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 04-21-2013, 10:40 PM
Knomad Knomad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Humboldt County
Posts: 294
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Finding support in unexpected places

This morning I saw an old friend, someone I've known for years but never talked to about guns, for the simple reason that I always assumed she would be against. She's politically liberal as is her husband, and they live in Arcata (which is, for those not familiar, Berkeley-level far-fringe liberal).

Today she was the one who mentioned guns. Turns out they own two shotguns and a .22 rifle, their young son is becoming very interested in shooting and they are encouraging him.

What really surprised me though... she expressed very strong feelings that she isn't interested in giving up her guns, and that she thinks recent anti-2A efforts at the state and federal levels are wrong. Clearly recent events have shattered whatever apathy she had before.

Now I'm wondering how many more people like her are out there? And how badly the anti-gun folks may be misjudging their political base?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:45 PM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

In my opinion, your friend and her family is in the vast majority of the Liberal base. Good that she and her family are "Pro-2A" and gun owners. But the reality is that if liberal gun owners were really supporters of 2A. Then politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Yee, Obama, etc wouldn't be in office. This has been discussed over and over again in Calguns. Some have stated that they have been "insulted" by being challenged.

I would ask your friend if she is willing to vote for a "Pro-2A" candidate. Even if that candidate differs on other social issues she beliefs in. If she says.. then we can welcome a sister to the fight against "Antis".
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:46 PM
.30-06 .30-06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hacked
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

People can surprise you...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-21-2013, 11:10 PM
MichaelKent's Avatar
MichaelKent MichaelKent is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 423
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

People can indeed surprise. I know this girl who is a complete and proud hippie, very liberal and all. However, back in December when emotions began to run hot on this issue, she came out in strong support for the second amendment. I did not see that coming. In fact, many of my liberal friends are actually pro-gun and realize that much of what they're being told by the media is nonsense.

However, people can also change... there's this guy I've known for a very long time who I used to go shooting with often, he was always very pro-gun. This morning I ran into him and he was talking about how "nobody needs an AR-15" and "nobody needs 30 rounds" and I was dumbstruck, thinking "You used to be for these things, what the hell happened to you??"
__________________
"The fundamental point [against gun control] is this: Do you take away the liberties of all, do you assume the guilt of all, because some people cannot handle that freedom properly? Imagine if you did, how many other freedoms would have to be taken away." - Peter Hitchens.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-21-2013, 11:44 PM
strlen strlen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 122
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's a strong and genuine anti-authoritarian sub-current amongst some liberals and others "of the left". On the opposite side, there's a "law and order" sub-current amongst many on the "center" (think Bloomberg) and the right (think Mulford Act).

There's very interesting research by Jonathan Haidt on what makes individuals adopt different political views: http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way

Over-simplistic tl;dr on that article is that there's several axes -- liberty, justice, protection from harm, so on... What I find helpful is try to understand what motivates a person to take on various views and when making your case, use an argument that others would find most persuasive.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:07 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Things aren't black and white.

Not all "Liberals" support the whole Democratic platform just like not all Republicans support the whole Republican platform.

This is why we have to get out of our churches(gun shows, gun shops, gun ranges) and actually mingle, discuss and be ambassadors for our gun rights because without gun rights, we wouldn't have any civil rights.

We should not assume someone who is a "liberal" is anti-gun just as we should not assume a "conservative" is "pro gun".

If we are to save gun rights in this state, then we must get behind electable candidates who align with the Liberals on everything but guns.

We have put "Pink Pistol" contingents over the last 4 years in the SF pride parade and we only got a few hecklers.

For the most part, we got support and this was marching down the middle of San Francisco during the biggest parade of the year promoting a "gun rights, self defense" message.

If there was any place in the state where we would be booed, that would be the place.

The issue with some liberals may not be guns, it may be stereo typical gun owners.

I believe we can find support across the cultural, political and social spectrum provided we tie gun rights to civil rights and the survival of our system where government gets it's power from our consent.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:13 AM
monk's Avatar
monk monk is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,300
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Hmm, you should ask her how she feels about standard capacity magazines or "assault weapons."
__________________


NRA Member
SAF Member


Quote:
A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2013, 7:36 AM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsandoc40 View Post
In my opinion, your friend and her family is in the vast majority of the Liberal base. Good that she and her family are "Pro-2A" and gun owners. But the reality is that if liberal gun owners were really supporters of 2A. Then politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Yee, Obama, etc wouldn't be in office. This has been discussed over and over again in Calguns. Some have stated that they have been "insulted" by being challenged.

I would ask your friend if she is willing to vote for a "Pro-2A" candidate. Even if that candidate differs on other social issues she beliefs in. If she says.. then we can welcome a sister to the fight against "Antis".
So all I have to do is agree to vote for someone who thinks gay people are perverts and deviants, and who believes the government should have control of women's bodies and I can join the fight. Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Not all "Liberals" support the whole Democratic platform just like not all Republicans support the whole Republican platform.

This is why we have to get out of our churches(gun shows, gun shops, gun ranges) and actually mingle, discuss and be ambassadors for our gun rights because without gun rights, we wouldn't have any civil rights.

We should not assume someone who is a "liberal" is anti-gun just as we should not assume a "conservative" is "pro gun".

If we are to save gun rights in this state, then we must get behind electable candidates who align with the Liberals on everything but guns.


We have put "Pink Pistol" contingents over the last 4 years in the SF pride parade and we only got a few hecklers.

For the most part, we got support and this was marching down the middle of San Francisco during the biggest parade of the year promoting a "gun rights, self defense" message.

If there was any place in the state where we would be booed, that would be the place.

The issue with some liberals may not be guns, it may be stereo typical gun owners.

I believe we can find support across the cultural, political and social spectrum provided we tie gun rights to civil rights and the survival of our system where government gets it's power from our consent.

Nicki
^This QFT
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2013, 8:28 AM
TS77 TS77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nickel and Dime
Posts: 1,025
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monk View Post
Hmm, you should ask her how she feels about standard capacity magazines or "assault weapons."
^this

I've asked my "reasonable-gun-law" friends, "so if 10 round mags are reasonable, that means you would fight any laws that make that limit 9 or 7 or anything less, right?"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2013, 8:36 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,405
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
So all I have to do is agree to vote for someone who thinks gay people are perverts and deviants, and who believes the government should have control of women's bodies and I can join the fight. Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't?
this right here is the problem with people who only get their politics from TV . I am not a republican by any stretch, but I am also not dumb enough to believe that Akins and Mourdoch represent the republican party. Local politics especially give you a great opportunity to find out who it really is that you can vote for, and you might find that there are viable alternatives to the D & R that are running, or you might find that the R running locally in fact is like 99% of the R party and doesnt fit into your ridiculous line above.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-22-2013, 8:40 AM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 5,624
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Not really

Quote:
Originally Posted by .30-06 View Post
People can surprise you...

Gun Control is being packaged as a partisan issue by the media and most anti's. The anti's say the NRA doesn't reflect the true thoughts of their constituents. That goes double for the other side. The idea that the Manchin-toomey bill couldn't pass in the Senate speaks volumes about how out of touch they are.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2013, 8:40 AM
CalNRA's Avatar
CalNRA CalNRA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,539
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I don't give a **** how many guns anyone owns or how much they claim to "support the 2nd". Who do they vote for?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2013, 9:41 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
If there was any place in the state where we would be booed, that would be the place.
Not quite. A straight group of "angry old white men" marching down SF would be a much better test. There are enough people who think that disagreeing with a gay person on issues equates to homophobia, much like there are enough people who think disagreeing with our current president is racism.

If I were to stereotype, I'd say many residents of SF fall into that category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
The issue with some liberals may not be guns, it may be stereo typical gun owners.
There are stereotypical gays, there are stereotypical black, then there are stereotypical "angry old white men."

Much like the first two stereotypes wouldn't absolve one from responsibility for being a bigot and racist respectively, the last stereotype doesn't absolve one from being *AGAINST* civil liberties. The apologists for attacks on our rights due to the perceived "gun owner image" have to understand that there is no excuse - one is either *for* or *against* civil rights.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:32 AM
mtnhrdgr2 mtnhrdgr2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 243
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Some have stated that they have been "insulted" by being challenged.
Being challenged is not what is causing what 'you' call the Ds being "insulted." (I think it is more disbelief of being flamed as opposed to actually being insulted.) The "insulting" part stems from people in this very forum claiming that being a D means you are anti-gun or anti-2A. The Ds that have claimed to be pro-2A have been labeled as "fake pro-2A". And that the answer to our gun rights issue is to vote 100% R on all eelctions going forward.

I am assuming that we at least can agree that "more support is needed for gun rights." As a whole, the main political party at the moment that is attempting to lessen our gun rights are the Ds. If this is the case, then why 'blast' on the any Ds that claim to be on the side of gun rights, or any Ds that are willing to change their view and listen to the pro-gun view?

As such, one short term solution is to vote R in the next election or two. However, the LONG TERM solution is to move the left thinking on guns and gun rights a little more to the right. This will be hard and will take a long time. Having more of the so-called 'enemy' on the gun side is a win. If there are any other LONG TERM solutions, please make that public.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:35 AM
berto's Avatar
berto berto is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

There are plenty of liberals, progressives, socialists, and even avowed communists who support the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately the candidates they support, fund, and vote for are usually behind further restrictions. Such left of center gun owners need to decide if gun rights are more important than touchy feely politics. Nothing's stopping them from supporting a left of center pro-gun candidate. Given the political realities of this state and others we'd all be better off, at least gun wise, with pro-gun leftists in office instead of anti-gun leftists. The leftistscare are going to get elected anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:43 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .30-06 View Post
People can surprise you...

I just LOVE the video playing as your tagline. What's it from?


Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Not quite. A straight group of "angry old white men" marching down SF would be a much better test. There are enough people who think that disagreeing with a gay person on issues equates to homophobia, much like there are enough people who think disagreeing with our current president is racism.

So, sending a float down the street with a bunch of stereotypically straight guys chanting "We're against gay marriage, but for your Right to defend yourselves" would be the true test?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:48 AM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsandoc40 View Post
In my opinion, your friend and her family is in the vast majority of the Liberal base. Good that she and her family are "Pro-2A" and gun owners. But the reality is that if liberal gun owners were really supporters of 2A. Then politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Yee, Obama, etc wouldn't be in office. This has been discussed over and over again in Calguns. Some have stated that they have been "insulted" by being challenged.

I would ask your friend if she is willing to vote for a "Pro-2A" candidate. Even if that candidate differs on other social issues she beliefs in. If she says.. then we can welcome a sister to the fight against "Antis".
This is pretty tough talk. Can gun rights be strengthened in CA without the support of liberals? Without the support of Democrats?

The OP was just pointing out that gun-owning, if not necessarily 2A supporting, liberals exist. Although they undeniably deserve blame for voting for the politicians named above, IMO telling them to STFU, or that they are "unwelcome", whenever they make an appearance seems counterproductive. Gun owners tend to appreciate gun rights, if for no other reason than pure self-interest.

People here often say that 2A rights mean more to them than any other issue, but yet there seems to be a real reluctance to take any political steps other than confrontation. This strategy seems to working at the national level, but failing at the state level. Isn't it ultimately just a numbers game? The OP's "Arcate liberal" may not welcome being welcomed by conservative Republicans, but maybe both sides could agree to put aside their differences to fight a common enemy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:56 AM
stony stony is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalNRA View Post
I don't give a **** how many guns anyone owns or how much they claim to "support the 2nd". Who do they vote for?
so if you vote for someone, you have to agree with everything that they do? by that logic, you might as well not vote at all.

If I vote republican, do I have to agree with some of THEIR more ridiculous positions? Do I have to believe that global warming is a hoax? Do I have to sign on with further deregulating the banking industry? Do I have to support the Patriot Act?

there is plenty of stupidity to go around... both parties want to take our liberty away. some just do it in different ways than others.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:19 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
So, sending a float down the street with a bunch of stereotypically straight guys chanting "We're against gay marriage, but for your Right to defend yourselves" would be the true test?
No, just having them chant "we are for the right to defend oneself" would be the true test since those opposing this view wouldn't have to fear appearing homophobic and could easier express their real opinion.

BTW, "gay marriage" is already legal everywhere as long as it is between persons of the opposite gender. What you're most likely referring is the "same sex marriage" which, if it becomes the norm, would be equally accessible to gay and straight persons.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:25 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnhrdgr2 View Post
The "insulting" part stems from people in this very forum claiming that being a D means you are anti-gun or anti-2A. The Ds that have claimed to be pro-2A have been labeled as "fake pro-2A". And that the answer to our gun rights issue is to vote 100% R on all eelctions going forward.
Being a D has nothing to do with being pro/anti-2A. Voting D, where the particular D is anti-2A is what matters because it *does* make a difference. Those who *vote D* are responsible for our 2A situation at the state level.

Voting R is not an answer for those who feel they are D. The answer is to change D party from within and make sure the silly bit about AWB is stricken down from the national platform. Until then, those *voting D* are *responsible* for attacks on 2A, much like those *voting R* are responsible for all positions of the particular candidate.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:36 AM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
This is pretty tough talk. Can gun rights be strengthened in CA without the support of liberals? Without the support of Democrats?

The OP was just pointing out that gun-owning, if not necessarily 2A supporting, liberals exist. Although they undeniably deserve blame for voting for the politicians named above, IMO telling them to STFU, or that they are "unwelcome", whenever they make an appearance seems counterproductive. Gun owners tend to appreciate gun rights, if for no other reason than pure self-interest.

People here often say that 2A rights mean more to them than any other issue, but yet there seems to be a real reluctance to take any political steps other than confrontation. This strategy seems to working at the national level, but failing at the state level. Isn't it ultimately just a numbers game? The OP's "Arcate liberal" may not welcome being welcomed by conservative Republicans, but maybe both sides could agree to put aside their differences to fight a common enemy.
Never once did I state "STFU". I pointed out that his friend is really serious about protecting her 2A rights. Then she should vote for a "Pro-2A" candidate. I didn't state vote Republican or Democrat. Now, if 2A is a secondary issue for her and other social issues take priority then how "Pro-2A" can one be.

Seems to me you don't take the seriousness of what is going on in California. There aren't any half measures in the fight to defend the 2nd Amendment in this state. If gun owners want their 2A rights, then no other issue should take priority over it. Halfhearted proclamations that one is a supporter of 2A but his/her voting doesn't reflect that belief. Then all gun owners lose.
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:18 PM
Didymus's Avatar
Didymus Didymus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Just outside La Jolla
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Being a D has nothing to do with being pro/anti-2A. Voting D, where the particular D is anti-2A is what matters because it *does* make a difference. Those who *vote D* are responsible for our 2A situation at the state level.

Voting R is not an answer for those who feel they are D. The answer is to change D party from within and make sure the silly bit about AWB is stricken down from the national platform. Until then, those *voting D* are *responsible* for attacks on 2A, much like those *voting R* are responsible for all positions of the particular candidate.
Yep, It's about the party platform. If you vote D, you vote anti-2A. If you vote R you vote anti-abortion. One is explicitly protected by the Constitution, the other is not. The rogue politician that defies their party is largely marginalized. See Joe Lieberman or Ron Paul.

I don't know how you get around that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:24 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsandoc40 View Post
Never once did I state "STFU". I pointed out that his friend is really serious about protecting her 2A rights. Then she should vote for a "Pro-2A" candidate. I didn't state vote Republican or Democrat. Now, if 2A is a secondary issue for her and other social issues take priority then how "Pro-2A" can one be.

Seems to me you don't take the seriousness of what is going on in California. There aren't any half measures in the fight to defend the 2nd Amendment in this state. If gun owners want their 2A rights, then no other issue should take priority over it. Halfhearted proclamations that one is a supporter of 2A but his/her voting doesn't reflect that belief. Then all gun owners lose.
This is the typical progression: identification as democrat/liberal -> voted for gun-grabbing democrats -> not serious/worthy w.r.t 2A. QED.

The OP woman never made any claims and cannot defend herself, because she was never a party to this conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2013, 12:26 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default California reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
So all I have to do is agree to vote for someone who thinks gay people are perverts and deviants, and who believes the government should have control of women's bodies and I can join the fight. Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't?



^This QFT
The reality is California elections districts are divided up so that pretty much all seats are safe. The real battles are in the primaries.

If you are in the San Francisco Bay area and your candidate is running on a anti gay, pro life platform, they will lose.

The reality is gun issues are not a first tier issue for most people, so if we are to win back our gun rights in California, then we need to get pro gun candidates into office in the blue districts in this state.

I have supported candidates in the past who were HORRIBLE on other civil rights because they were pro gun. I would suggest that if we want to preserve our gun rights, that we support pro gun candidates in districts that the only person who will win is someone who is pro choice, pro gay rights etc.

This is a gun rights forum, in order for us to advance our gun rights in California we have to change the image of gun owners in this state that we are not all a bunch of intolerant, tobacco chewing, kill them all racist and bigot rednecks because that is how we are portrayed.

Gun rights are civil rights and without gun rights, there would be no civil rights.

I don't want to lose my gun rights because gun grabbers kept getting elected because the gun community refused to help elect pro gun candidates who were social liberals in districts that only social liberals could win.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-22-2013, 1:39 PM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
this right here is the problem with people who only get their politics from TV . I am not a republican by any stretch, but I am also not dumb enough to believe that Akins and Mourdoch represent the republican party. Local politics especially give you a great opportunity to find out who it really is that you can vote for, and you might find that there are viable alternatives to the D & R that are running, or you might find that the R running locally in fact is like 99% of the R party and doesnt fit into your ridiculous line above.
I voted for neither the R or D candidate for president in the last election. But you are going to have to have more proof than just a to prove to me that Akins and Mourdoch are outliers in the Republican Party. They were nominees for US senator and they had the entire (R) party in the state behind them. Plus due to the miracle of TV I was able to see the Republican nominee for president saying that if he was elected he would appoint justices to the US Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Then there are clearly unconstitutional anti-abortion laws that have been passed recently by (R) controlled state legislatures in North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas. In addition the (R) AG of Virginia is trying to defend the anti-sodomy law and apply it to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. If you are going to call my views ridiculous I hope you have some factual evidence to back it up with.

There actually was a (R) candidate I would have voted for. I would have voted for Tom Campbell over Barbara Boxer. But Tom did not get the Republican nomination because he was pro-choice and pro gay marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-22-2013, 2:15 PM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
This is the typical progression: identification as democrat/liberal -> voted for gun-grabbing democrats -> not serious/worthy w.r.t 2A. QED.

The OP woman never made any claims and cannot defend herself, because she was never a party to this conversation.
So, you assumed that I'm going to tell someone I don't know to "STFU". I posted to the OP to ask his friend if she would vote for a "Pro-2A" candidte that differs on all other issues she holds dear.

Now, if we are to assume each other's mindset. Then I'm free to assume you voted for Feinstein and Obama. I could be wrong but typically hat how these discussions can go.

Reading comprehension would be a good skill to have.
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-22-2013, 3:51 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,405
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
I voted for neither the R or D candidate for president in the last election. But you are going to have to have more proof than just a to prove to me that Akins and Mourdoch are outliers in the Republican Party. They were nominees for US senator and they had the entire (R) party in the state behind them. Plus due to the miracle of TV I was able to see the Republican nominee for president saying that if he was elected he would appoint justices to the US Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Then there are clearly unconstitutional anti-abortion laws that have been passed recently by (R) controlled state legislatures in North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas. In addition the (R) AG of Virginia is trying to defend the anti-sodomy law and apply it to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. If you are going to call my views ridiculous I hope you have some factual evidence to back it up with.
I have absolutely 0 interest in debating the "constitutionality" of abortion since I could debate 5 pages worth of posts between me, myself, and I on both sides of the issue and nobody would have any idea what I actually think because abortion basically just comes down to feelings and opinions, so Ill just touch on one quick point. If Akins and Mourdoch did in fact have the entire R party in the state behind them, why did they both lose in R dominated states? If you account for the FACT that many many voters both R and D dont know anything about the voting they are doing, it points to some portion, unknown to me, of the remaining voting republicans who voted against those clowns. Because they were both ahead in their races at that point in time, you can make your own call as to how republicans in their states felt about their statements

I dont think your views are ridiculous, I just think you are not educated well enough on what the majority of representatives think to pass blanket judgements. I voted for neither R or D presidential either, but just as I think its ridiculous and out of place for people on this site to constantly blame the "looney lefties" I also think it comes off in poor taste to judge a whole party on the mindless ramblings of two idiots and MSNBC
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-22-2013, 3:56 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
Then there are clearly unconstitutional anti-abortion laws that have been passed recently by (R) controlled state legislatures in North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
Abortion is not addressed in the Constitution. The best you can do is call them "anti-privacy laws" (per Roe v. Wade.)

People in CA cannot vote for legislators in ND, MS, AR and nobody in CA is responsible for what happens there. On the other hand, people in CA can and do vote for DiFi and Boxer, as well as for all the anti-gun zealots in the state legislature and whoever voted for them *is* responsible for what happens in CA.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-22-2013, 4:15 PM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
I voted for neither R or D presidential either, but just as I think its ridiculous and out of place for people on this site to constantly blame the "looney lefties" I also think it comes off in poor taste to judge a whole party on the mindless ramblings of two idiots and MSNBC
So, where should we blame "looney lefties"? On Facebook? On Twitter? When the "whole party" has constantly, by their representatives and their voting pattern, shown to be "Anti-2A". Which two idiots do you speak of? Feinstein? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? Biden? Shurmur? Bloomberg? Yee? Lautenberg? Giffords? Boxer? Franken? Frank? Cuomo? Leahy? Manchin? Steinberg?

Now, Republicans has their own traitors to the 2A... Toomey, McCain, many California State politicians are really just RINOs, etc.
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-22-2013, 4:32 PM
BCDavis BCDavis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 312
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Nicki nailed it with this statement:

Quote:
If we are to save gun rights in this state, then we must get behind electable candidates who align with the Liberals on everything but guns.
If you are running in SF, your Republican candidate had better be pro-gay marriage, or they are going to lose badly.

If your candidate is running in LA, they had better be pro-immigrant, or they are going to lose badly.

It's a liberal state. It has been since all the hippies came here in the 1960's.
People who don't fit in have been coming here from the midwest ever since.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-22-2013, 4:42 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,803
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
Nicki nailed it with this statement
I agree.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-22-2013, 4:50 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,905
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCDavis View Post
It's a liberal state.
Liberal and Democratic are completely different concepts.

CA used to be liberal in the true meaning of the word: open minded, live and let live. Those days are long gone. Now, it's a massive bureaucracy controlled by a single political party that wants our money and guns. Nothing liberal about that. Quite the opposite.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-22-2013, 5:04 PM
SgtDinosaur's Avatar
SgtDinosaur SgtDinosaur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 1,387
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
If we are to save gun rights in this state, then we must get behind electable candidates who align with the Liberals on everything but guns.
If only we had any I would support them. I've never seen any, though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-22-2013, 5:17 PM
Massan's Avatar
Massan Massan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If only...

My sister is a rabid liberal but likes(not love) shooting guns. Shes all about womens rights, abortion, etc but if she had to choose between those and 2a then 2a is getting dropped like the constitution when it burned Obamas hands.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-22-2013, 5:41 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
The reality is California elections districts are divided up so that pretty much all seats are safe. The real battles are in the primaries.

If you are in the San Francisco Bay area and your candidate is running on a anti gay, pro life platform, they will lose.

The reality is gun issues are not a first tier issue for most people, so if we are to win back our gun rights in California, then we need to get pro gun candidates into office in the blue districts in this state.

I have supported candidates in the past who were HORRIBLE on other civil rights because they were pro gun. I would suggest that if we want to preserve our gun rights, that we support pro gun candidates in districts that the only person who will win is someone who is pro choice, pro gay rights etc.

This is a gun rights forum, in order for us to advance our gun rights in California we have to change the image of gun owners in this state that we are not all a bunch of intolerant, tobacco chewing, kill them all racist and bigot rednecks because that is how we are portrayed.

Gun rights are civil rights and without gun rights, there would be no civil rights.

I don't want to lose my gun rights because gun grabbers kept getting elected because the gun community refused to help elect pro gun candidates who were social liberals in districts that only social liberals could win.

Nicki
True.

The gun issue is way down low on the list of most "liberals". Even if democratic voters say they want total confiscation and all guns outlawed, very few actually vote based on that or give any money to anti causes. Look at who funds pro gun groups, the grassroots, and who funds the antis, a few billionaires and a couple of foundations.

The only way to take back some ground in this war is to infultrate the other side starting low. We need to find some Democratic canidates who are pro gun or gun nutural and support them over the antis. We need to have groups who they own in this state, due to the current make up, show them that an anti gun vote hardly gains them any votes or money but a pro gun vote will pay dividends.

Examples. Nicki and Tboyer are very active in the LGBT fight and they are very active in the pro gun fight. Even though I believe in their rights, I am not gay so it doesn't hit home with me so I don't really do anything for that movement. When they attend other forums or write letters to a canidate, they should include facts about how few anti gun voters really use that as a voting or donating platform and how they have members who would like to vote for said canidate but the gun issue is too strong and they would rather sit out than support an anti canidate.

Gene Hoffman is a very successful, young silicon valley entrepunure. He was on the cover of Forbes Magazine while still in his 20s. Gene is known to us and he has stated that many other young rich movers and shakers in silicon valley who he works with are also gun nuts. That needs to be proven to candidates through those dinners and donations. Again, while emphasising the fact that anti votes don't get them the same amount of contributions or votes. They really don't, they are a byproduct of the other issues.

I am a union member ( let the flames be fanned ) while in a supervisory role at the largest company in my industry. According the the NRA and Zogby polling, union members have the highest percentage of NRA members of any group. Higher than even just gun owners! Many union members in this state hold their nose and vote or sit out the process all together. I am in the process of starting a group to steer our money and influence to pro gun canidates who also support other issues that we support. Don't tell me that that can't happen. Look at Alaska, Montana, Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan, Washington, Nevada. All of these states are very heavily influenced by union money and still have good gun laws.

Gun Lobby groups and individuals should be using the budget to express thier displeasure with pro gun votes. You are not going to change an anti's mind just as they won't change yours but you have a slim chance of getting through to them by stating that anti votes gain them little and take away a lot from the issues that actually get them votes and contributions. Emphasise the lawsuits that their vote will bring.


Those are just a few examples. Again, politicians need to be shown the fact that they will gain more money and votes by being pro gun than anti. If they turn on us, we should turn on them.

Very few voters actually vote SOLEY on anti gun issues. Say 10 special interest groups come to them and it is shown that many have large factions of pro gun voters, which is true, and none of those factions have those same numbers of anti voters who let that sway thier vote, which is also true, we may be able to win a few more seats. We need to hit them from all fronts as well as have an insurgency in thier own ranks.

Will this get Difi or Boxer unseated? No. Will it help bring up new politicians who are thinking of getting started or now on city counsels etc? I believe so.

Look at the recent wins in South San Francisco, Los Gatos and a few others.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
I voted for neither the R or D candidate for president in the last election. But you are going to have to have more proof than just a to prove to me that Akins and Mourdoch are outliers in the Republican Party. They were nominees for US senator and they had the entire (R) party in the state behind them. Plus due to the miracle of TV I was able to see the Republican nominee for president saying that if he was elected he would appoint justices to the US Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Then there are clearly unconstitutional anti-abortion laws that have been passed recently by (R) controlled state legislatures in North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas. In addition the (R) AG of Virginia is trying to defend the anti-sodomy law and apply it to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. If you are going to call my views ridiculous I hope you have some factual evidence to back it up with.

There actually was a (R) candidate I would have voted for. I would have voted for Tom Campbell over Barbara Boxer. But Tom did not get the Republican nomination because he was pro-choice and pro gay marriage.
Cambell had a chance of winning the seat. Too bad the republicans nominated someone who had views that were completely opposite of most middle of the road people.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-23-2013, 6:05 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
No, just having them chant "we are for the right to defend oneself" would be the true test since those opposing this view wouldn't have to fear appearing homophobic and could easier express their real opinion.

BTW, "gay marriage" is already legal everywhere as long as it is between persons of the opposite gender. What you're most likely referring is the "same sex marriage" which, if it becomes the norm, would be equally accessible to gay and straight persons.

I'm not stating a position on gay marriage. Just giving the most extreme opposition of views that I could think of.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-23-2013, 6:44 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalNRA View Post
I don't give a **** how many guns anyone owns or how much they claim to "support the 2nd". Who do they vote for?
+1000
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-23-2013, 6:47 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Liberal and Democratic are completely different concepts.

CA used to be liberal in the true meaning of the word: open minded, live and let live. Those days are long gone. Now, it's a massive bureaucracy controlled by a single political party that wants our money and guns. Nothing liberal about that. Quite the opposite.
Absolutely true. Today's democrats have nothing to do with liberal.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-23-2013, 6:50 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Abortion is not addressed in the Constitution. The best you can do is call them "anti-privacy laws" (per Roe v. Wade.)

People in CA cannot vote for legislators in ND, MS, AR and nobody in CA is responsible for what happens there. On the other hand, people in CA can and do vote for DiFi and Boxer, as well as for all the anti-gun zealots in the state legislature and whoever voted for them *is* responsible for what happens in CA.
Good post - also important to remember that the state legislatures in both AR and MS are democrat majority (to correct the poster you replied to).
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-23-2013, 7:14 AM
ferretwithacheeseknife ferretwithacheeseknife is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Good post - also important to remember that the state legislatures in both AR and MS are democrat majority (to correct the poster you replied to).
Say what? Source?

Mississippi Senate 31/21 Republican - House 63/57 Republican. Both houses are Republican controlled and there is a Republican governor.

Arkansas Senate 21/14 Republican - House 51/48 Republican and 1 Green (go Green!)

North Dakota Senate 33/14 Republican -- House 71/23 Republican Both houses Republican controlled and Republican governor.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...f_state_houses

Pesky things those "facts".
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 8:15 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.