second amendment rights.

The NRA spends millions influencing Congress and the White House to
advance its agenda. And its monetary prowess is still growing.
Lets see what the Left Wing Guardian says about the NRA:

Why is the National Rifle Association so powerful?
The Guardian. May 4, 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ntrol-congress
Quote:
“The NRA is not successful because of its money. To be sure, it is hard to be
a force in American politics without money. The NRA has money that it uses
to help its favored candidates get elected. But the real source of its power, I
believe, comes from voters,” said Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional
law at the UCLA School of Law and author of Gunfight: The Battle over
the Right to Bear Arms in America.

You said you belong to CRPA ( ). You do realize the CRPA
works hand in hand with the NRA ? Why do you suppose the smart folks
at CRPA work with the NRA, if the NRA is a bad as you claim it is:

2018 NRA and CRPA California Legal Affairs Report
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1298856

Here is one of their lawyers responding to NRA bashing in July-2016:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
You can't be serious?

California is the only state the NRA dedicates a full time lobbyist to. It has
other employees who have accomplished all of this (and much more that
oftentimes cannot be discussed publicly):
http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpen...irs-Report.pdf

And they have lawyers doing all of this:
http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpen...-June-2016.pdf

And here is an older report on things NRA has done in CA:
http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...ers-Report.pdf

This is not to mention that NRA donated the maximum allowed under law to
the campaign to oppose Gavin Newsom's initiative (have you donated yet?):
http://www.stoptheammograb.com/

And just standby for much more in the near future that NRA and CRPA will
be doing jointly.


NRA spends more money in CA than it takes in from here.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Emphasis Mine.

I have reached the character limitations of a single post, so I will stop here
for now.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-15-2018, 7:30 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Continuing from my previous post:

In regards to NRA intially opposing Heller, in which hindsight is 20/20, the
NRA was rightly concerned with the Uncertainty of Outcome, don't forget
we where 1 Vote away from Disaster with a 5/4 decision. From the NRA
perspective, you had a young, inexperienced, unknown lawyer named
Alan Gura taking a case before SCOTUS that could have severely back
fired, placing our 2nd Amendment rights in danger:

Quote:
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's
misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional
scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme
Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.
Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now
on good terms.
Source:
New York Times. Dec 3, 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03bar.html

I do agree with you regarding how the NRA handled McDonald v. Chicago,
it created more animosity between the groups, and resulted in Gura
losing 10 minutes of his allotted time to NRA's Clement.

As Gun Owners, we want all the Pro Gun Organizations to cooperate
between themselves, but alas, with differing views on how to accomplish
a given goal, disagreements are going to continue, unfortunately, and
with each organization needing money to survive, there is also conflict
on the pursuit of donations, as attested to the FPC's almost daily
barrage of emails asking for donations, exceeding even the NRA's
infamous request for cash.

Quote:
Originally posted by carlosdanger:
It seems to me that one of the most vital things the NRA can do is to encourage shooting and shooting sports and revitalize the programs like the one that brought me into the sport. Gun ownership is declining in terms of percentage of people owning guns and we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to anyone who shows an interest in shooting especially millennials.
I try to take as many people as I can to the range to learn how to shoot. It doesn't seem like much but it's grass roots support that has the potential to turn things around.
Another point we agree on.

Quote:
Originally posted by carlosdanger:
So I belong to the CRPA, and the LGOA and I contribute to the FPC.
Well, I guess I owe you an Apology. In all honesty, I did not believe you
belonged to any Pro Gun Organization, which is why I issued a challenge.

We are apparently on the same side, but with radically different views
on how best to support the 2nd Amendment.

As far as the constant attacks on "Libtards" and similar rhetoric on Pro Gun
boards (not just Calguns), the answer is rather simple:



79% of Liberals support Gun Control:
Public Views About Guns Pew Research Center. 6/22/2017
http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/...guns/#ideology

I do acknowledge that the term "Liberal" has been somewhat hijacked, as
a true "Classical" liberal supports 2nd Amendment Rights, so I personally
try to use the terms Left wing, or Leftist, to try and separate the two,
as we do have Liberals on Calguns that support the 2A, without the
Big But ( I support the 2A, BUT <insert a bunch of infringements> )

I just read some of your exchanges with the always reasonable dfletcher
which is a step in the Right Direction for a somewhat more even exchange
of ideas, rather than a constant stream of snarky remarks from both sides.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-15-2018, 8:19 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by carlosdanger:
So now that I have answered your question I have one for you. I received the same notice your Dear Leader got. I went down and enlisted while he ran home and hid under the bed. Now he claims to be a great patriot. How can you support a draft dodger when so many patriotic Americans gave their lives? I lost some good friends over there and I will never consider Hanoi Donald my president.
Well, lets start with the legal definition of "draft dodger".


Draft Dodger Law and Legal Definition
US legal.com
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/draft-dodger/
Quote:
Draft dodger is a person who evades a draft for service in the armed forces
of the country. A draft dodger avoids (dodges) the conscription policies of
the nation in which s/he is a citizen or resident by leaving the country or
going into hiding
. It is also referred to as draft evasion or draft resistance
Emphasis mine.

Trump did neither of those two things (go into hiding or leave the country).
So using the term Draft Dodger is incorrect on its face.

Lets see what actually happened.

Here is a copy of Trumps Record:



Quote:
The 2-S classifications are Trump’s student deferments. The first two covered his time at Fordham University in the Bronx, and the second two allowed him to stay in school when he transferred to study business at the University of Pennsylvania.

At the time, as Tigar wrote in his 1969 article, any college student who asked could get a student deferment. When he graduated in 1968, Trump’s classification shifted to 1-A, or "available for service."

Had that stood, Trump would have been drafted.

But Trump had a physical exam in September 1968. He had taken one less than two years earlier that did not disqualify him for service as we can tell from his 1-A classification in July 1968. However, his second physical was followed in October with a new classification, 1-Y. That designation put him near the bottom of any call-up list. It meant he would only be drafted if there were a national emergency.

Until recently, the only detail on record about that shift was it was medically related. After his comments about McCain, Trump said it had to do with bone spurs in his heels. Trump reportedly was active in college sports, playing baseball, tennis and squash.
Source:
Was Trump a 'draft dodger'?
Politifact. July 21, 2015
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-draft-dodger/


Politifacts Wiki Page, so you can judge their bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact


So Trump was active in Sports that are known for producing Bone Spurs.

Trump followed the law, and with his 1-Y classification, only in a National
Emergency would he be called into service.

Now, your probably going to claim "he paid off the Doctor" to avoid service,
which is a possibility, but there does not appear to be any evidence of that,
and if there was some suspicions, why didn't people complain about it
at the time and ask for an investigation ?


Does your Outrage extend to people like Bill Clinton, who avoided
the draft with things like a ROTC deferral:


Quote:
Colonel Eugene Holmes, the Army officer who had been involved with Clinton's
ROTC application, suspected that Clinton attempted to manipulate the
situation to avoid the draft and avoid serving in uniform. He issued a
notarized statement during the 1992 presidential campaign:

"I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fulbright's
office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC
program ... I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of
joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his
induction and get a new draft classification."[25]
Source:
Bill Clinton Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C...ft_controversy

Or someone like Bernie Sanders, who avoided the draft via a
conscientious objector status ploy ?


Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status
During Vietnam, Campaign Confirms

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bern...ry?id=33434041

Plenty of todays political leaders avoided the draft and the Vietnam War,
some people actually did become REAL Draft Dodgers by Hiding or
going to Canada, but Trump Was Not One Of Them.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the Doubt, as in Innocent until
Proved Guilty,
whereas your position is I hate Trump, therefore Guilty.


Noble

Last edited by Noble Cause; 06-15-2018 at 11:31 PM.. Reason: Clarified a point, added source link
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-16-2018, 7:15 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,657
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
...I do acknowledge that the term "Liberal" has been somewhat hijacked, as a true "Classical" liberal supports 2nd Amendment Rights, so I personally try to use the terms Left wing, or Leftist, to try and separate the two, as we do have Liberals on Calguns that support the 2A, without the
Big But ( I support the 2A, BUT <insert a bunch of infringements> )...

Noble
I'm actively trying to avoid using the term "liberal" for that reason. One who is actually liberal is one who believes in liberty. Modern "liberals" are actually statists supporting totalitarianism.

And as far as snarky posts go, I'm done being nice to people assisting in the erosion of my ability to exercise our civil rights. I'm done being reasonable. I'm done making concessions. I'm done with "compromise". All that's gotten us are laws created to stop "others" from exercising a right for our "protection", then more and more of us are happily added to that "other" category by those who wish to disarm us. Anyone who says there will be some "broad coalition" including statists helping to rebuild or 2A rights is either deluded or lying. We can't even get them to stop attacking our 1A rights, much less out 2A rights.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-16-2018, 4:16 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
I'm actively trying to avoid using the term "liberal" for that reason. One who is actually liberal is one who believes in liberty. Modern "liberals" are actually statists supporting totalitarianism.

And as far as snarky posts go, I'm done being nice to people assisting in the erosion of my ability to exercise our civil rights. I'm done being reasonable. I'm done making concessions. I'm done with "compromise". All that's gotten us are laws created to stop "others" from exercising a right for our "protection", then more and more of us are happily added to that "other" category by those who wish to disarm us. Anyone who says there will be some "broad coalition" including statists helping to rebuild or 2A rights is either deluded or lying. We can't even get them to stop attacking our 1A rights, much less out 2A rights.

You have every right to be infuriated with the Left's constant attacks on
both our 2A and 1A Rights.

EVERYONE should be infuriated over this continuing attack, where the
Left is Silencing people on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
and the Social Justice Warriors are enforcing Political Correctness to an
Insane Level of Tribal Conformity, doxing people, pressuring employers
to fire people over political ideology differences.

The Crazy being spewed from Democratic National Committee is summed
up in a statement from Sally Boynton Brown, the executive director of
Idaho's Democratic Party:

"My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt,"

WTF ?

If this assault on the 2A & 1A are not defeated, we can look to the UK for
the end result... people are being arrested for having a Potato Peeler, for
telling jokes, for stating a difference of opinion that differs from the state,
and they are now pushing for KNIFE CONTROL

If your still in the UK, you probably have heard what the state has done
to Tommy Robinson, which is absolutely pure Orwellian Evil, and their
latest move is to send him to an even more dangerous prison, where his
chances of being attacked or killed by Muslim inmates is greatly increased,
(he survived a previous attempt on his life the last time the state stripped
him of his liberty for reporting on Muslim Rape Gangs)

The Left Wing Media in the UK have done a smear campaign on Tommy,
claiming, or inferring, that he is a Racist Nazi, or all of his supporters are
are Nazi's (apparently if a few idiots in the crowd do a Nazi Salute, the
Entire Group are Now Nazi's, according to the Media.)

Tommy predicted this. YouTube removed this Video, but it keeps popping
back up by people who don't want to see it censored, so I don't know how
long this video will stay up:

I Won't Be Around For Much Longer.
Tommy Robinson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeAUS6HfX-k




Thousands Protest Outside Downing Street For Tommy Robinson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWL6Ro4wiU

UK has become a Leftist Utopia, with a disarmed population, and the
highest Violent Crime Rate in Europe, with state actively imprisoning
people for Free Speech, using the excuse of so called "Hate Speech" laws.

Our Own Orwellian Nightmare could be just around the corner.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-20-2018, 4:01 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
While yours is certainly more politely worded isn't the sentiment no different from the "libtard" comment? In each case there's a dismissal of the other's point of view and an out of hand rejection there's an issue to address. It seems to me the issue involves conflict, opportunity and responsibility.

I presume we express ourselves politically by voting and the groups we support. There is a conflict between being a gunowner and a liberal because if one expresses themselves politically they would tend to support legislators who would restrict gun rights. It may be that the gunowner disagrees with that legislator, or agrees with their restrictions. In either case that seems to me an issue to be addressed.

But there is opportunity, on both sides, if folks deal with one another honestly and constructively. That's where responsibility comes in.

Neither I nor folks like me are going to ever sway candidate Newsom, Senator Feinstein or Representative Pelosi on guns because the list of where we part company is too broad. They know we'll never vote for them. However a gunowner who identifies as liberal, perhaps Independent or Democrat - they can influence because they may be inclined to vote for them. To that end, during the 2016 Presidential campaign, when Governor O'Malley touted his AW ban and Mrs Clinton spoke of "Australian style" gun control where were the liberal gunowner voices opposing them? Was there any effort to organize, in even a modest manner, and send a message that such gunowners deeply opposed their position? I followed fairly closely and saw none.

There is unfortunately now a terrific opportunity for such gunowners to make a statement in the CA election. Not by supporting Cox but by voicing opposition to Newsom. It wouldn't take much in today's internet environment to create a "Liberals for Gun Ownership" and at least get noticed.

Having poked around here for a few election cycles I've not seen a suggestion from our more liberal fellow gunowners to send e-mails, telephone calls to any particular candidate the simple message of "I can't support you because of your position on gun control". I've mentioned it, doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Granted I'm making an assumption that liberal gunowners generally oppose the restrictions their legislators may propose. I don't want to get too deep into detail such as UBC, waiting periods, NCIS checks but rather stick with bigger issues such as AW ban or other wholesale prohibitions. If that's not the case our differences are much more complicated.

From the conservative gunowner there ought to be the prospect of engaging and working with liberal gunowners. From liberal gunowners there ought to be acknowledgement their inclinations and votes are likely contrary to our gun rights interests. If conservatives stop calling them "libtards" and liberals stop calling conservatives names and do a bit of organizing maybe we end up making a gain or two. Or start to anyway.
I would suggest you check out the Liberal Gun Club and the Liberal Gun Owners of America who are attempting to do just what you suggest.

But here is the problem with your logic. Since Heller and McDonald gun rights are civil rights. One of the ramifications of this is that what limits one of the rights in the Bill of Rights limits all rights including Second Amendment rights. So the Patriot Act which severely impacts Fourth Amendment rights, if upheld, paves the way for more limitations on Second Amendment rights. (See how that works?). So what I would like to see is the NRA and other right wing lobbying groups come out in opposition to legislation like the Patriot Act, as a way of limiting attacks on our Second Amendment rights.
__________________
“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
  #66  
Old 06-20-2018, 4:04 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,657
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
I would suggest you check out the Liberal Gun Club and the Liberal Gun Owners of America who are attempting to do just what you suggest.

But here is the problem with your logic. Since Heller and McDonald gun rights are civil rights. One of the ramifications of this is that what limits one of the rights in the Bill of Rights limits all rights including Second Amendment rights. So the Patriot Act which severely impacts Fourth Amendment rights, if upheld, paves the way for more limitations on Second Amendment rights. (See how that works?). So what I would like to see is the NRA and other right wing lobbying groups come out in opposition to legislation like the Patriot Act, as a way of limiting attacks on our Second Amendment rights.
So, you're simultaneously (and incorrectly) upset the modern NRA is involved in politics aside from firearms rights while you're also upset they're NOT involved in politics aside from firearms rights....
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-20-2018, 4:13 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
I will be invoking Brandolini's Law in my response to Carlosdangers
elongated post, which states:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of
magnitude bigger than to produce it."


I'm not going to bother with a comprehensive reply to Carlosdanger
meandering post, not because I don't have an answer, but because
its not worth the considerable effort to address each and everyone of his
points to an audience that is diminishing in this older thread and its highly
unlikely Carlosdanger will change his views, as demonstrated in
previous encounters.

I will address some of the issues, primarily to show that Carlos
can make a 1 or 2 sentence statement, that will require a response
considerably longer than that to properly refute, per Brandolini's Law.

If enough people indicate they are interested in a more comprehensive
response from yours truly, I will consider adding to my response.

My replies are below his post:




The problem with Carlosdangers viewpoints regarding the NRA is summed
up in this quote attributed to Winston Churchill:

"Don't let Perfection get in the way of Progress."

No large organization is going to be "Perfect", humans by there very nature
are imperfect, and to demand they conform to your ideals in every way
before you would support them is not realistic.

Put another way:

"We go to War with the Army we have, not the Army you might Wish For."

If you want to influence how the NRA operates, become a Voting Member.

One of the reasons the NRA is the most effective defender of 2A, is its huge
size, which brings millions of voters to the polls when they mobilize.
And at an estimated 6 Million members, it is the largest by far.

And its influence is even larger.

Pew research conducted a study in which they estimated 14 Million people
claimed to be NRA members, showing that many more people support
the NRA than the estimated 6 million paying members:

Among gun owners, NRA members have a unique set
of views and experiences

Pew Research Center. July 7, 2017
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...d-experiences/


The effectiveness of this was demonstrated in 2016 Election:



The NRA 2016 Election Wins have resulted in:

Neil Gorsuch appointed to SCOTUS, instead of a Ginsburg Clone from Hillary.
That alone was worth winning the election for, no matter what you think
of Trump.

Another Win, Federal Judges to lower courts:
President Trump continues to appoint Federal Judges that support the
Constitution at a Rapid pace, in addition to the Judges already confirmed,
there are currently 83 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate
action, including 11 for the Courts of Appeals and 72 for the District Courts.

Lets not forget Trump has stated he will sign a National Reciprocity Bill,
and Concealed Carry Reciprocity has passed the in the House and is now
waiting for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get off of his @ss
and actually do something to push it forward:

Mitch McConnell Has Ignored National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
for Over a Year

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...r-over-a-year/

And speaking of CCW, the NRA has successfully spread CCW across the Nation:

The Right-to-Carry Movement in America
BY CHRIS W. COX | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...ent-in-america


But hey, no reason to take my word on how powerful the NRA is:

5 charts that show how powerful the NRA is
Business Insider. Feb. 20, 2018
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-p...ontrol-2017-10


Lets see what the Left Wing Guardian says about the NRA:

Why is the National Rifle Association so powerful?
The Guardian. May 4, 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ntrol-congress



You said you belong to CRPA ( ). You do realize the CRPA
works hand in hand with the NRA ? Why do you suppose the smart folks
at CRPA work with the NRA, if the NRA is a bad as you claim it is:

2018 NRA and CRPA California Legal Affairs Report
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1298856

Here is one of their lawyers responding to NRA bashing in July-2016:


Emphasis Mine.

I have reached the character limitations of a single post, so I will stop here
for now.


Noble
NC: The NRA is the most effective gun rights organization.

Me: How do you know that.

NC: The NRA told me so!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would just reiterate that the two most significant developments in the area of gun rights in the last century were the Heller and McDonald decisions both of which were spearheaded by the Cato Institute.

While the morphing of the NRA from a gun rights organization to a right wing lobbying group may have had some benefits in deeply red states it has proven disastrous in California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey to name a few.
__________________
“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
  #68  
Old 06-20-2018, 4:55 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Well, lets start with the legal definition of "draft dodger".


Draft Dodger Law and Legal Definition
US legal.com
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/draft-dodger/


Emphasis mine.

Trump did neither of those two things (go into hiding or leave the country).
So using the term Draft Dodger is incorrect on its face.

Lets see what actually happened.

Here is a copy of Trumps Record:




Source:
Was Trump a 'draft dodger'?
Politifact. July 21, 2015
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-draft-dodger/


Politifacts Wiki Page, so you can judge their bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact


So Trump was active in Sports that are known for producing Bone Spurs.

Trump followed the law, and with his 1-Y classification, only in a National
Emergency would he be called into service.

Now, your probably going to claim "he paid off the Doctor" to avoid service,
which is a possibility, but there does not appear to be any evidence of that,
and if there was some suspicions, why didn't people complain about it
at the time and ask for an investigation ?


Does your Outrage extend to people like Bill Clinton, who avoided
the draft with things like a ROTC deferral:




Source:
Bill Clinton Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C...ft_controversy

Or someone like Bernie Sanders, who avoided the draft via a
conscientious objector status ploy ?


Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status
During Vietnam, Campaign Confirms

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bern...ry?id=33434041

Plenty of todays political leaders avoided the draft and the Vietnam War,
some people actually did become REAL Draft Dodgers by Hiding or
going to Canada, but Trump Was Not One Of Them.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the Doubt, as in Innocent until
Proved Guilty,
whereas your position is I hate Trump, therefore Guilty.


Noble
Quite an analysis of Trump's draft status. Too bad whoever wrote it knows very little about the draft or how it worked. Early in the war National Guard (NG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) were sent over to Vietnam. Those units served heroically and sustained heavy casualties. Unfortunately the scions of the town's leaders started coming home in pine boxes which was not a good move politically. So the order went out that NG and USAR units were not to be sent to Vietnam. Thus those units became a haven for those who did not want to go to jail or to Canada but who were afraid to serve. Needless to say the limited positions in those units became political plums and only those who were well connected (like George W. Bush) were able to get in.

As to Trump, I have no problem with the deferments. Defer means to postpone, it does not mean to avoid serving unless you are Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, McConnell, Romney, Bolton, Gingrich, or Giuliani.

As you point out, Trump took and passed one draft physical, then mysteriously two years later he was miraculously visited with what he claims to be bone spurs. He claimed his doctor wrote a letter and the draft board reclassified his as 1-Y. Now I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the letter was bogus or at least an exaggeration, but that the spurs miraculously appeared and then apparently miraculously disappeared stretches the credulity of even the most gullible Trump supporter like you. Now Trump could resolve the issue by releasing his medical records but he refuses to do so. Why? Compounding that conclusion is the fact that the doctor who wrote the letter is the father of Trump's personal physician before the election whose office was raided by White House staffers and Trump's medical records seized which apparently is routine (LOL). After the raid Trump's doctor said that Trump had written the letter that Trump produced for the campaign describing in glowing terms the state of the candidates's health.

You claim that there is no evidence that Trump paid his doctor to write the phony letter. What you do not seem to realize is that by 1968 a number of doctors were opposed to the war and some would write phony letters or letters exaggerating a patient's condition without payment. It is doubtful any money would have to change hands for the personal physician to an extremely wealthy family to write a letter so the favored son could avoid military service.

You also claim that no one challenged the reclassification. Who could challenge it? Draft Board proceedings were not public and so who would know other than the registrant himself and who would have standing to challenge the reclassification. In addition the local draft board would have every incentive to keep the favored son of a wealthy and influential family out of the military, so they would not question a doctor's letter.

As for your tu quoque arguments about Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Bill Clinton is scum. When it comes to sexual assault he is just as bad as Trump. While he was president he sold manufacturing jobs overseas, sold the financial industry to Wall Street and sold black people to the private prison industry.

As for Bernie, are you aware that CO status does not mean you do not get drafted, it just means you do not get drafted into a position where you have to fight? Many COs served heroically in Vietnam as medics and risked their lives on a daily basis. I have tremendous admiration for them.
__________________
“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
  #69  
Old 06-20-2018, 5:07 PM
carlosdanger's Avatar
carlosdanger carlosdanger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theLBC View Post
it isn't worth trying to help people with mental disabilities, but i will go as far as to say that nobody i know has claimed that 3 million illegals voted.

hope that helps. good luck with your condition.
Thank you for your concern about my mental abilities. They are fine, thank you but your Dear Leader may have some issues.

I guess you have limited access to American media over there. Here are some references:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...did-not-vote-/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ns-illegal-vo/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/th...llegal-aliens/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.804fd62b53c4

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38744612

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...opular-n711386

While you are at it you might want to check out this actual trial: https://www.propublica.org/article/k...ailynewsletter

It must be difficult to learn the Roman alphabet. Keep working on your capitalization and maybe there will be a few more rubles in the envelope.
__________________
“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

Last edited by carlosdanger; 06-21-2018 at 2:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:11 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
NC: The NRA is the most effective gun rights organization.

Me: How do you know that.

NC: The NRA told me so!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would just reiterate that the two most significant developments in the area of gun rights in the last century were the Heller and McDonald decisions both of which were spearheaded by the Cato Institute.

While the morphing of the NRA from a gun rights organization to a right wing lobbying group may have had some benefits in deeply red states it has proven disastrous in California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey to name a few.
Ah, Carlos. This is why you make me laugh...

Your ability to ignore a detailed post, and then incorrectly try to summarize
it with just a few words. Do you think the people still reading the thread
came to the same erroneous conclusion you did ?

Its not just MY opinion. You conveniently left out the part its also the
opinion of Millions of NRA members, as well as an estimated 14 Million
Americans who support the NRA, according to Pew Research.

And its also the conclusion of numerous Pro Gun, and Anti Gun groups,
as indicated in the Long List of Articles I link to at the bottom.


As far as the NRA supporting the "right wing", that has more to do with
the Democrats becoming the Party of Gun Control, with its leadership
openly supporting Australian & UK style Gun Control and Bans, and
including Gun Control in their Platform. Why would you give money to
an organization that attacks the 2A on a Daily Basis ?

Besides, the NRA through its PACs does still occasionally support
Democrats when its to their advantage to do so, even now.
2018:
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) House $2,500
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) House $2,500
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) House $2,000

If the Democrats suddenly reversed course and became Pro Gun, the NRA
would start to donate to them like it did in the past
.

The Cato Institute and Alan Gura are of course, Very Significant in their
wins at SCOTUS, which we all applaud after the fact, and with the benefit
of hindsight. But you ignore the "Roll of the Dice" risk that they took,
with just 1 of the 5 Justices voting the other way could have spelled
disaster for Gun Rights, which is what the NRA was rightly concerned about.

Both sides probably could have handled that better, in my opinion.

Having said that, I don't see Bloomberg paying $50 million dollars to
go after the Cato Institute, I don't see the Anti Gun Media and organizations
saying we need to take down the Cato Institute, or F**k the Cato In. or
Everytown talking about we need to defeat the Cato Institute, indeed
the don't seem to even notice the Cato Institute, all of their attacks are
directed at the NRA, the one organization that they Know stands in their
way from producing a Gun Free Nirvana in America.


And getting back to your specious argument that its just "my opinion" how
powerful and effective the NRA is, I guess you just ignore all of these
article attesting to how good the NRA is at fighting Gun Control:

Why the NRA Always Wins
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ys-wins-217028

NRA's big spending pays off with clout and wins in Washington
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ton/341257002/

The NRA Is Not Your Typical Interest Group
Its millions of members are motivated by ideology,
not money, and they vote in droves

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...d-by-ideology/

Why the NRA is so powerful on Capitol Hill, by the numbers
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/polit...out/index.html

The True Source of the N.R.A.’s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/u...l-florida.html

The Left Misunderstands the Power of the NRA
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...n-gun-control/

The NRA Wins Again
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-again/359760/

The NRA Racks Up Wins in Congress.
The ATF Wants to Give It More

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...give-them-more

US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394

Commentary. Why Do We Hate the NRA
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/comment...-hate-the-nra/

The NRA is winning the spin battle
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.68590cae8c83

The NRA Has Been Outstandingly Successful Where It Really Counts
http://www.businessinsider.com/state...control-2013-4

Here's Why the NRA Is So Powerful and Why Gun Control
Advocates Have Reason for Hope

http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-cont...nations-813940

Why Does The Left Hate The NRA?
https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/03/01/left-hate-nra/

Why more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress have failed
The NRA stranglehold over Congress is largely responsible for the inaction
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-man...ed-since-2011/

NRA clout is outgunning Feinstein / Assault weapons ban renewal in doubt
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...lt-2710800.php

The NRA Placed Big Bets on the 2016 Election & Won Almost All of Them
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/nra...-2016-results/

Thanks, Anti-Gunners: The NRA Is Now Six Million Strong
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...trong-n2485029



And now a question for anyone still reading this thread:

Lets assume all of the constant attacks on the NRA was successful, and to
the Great Delight of Bloomberg, Everytown, Newsome, Carlosdanger,
Feinstein, etc... the NRA collapsed as an Organization.

Would that outcome be beneficial to your 2A Rights ?


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:57 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger View Post
Quite an analysis of Trump's draft status. Too bad whoever wrote it knows very little about the draft or how it worked. Early in the war National Guard (NG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) were sent over to Vietnam. Those units served heroically and sustained heavy casualties. Unfortunately the scions of the town's leaders started coming home in pine boxes which was not a good move politically. So the order went out that NG and USAR units were not to be sent to Vietnam. Thus those units became a haven for those who did not want to go to jail or to Canada but who were afraid to serve. Needless to say the limited positions in those units became political plums and only those who were well connected (like George W. Bush) were able to get in.

As to Trump, I have no problem with the deferments. Defer means to postpone, it does not mean to avoid serving unless you are Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, McConnell, Romney, Bolton, Gingrich, or Giuliani.

As you point out, Trump took and passed one draft physical, then mysteriously two years later he was miraculously visited with what he claims to be bone spurs. He claimed his doctor wrote a letter and the draft board reclassified his as 1-Y. Now I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the letter was bogus or at least an exaggeration, but that the spurs miraculously appeared and then apparently miraculously disappeared stretches the credulity of even the most gullible Trump supporter like you. Now Trump could resolve the issue by releasing his medical records but he refuses to do so. Why? Compounding that conclusion is the fact that the doctor who wrote the letter is the father of Trump's personal physician before the election whose office was raided by White House staffers and Trump's medical records seized which apparently is routine (LOL). After the raid Trump's doctor said that Trump had written the letter that Trump produced for the campaign describing in glowing terms the state of the candidates's health.

You claim that there is no evidence that Trump paid his doctor to write the phony letter. What you do not seem to realize is that by 1968 a number of doctors were opposed to the war and some would write phony letters or letters exaggerating a patient's condition without payment. It is doubtful any money would have to change hands for the personal physician to an extremely wealthy family to write a letter so the favored son could avoid military service.

You also claim that no one challenged the reclassification. Who could challenge it? Draft Board proceedings were not public and so who would know other than the registrant himself and who would have standing to challenge the reclassification. In addition the local draft board would have every incentive to keep the favored son of a wealthy and influential family out of the military, so they would not question a doctor's letter.

As for your tu quoque arguments about Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Bill Clinton is scum. When it comes to sexual assault he is just as bad as Trump. While he was president he sold manufacturing jobs overseas, sold the financial industry to Wall Street and sold black people to the private prison industry.

As for Bernie, are you aware that CO status does not mean you do not get drafted, it just means you do not get drafted into a position where you have to fight? Many COs served heroically in Vietnam as medics and risked their lives on a daily basis. I have tremendous admiration for them.
Well, if everything you posted above is actually True, you should have
no problem in posting some source material that backs up all of your
assorted claims.

And I guess you didn't bother to read the article about Bernie, his
conscientious objector ploy was rejected:

Quote:
According to a profile from the Vermont Senator's hometown newspaper,
the Burlington Free Press, his conscientious objector status application was
eventually rejected, but by then Sanders was too old to be drafted.
I will agree with you about some conscientious objectors who served in
various wars with Great Valor. such as Desmond T. Doss, the subject
of the 2016 movie Hacksaw Ridge

Doss about to receive the Medal of Honor in October 1945:



Somehow I just don't see Bernie rising to the occasion if he had been
drafted, maybe you see something in him I don't...

Noble
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:57 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.