Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:03 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default 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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Brown's tenure as attorney general seen as safe, steady as he prepared for run for governor

PAUL ELIAS Associated Press Writer
2:57 AM CST, January 26, 2010


OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Jerry Brown has spent his three years as California's attorney general as he has his five decades in politics: being a predictably unpredictable office holder and perennial candidate.

As California's top prosecutor, the lifelong Democrat with distinguished political bloodlines has won wide support from district attorneys, police chiefs and sheriffs.

But he has disappointed many death penalty foes, consumer advocates and gun control proponents who hoped he would support their causes.

Now that the 71-year-old lawyer is expected to run for governor this year, his performance as the state's chief law enforcement officer is being scrutinized for harbingers of how he would run California.

Although he has not formally announced his candidacy, Brown's tremendous name recognition has already served him well. He has collected $12 million in campaign funds and polls consistently show him to be such a favorite that potential Democratic gubernatorial rivals such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom bowed out of the fight.

The son of popular two-term governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, he began his political career as a community college trustee in the 1960s. He rocketed to national prominence when he won the governorship in 1974 and ran three times for president. Before being elected attorney general, he served for eight years as Oakland's mayor.

Along the way, the Yale law school graduate and former Jesuit seminarian established a political identity based partly on his eclectic personal style.

As governor, he dated singer Linda Ronstadt, lived in a $250-a-month apartment rather than the newly built governor's mansion, and earned the nickname Governor Moonbeam for his proposals. As mayor, he burnished his crime fighter credentials, living in a gritty neighborhood in downtown Oakland and waging war against Oakland's violent street gangs.

When Brown took office as attorney general, he promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinions — including his opposition to the death penalty.

When two gay couples sued last year to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage, Brown declined to defend the law, saying he thought marriage a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation.

Commentators said Brown's quiet exit from the current litigation over Proposition 8 is politically savvy and underscores the steady and safe course he has charted as attorney general.

Critics on the right and left grumble that Brown has done little more than serve as a caretaker as attorney general, other than position himself to run for governor. The left hoped and the right feared Brown would raise the prestige and power of the office much as Eliot Spitzer did in New York when he took on nontraditional causes such as Wall Street corruption.

Brown has angered gun control proponents, especially when he urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Chicago's handgun ban.

"I have respect for the Second Amendment," said Brown, who owns three guns and targets shoots occasionally on his ranch east of Chico, Calif. "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."

Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, a Democrat, said he had expected Brown to use the office more aggressively and creatively.

"I think that his mind probably has been on running for governor and has been for some time," said Van de Kamp, who launched his own gubernatorial campaign in 1990 at the end of his eight-year term as attorney general. "That's very time consuming and distracting."

Such criticisms agitate Brown.

"Some people on the outside say government should do everything," Brown said during a Christmas Eve interview in his downtown Oakland office . "Well that is an endless expansion of government and I don't believe in that. You have limits. You have a limited number of people and hours in the day. So I set priorities."

Brown came into office with four major goals: combat global warming and street gangs, stand up for the workers in the "underground economy" and bolster the state Department of Justice's law enforcement arm.

By most accounts, he has followed through on his campaign pledges, often with his dog Dharma sleeping at his feet and his wife and unpaid chief adviser, former Gap Inc. general counsel Ann Gust Brown, in the office next door. Brown also takes credit for slashing $100 million from the attorney general's annual budget, which was $750 million last year.

Using lawsuits and legal threats, he strong-armed more than a dozen cities and counties to consider global warming when considering development projects. He has filed several lawsuits against car washes, construction companies and others accused of shortchanging workers out of overtime and earned wages.

Brown also jumped into the mortgage meltdown crisis, filing a high-profile lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. in July 2008, which he touted as a major component of his office's consumer protection efforts.

"On the stuff that he was focused on, he did a very aggressive and good job," said Joe Mathews, a scholar at the New America Foundation, a non-profit think tank. "But he doesn't appear to have been a big risk taker."

Brown has won key support of influential law enforcement authorities, partly by defending against every death penalty appeal filed.
Now, the state's oldest first-term attorney general wants to go back to Sacramento to fix the nation's most populous state.

"I've seen the state from the point of view as governor and now I have seen the state from the point of view as a lawyer to the governor. I know a lot about how it works."

But Brown conceded that the state's financial woes and the seemingly endless political snarls of state government would make the job challenging.

"I think," he said, "to succeed will be extraordinarily difficult."

* * * * *

__________________

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..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:08 PM
PolishMike's Avatar
PolishMike PolishMike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tracy
Posts: 5,756
iTrader: 25 / 96%
Default

I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.
__________________
Tracy Rifle and Pistol
7601 W 11th St
Tracy Ca 95304
209 833-9100
For sales Questions please email Sales@tracyrifleandpistol.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:16 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,926
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:22 PM
mblat mblat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,256
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

We about to witness a miracle - Brady bunch endorsing Republican.
__________________
Quote:
The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the later has no implications for their accepting the former.
S.P. Huntington.
WTB: CZ452
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:27 PM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 2,688
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishMike View Post
I would be curious to know how people on here weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.
For me, the ONLY thing Brown has going for him is his stand on gun rights.
IMO he is a hypocrite when he "promised to enforce all state laws regardless of personal opinion" and then refused to support the law because, in his opinion, "marriage [is] a "fundamental right" regardless of sexual orientation."
He is also, IMO, on the wrong side of "the underground economy" (illegal aliens) and "Global Warming".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:37 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,112
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:40 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:40 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlock Tom View Post
In my opinion "gun rights" is a social issue.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlintlockTom
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."
It is. Equal protection, baby.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:41 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishMike View Post
I would be curious to know how people on hear weighed gun rights vs social issues when picking a candidate.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:43 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:47 PM
Hopi's Avatar
Hopi Hopi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 7,651
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
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.
Amen.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post

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

-Gene
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:48 PM
grunz grunz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 290
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Very good! An adult running for office in 2010, imagine that!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-26-2010, 1:56 PM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Wow, I thought he owns more than 3 guns.
__________________
"When chosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." - Mae West
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:03 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
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.
Irrelevant argument.

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

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

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


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
I guess you feel you have to pick a fight with someone who has different ethics than yourself
What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.
__________________

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..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:04 PM
mblat mblat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,256
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
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.
I am just wondering - I am two issues voter ( guns and taxes ). Is it ethical for me to vote?
__________________
Quote:
The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the later has no implications for their accepting the former.
S.P. Huntington.
WTB: CZ452
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:05 PM
nat's Avatar
nat nat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Gatos, Ca.
Posts: 714
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
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.
By not supporting equal rights for all people and only recognizing marriage between a man and woman, the state is saying what is morally right.

I love it..........."freedoms for who I think is morally ok."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:21 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:37 PM
PEBKAC's Avatar
PEBKAC PEBKAC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,032
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

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:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Plus, we can check out each other's hardware. Who says we can't find common ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
You need to grow a full beard and move out into the woods before you can be a full fledged member of the surplus rifle long range shooting community.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:38 PM
RudyN's Avatar
RudyN RudyN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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 ENDOWMENT MEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:44 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
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.
Irrelevant argument.

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

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

You still can't explain how you can deprive a subset of people of a legal status and benefits accruing thereto.... Your logic can't overcome the Equal Protection violation.
Just because the government takes a power upon itself does not mean it should; it does not make it right. Definitions need to be solid for a reason. With marriage, the term has been defined pretty much the same way for millenia. To change it just because someone does not like that their lifestyle is not legitimized by government endorsement and thinks that violates their rights is to do so without any good reason. In this case, the government would be enshrining immorality as legitimate, which is beyond what it should do and it certainly violates the principle of government I believe in, which as I mentioned, is first do no harm.

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:
Originally Posted by bwiese
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
IMO, when it comes to issues regarding virtue, the government should take the stance of first, do no harm (rather than actually trying to prescribe morality, which IMO defeats the purpose);
You have not identified any harm to anyone except to your hurt feelings. And indeed you are prescribing morality if you support that.
By enshrining immorality as morality or as at least acceptable in some fashion as a matter of official government policy (as opposed to just letting people do what they want privately, which is not the same as this issue, since the government is very much involved), you make it more difficult to successfully promote virtue to others. This may be nothing but a matter of concern to you, but it is not to everyone. I personally believe that government exists for very limited reasons, and those limits include protection for the liberty of the individual, but liberty is not an end in itself; it is a means to a spiritual end, the freedom to pursue virtue, and the government should not be allowed to misguide people or promote the opposite when it comes to such matters. It is a matter to be left to private actors.

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:
Originally Posted by bwiese
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
I guess you feel you have to pick a fight with someone who has different ethics than yourself
What you are terming your stance is not ethical. Simply stated, you and Bull Connors don't like the 14th Amendment - you don't like something, so you want to ban it. Freedom = discomfort.

I don't like folks who wear Birkenstocks, but I don't climb up on the rooftop and shoot them, scratch their car , or vote to deny their voting rights, etc.
I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care. I never said I don't support the 14th Amendment--to argue against such in this case would be to argue against a strawman--nor have I ever argued against actual rights, but just because someone claims something is a right, does not automatically make it so. In this case, it involves the issuance of a license to have a certain status by the government, which is not a right to recieve. It really does not involve banning anything, either, at least it did not initially. It involved the courts changing the definition of marriage and the voters changing it back. Again, you don't have a right to have every defintion be favorable to your lifestyle. I don't see this as a violation of the 14th Amendment. You are free to associate with an have a romantic relationshi with whoever you want in California, Prop. 8 or not, and you can call your relationship a marriage if you so choose, Prop. 8 or not, and with Prop. 8, a man cannot marry another man, regardless of their orientation, and any man of any orientation can still marry a woman. In the end, natural rights apply to individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:48 PM
Steyr_223's Avatar
Steyr_223 Steyr_223 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Raggedy Edge of the Verse, Fremont, California Republic
Posts: 9,509
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RudyN View Post
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.
Well, I can't speak for this time in Sac..However, when he was mayor he lived in a warehouse in the waterfront area..It was a combo live/work place..I did not see any security in the area..I do recall seeing him at the Oakland farmers market and Chinatown a few times with his wife/girlfriend and friends..No Blackwater type security looking guys..

My $.02
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:50 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care.
Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

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

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

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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:55 PM
smogcity's Avatar
smogcity smogcity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 962
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

With this being a gun forum and all, lets just let the issue of gay rights be debated on calgayrights.net.

Gov. Moonbeam's got my vote. This will be the first Dem I've voted for in many years...
__________________
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." - Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackston, W. Virginia Board of Education v. Burnette, 1943

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-26-2010, 2:59 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Truckee Meadows USA
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
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.
He's also a small government Democrat and always has been.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka View Post
A homebuilt AR pistol has a high cool factor and gives you cred at the range.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:05 PM
CharlieK CharlieK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Objectivist

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopi View Post
Amen.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:10 PM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 2,688
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yup.
It is. Equal protection, baby.

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.
Wow! My statement was that Brown promised one thing and then did the opposite. How did you glean from my criticism of his hypocrisy that i am opposed to gay marriage?
That's a lot of conclusion jumping and misplaced passion.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:11 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,862
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

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

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

Yes, if the gov't wants to get out of the marriage business they can/should - call everything between any two parties a 'civil union' and let the church marry.
Ding, ding, ding!!!!!!! Winner!!! And that is why I voted for Prop 8. (and others should keep in mind that not ALL voters in support of Prop 8 are bigots, homo-phobic, or whatever pigeon hole name/group that is commonly associated with anti-gay "marriage" issues). My vote was symbolic on getting the government out of a religious practice and let the aseembly get it right. Change the name of the "union" from "marriage", and give them all the same rights. Let the churches sort out how they want to do the rest. Hard to call yourself even remotely a Libertarian if you are letting the government dictate the terms of a religious practice.

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:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:12 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination.
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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:17 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Truckee Meadows USA
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
Brown is another Arnold type...big government Progressive that says the right thing on guns but my very well vote another.
You got anything to back that up with? Brown has always had a reputation as a stingy administrator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
At this point, I'm going with the guy that's looking to REDUCE SPENDING, whichever gets the Republican nomination.
He claims he reduced the DoJ's budget by $100 million. Say that's campaign trail crap and cut it in half: that's still a 7% reduction.

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:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka View Post
A homebuilt AR pistol has a high cool factor and gives you cred at the range.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:17 PM
Nose Nuggets's Avatar
Nose Nuggets Nose Nuggets is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,803
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
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.
This is easily resolved. the government shouldn't have their hand in anything related to virtue or morality to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:21 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,862
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?
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:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:25 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

[quote="bwiese"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
I don't know who Bull Connors is, and I really don't care.

Which says a lot about you and knowledge of history

Bull Connors was the redneck sheriff that beat and turned water hoses on civil rights protesters in the South. He didn't like "different" people having rights either.
My knowledge of history is substantial. Not knowing about one person and his actions does not really have a bearing on that, unless we're talking about a huge figure in history, which I would say that Bull Connors is not. In any case, I think that Connors and I would probably disagree on many things. And it's not about "different" or anything like that, and I don't see this as a matter of rights.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61
Again, you don't have a right to have every defintion be favorable to your lifestyle.
It's not my lifestyle. Happily hetero, just not someone that wants to deprive others of rights to gov't privilegles or immunities. Individuals of a same-sex pair cannot get the same rights as a same-sex married pair - including visits to hosptials, favorable tax breaks, inheritance matters, etc.
I was using the rhetorical "your," not addressing you personally. And it is telling that you cannot avoid using the word "pair" when trying to articulate rights violations or lack of equal treatment. Natural rights apply to individuals. No individual is treated differently in respect to the law in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese
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.
At this point I think this may end up being the best course, at least in California. The government avoids doing what I would rather it not, but still maintains the necessary involvement in the legal aspects of marriage, albeit indirectly. Ultimately, I think we have strayed considerably off-topic with this course of argument.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:27 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,926
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets View Post
This is easily resolved. the government shouldn't have their hand in anything related to virtue or morality to begin with.
While ideally this true, it will never happen. The government will always meddle in marriage, and will always offer married couples Privileges and Immunities that single people do not get. As such, marriage must be available to all peoples, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or whatever. Therefore gay marriage must be recognized by the government as legal. Anything else is discriminatory.

It's sad that so many pro-gun people are so authoritarian on issues that make them feel uncomfortable. It's hypocrisy.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:29 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,173
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:29 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,793
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
You did read the article right? You did see that JB knocked $100M off the AG's budget didn't you?
$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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:52 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits
That's a lotta Chins.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-26-2010, 3:55 PM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,962
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:01 PM
Rusty_Rebar Rusty_Rebar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 274
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:05 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,862
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
$99,870,000 + Iggy's salary + Iggy's benefits
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:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-26-2010, 4:06 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Truckee Meadows USA
Posts: 4,787
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
It’s ideological inconsistency. “Freedom for me but not for thee.”
It's amazing how many "gun rights advocates" will cheerfully support all kinds of other ridiculous prohibitions. Many of the arguments against gun control can be used, very effectively, against prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, etc.

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:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka View Post
A homebuilt AR pistol has a high cool factor and gives you cred at the range.
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 7:01 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.