|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
AP article on Jerry Brown: "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."
AP article on AG Jerry Brown. Underlining supplied by me...
http://www.kfsm.com/news/nationworld...,4713229.story -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. Last edited by bwiese; 01-26-2010 at 1:05 PM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Well as a true Libertarian, I am sick of having to choose between authoritarian Republicans and nanny-state Democrats. While Brown is not perfect, a pro-gun Democrat is a breath of fresh air.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.
__________________
Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
For me, the ONLY thing Brown has going for him is his stand on gun rights. IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation." He is also, IMO, on the wrong side of "the underground economy" (illegal aliens) and "Global Warming". |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
For those Democrats who don't like his position on guns, to borrow from Atwater "who else are you going to vote for?" No one, I think. Seems to me his concern in the fall election would be getting enough folks to the polls for him to beat Whitman.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects."
Stuff like this worries me considerably. This is not what California needs. There are of course plenty of other things that Brown is not good on. Fine, he is okay on RKBA issues, but they are not the end-all, be-all of issues when it comes to choosing which candidate to vote for. A high priority, sure, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who I think is terrible on the bulk of issues. When you weigh these things on a scale, the RKBA stance does not outweigh them. Personally, I think it is unethical to be a single-issue voter. If you can't consider all of the issues, you should not vote, but that's just me I guess. While Meg Whitman isn't assured to be the GOP candidate, she is nonetheless also terrible, possibly even moreso than Brown. Two bigtime leftists as the main candidates would really make it a battle to see who is the lesser of two evils. I think the difference won't be much, when all things are considered. If Whitman gets the nomination, given my issues with Brown, I may have to vote for a non-major candidate in the gubernatorial election. If someone asked me, to use a gun-related analogy, if I'd rather be shot in the face with a .380 or a 9mm, my answer would obviously be neither, and if the scenario is to be made analogous to the election, I do have that choice, even if it means I might get shot in the face anyways. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Yup.
Quote:
Sorry you're so uncomfortable with freedom. Go visit your friend Bull Connors. Just because some loons vote for Prop 8 doesn't mean it stands or that mob rule applies. Bull Connors thought he could keep black people isolated and still to a measure unfree because "Southern mob rule" liked that. Federal troops informed him otherwise.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Guns first above all others.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So I suppose I am a loon then for voting for Prop. 8, as are tons of people. You don't have a right to have the longstanding definition of marriage altered by the state to suit your lifestyle and force it to essentially be recognized by everyone as just fine and dandy. IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to proscribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose); changing the definition of marriage in this fashion is certainly contrary to such a policy.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Amen.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Nobody 'owns' the definition of marriage. And the government can define legal terms - look at the definition of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip' etc. If that's not your definition of marriage, don't go marry someone of your same sex. Problem solved. You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation. Quote:
Quote:
I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. Last edited by bwiese; 01-26-2010 at 2:07 PM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I love it..........."freedoms for who I think is morally ok." |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
In my opinion as someone old enough to remember Governor Moonbeam I expect that he will be indistinguishable from Arnold Schwarzenegger on gun rights. I expect him to take a position that outright bans on revolvers and hunting rifles is unconstitutional, but that bans on carry of any kind, and bans on "assault" weapons, and tight regulation of ammo are just fine.
I also fully expect him to manage to be be an even bigger economic disaster for the state than Arnold has been. I fully expect that he will roll over for public employees unions and do his level best to run all manufacturing and land development out of California. And you can forget any transportation improvements. He banned transportation and infrastructure improvements the last time he was governor. In other words 4-8 years of ever higher unemployment and energy prices in the name of Gaia. This is a religion for him. Quite frankly I couldn't care less if he supports gay marriage, plural marriages, or marriages to goats. I'm all for letting anyone that wants to be miserable for the rest of their lives be as miserable as they want. But the economic damage that this nut case is going to bring about scares the heck out of me. I may just write in a name in 2010.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
He's about as close as I'll get to somebody I like for office...he agrees with that imbecile Cuomo in NY on a few too many things though (read: any things). I have doubts that anyone, Brown included, can really turn CA around given the capitol building full of leeches that like to call themselves representatives, but having a veto on gun issues would be nice.
Frankly, I can't help but be a one issue voter in this case, as guns are one of the few important variables that can actually change from Governor to Governor...all the other stuff is largely empty words as those words will run straight into serious problems in the translation from words to action when the rubber actually hits the road (ie when said translation hits the Legislature and all the fun little laws "we the people" passed).
__________________
Love and Peace through superior firepower. Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
I to am worried about him as I remember when "Moonbeam" was the goernor last time. Also he did live in a cheap apartment, but no one has told use how many millions it cost to set up the security for that "cheap" aprtment.
__________________
Rudy N NRA BENEFACTOR MEMBER CRPA MEMBER |
#20
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
As for rights violations...was anyone prevented from being a couple, having a ceremony, and calling it a marriage themselves? No. When it comes to definitions, if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman by the government, for which there is a massive amount of evidence to back the legitimacy of that definition (the use of that definition for millenia IMO is quite sufficient to make the point), let's see how that applies to homosexual and heterosexual individuals (since I take it that is where discrimination is alleged to be occurring), and I say individuals, not couples, because we are discussing individual rights. Can a heterosexual man marry another under this definition? No. Can a homosexual one? No. Can a heterosexual man marry a woman? Yes. Can a homosexual man do so? Yes. When strictly adhering to the appropriate definition, there is no discrimination against any individual person as applies to sexual orientation. Neither can get a license which calls their union a marriage if it involves someone of the same gender, and both can get a license when it involves someone of the opposite gender. Under that law, they are treated equally. Quote:
If government involvement on such an issue is going to, under the circumstances, only result in such a situation, then the government should if possible get itself out of the issue. So in this case, if the government cannot seem to be able to do anything but redefine marriage in this manner, then it should get itself out of marriage if possible. Of course, there is a reason why government has long been involved in marriage, since it is a spiritual, material, and legal event. Now, to coerce virtue, which is what I oppose when it does not involve violating the rights of others (like robbery, murder, and yes, even the controversial abortion), would be in the context of this discussion, to say no one can be a couple with another person of the same gender and to thus punish homosexual couples, via fines, prison, or whatever. That is not what I propose, and it is not what Prop. 8 does. Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My $.02
__________________
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either. Quote:
Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
He's also a small government Democrat and always has been.
__________________
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Objectivist
I'm with ya both.
Meg or Poizner will have economic/tax ideas that go in the right direction...but they're both apparently anti 2A. Brown is another Arnold type...big government Progressive that says the right thing on guns but my very well vote another. At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination. Mr Odgen would be great: http://www.dalefogden.org/ But I'm more interested in keeping out a Progressive and dealing with spending. The Libertarians, Constutional Conservatives, fiscal Indepedents and the sort are growing in number...but not enough for Odgen I fear. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That's a lot of conclusion jumping and misplaced passion. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That all said, I am most likely to vote for the first time in my life for a Democrat for Governor. Ronnie Reagan would be proud.
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt Quote:
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Whoever is actually nominated by the Republicans will almost certainly be one of the several high profile gun-grabbers routinely bashed here in this forum. He or she will appreciate your vote, I'm sure.
__________________
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Brown really showed his "limited government" capabilities when he was Mayor of Oakland, and continues that practice at the AG's office. He can, and I believe he will be, fiscally consrvative, if only bacause of his true "hippie" beliefs of less government intrusion, and control, equals more freedom. Think about it. What did the true hippy stand for? Getting the government out of their lives, freedom, and keeping the government from being too powerful. Yeah, it seemed that the big issue was fighting against the draft and war, but using the analogy of what the draft meant to the Hippies, and was later lost in the college student protests, was the single most important thing to the hippies really the war or was it the intrusion of the government via a draft?
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt Quote:
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
[quote="bwiese"]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's sad that so many pro-gun people are so authoritarian on issues that make them feel uncomfortable. It's hypocrisy. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
That's a lotta Chins.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I'm all for Jerry Brown. He is used to running a California with a much smaller government. He'll do it again. and well too.
I plan on putting together at least one fund raiser for him. If we can raise $100,000+ for his campaign he can not help but notice us and remember us when in office. Also opens doors for CalGuns Foundation. If every active member just contributed $10 we could give him a check for over $130,000. A good investment in my book. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I think I will vote for Jerry. He seems to make sense to me, from what I have seen, and as AG he has been very accessible.
As far as the financial situation in California, I think that has a lot to do with out constitutional right to initiative. We have gone and created propositions, that seem to make sense taken individually (in some cases), but aggregated have had a paralyzing effect on our economy. There are so many mandates on what can be spent and where, when we need to re-allocate spending we are at a loss. This coupled with a completely ineffective legislature has given us a huge problem, that I doubt anyone will be able to fix. I mean, come on, we have the 7th or 8th (have not checked in a while) largest economy in the world. We should be able to handle this. Now, I will go off topic a bit. California has some of the best marijuana in the world. I mean top notch stuff. As I recall it is also the largest (monetarily) crop in California, yet we do not get a dime from this. Instead we insist on locking up people for growing it and pay for their costly incarceration. Pure lunacy. I also agree that we should not be in the business of marriage. The state should facilitate the legal (contractual) aspects of a union (or whatever you want to call it), and then if you want to be "married" go to your church. If your church wants to marry you, then they will, if not, then find another church. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
That's the icing on the cake!!! Forgot about that!
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Essentially, almost no one ever thinks about any of these things, they simply support their tribes. If your tribe is opposed to something the other tribe does, you're opposed too. It's as simple as that. Why think when you have clan leaders doing all your thinking for you? After all, American Idol might be on. This is underscored quite nicely today in the United States by the hysteria over the Obama Administration. Anyone who wants to actually, you know, review the facts can see that the new Administration is not much different in any substantive way from the old one. And yet we have tea baggers working themselves into apoplexy about Obama carrying out the same policies they cheered when Bush was in charge. And on the other side you have Democrats who reviled Bush and called him every nasty name imaginable for his policies, yet gush over Obama has he continues those very same (formerly reprehensible) policies. My tribe, your tribe, my country, their country, my flag, that flag, my god, their god. Who needs to think when you can just slap a label on an idea and stand on a street corner waving your fists?
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|