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.

View Poll Results: Would you arrest a non felon for carrying a gun who has no permission slip?
Yes, the law's the law. I am Judge Dredd! 32 39.02%
No, as long as they have no "history" and are cool with me, they can be on there marry way. 50 60.98%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 09-06-2013, 9:55 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
If you'd ever bother to read the rest of my first post you'd understand, but why read when you can just lash out at someone by taking things without context, right?
I'd suggest that you follow your own advice. I provided the FULL CONTEXT of what you wrote. I just responded to each statement separately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
The point is that a law either adheres to the constitution or it doesn't, which mean it is unconstitutional or it isn't, even before it is ruled on.
Nope, you're wrong. The law is based on technicalities. In CA, for example, to be guilty of burglary one must have the intent to commit a theft (or other felony) AT THE TIME OF ENTRY. If that intent can't be established, burglary has not been committed. Similarly since ONLY SCOTUS has the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, until they make that decision, a law is technically constitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Now, let me connect the dots for you OK?
Too late. They're already connected and you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
If a law blatantly violates civil rights and is enforced before it is challenged on the courts, it will still be, in reality, a violation of civil rights. Got it? Good. Now, please try not to be so lazy next time and follow the thread of the discussion, OK?
Still wrong. It's only your opinion that a law "blatantly violates civil rights." ONLY SCOTUS makes the decision on this. Pretty funny how you keep trying to twist these, very simple facts.

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
"The rules" include discretion. Officers don't have to enforce all laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Agreed. I'm sure some choose not to or are unable to enforce discretion, though.
Choosing to enforce or choosing NOT to enforce are both exercises of discretion.

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
Please give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is "fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law." I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
I haven't spoken to my local CLEO, but I've had discussions with local sheriff's deputies that seem to indicate their boss is aware that the only means to legally carry are CCWs and it's the only way the "bear" portion of the 2A can be essentially satisfied
You admit that you've not spoken to your "local CLEO" and take the OPINION of (no doubt a small number of) "local deputies" that "SEEM TO INDICATE" their boss' opinion. Could you throw in a few more weasel words in this attempt to make yourself appear to be right? I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
yet they have "sensible" laws that disqualify someone on mere suspicion
This is what I said. To remind you, "I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
and in fact state publicly that there are no legal 2A rights in California
They get to express their opinions, just as you do. Don't those folks have a 1st Amendment right, or is that ANOTHER part of the Constitution that doesn't apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
so they essentially can do whatever they want. More than one officer has told me that, so I know is more than just a personal opinion.
So in response to my request to "give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is 'fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law.' " you give us the vague, unsupported opinion of "more than one officer?" Sorry, but this HARDLY supports your argument on any dependable or reasonable level.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-06-2013, 11:45 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,494
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
LEO recruits are prescreened on obedience and folowing orders.
That would be LAWFUL orders.......As well as honesty, service to the community, and life experience...

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
There is no presceening on american history or constitutional law.
Training in "constitutional law as well as all other laws comes at the academy as well as in service training... Recruits in academies do get training in the history of law enforcement both abroad as well as here in the USA...



Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
Most know more about labor laws and overtime rules than about the 3rd amendment.
Actually most recruits know nothing about labor laws or overtime, as those issues are only applicable after they get hired and are on the street in training... Even then most new cops are just happy to have their job, and are more interested in learning than anything else...

Your probably right about the "3rd" Amendment to the US constitution though... Even most here on Calguns probably know nothing about the prohibition of quartering military troops in private homes......

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
Cops who even come on this site are part of a small minority.
Not so true many cops are gun guys..

You just don't know that because you are not around a large number of LEO's....
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:53 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE= ]


As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California????

[ QUOTE]

Yes, the California Peace Officers Association (www.cpoa.org) not only supports gun control bills, they on occasion help draft them.

Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-06-2013 at 1:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:05 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,494
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post


As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California????



Yes, the California Peace Officers Association (www.cpoa.org) not only supports gun control bills, they on occasion help draft them.
So your link goes to the CPOA web site... I looked at all their legislative pages.. Couldn't find any evidence as to your assertion that they support or drafted ANY gun control legislation......

If you have more specific information or links which support your assertion please post them.

However just posting a link to a LEO groups web site, and saying "they support gun control, and have drafted gun control legislation" Is far far from any evidence. And not one shred of proof...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:36 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
So your link goes to the CPOA web site... I looked at all their legislative pages.. Couldn't find any evidence as to your assertion that they support or drafted ANY gun control legislation......

If you have more specific information or links which support your assertion please post them.

However just posting a link to a LEO groups web site, and saying "they support gun control, and have drafted gun control legislation" Is far far from any evidence. And not one shred of proof...
They don't seem to keep much historical data on their site, it's mostly about the current sessions. I make of point of visiting the site on a regular basis though. They supported the bills to ban unloaded open carry of handguns and the following year supported the ban on carrying unloaded long arms. It was a long time ago but I remember reading that they were involved in the drafting of the Roberti-Roos ban on assault weapons but, yes, that's just from memory.

Some history I have found on the site:

"AB 1527 would ban the open carry of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. There are several exemptions including an honorably retired peace officer authorized to openly carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. This bill is currently with the Governor awaiting action. CPOA is in support of this bill."

In reference to SB249 by Yee which died last year: " The probability of this type of legislation emerging during the next legislative year is likely and CPOA will work with any author to make sure that any legislation brought fourth is well thought out and not simply a hasty reaction to specific events."


In a May 20, 2013 post they stated "CPOA has been tracking 25 pieces of legislation pertaining to gun/ammunition and will begin taking formal positions at the end of May." So far, I haven't seen them take any formal positions beyond "watch" but I expect they will soon. Rest assured they are doing a lot of lobbying behind the scenes to get the bills crafted to their liking.

Watch the site in the coming days, we should see them state their positions as the current crop of bills get nailed down and brought to the floor.

Since you're an officer I suggest you contact them directly, they'll communicate with you, they won't communicate with me. I really urge you to do so. They claim to represent California peace officers so if enough officers actually call them and express opposition to all these gun control laws they may actually oppose them. That said, they don't support ALL gun control laws but they historically have not supported any increase in 2A rights that I've seen. The CPOA is in Sacramento talking to lawmakers and telling them that they represent the rank and file law enforcement officers of CA and they're telling them that you support stronger gun control. If you don't, you need to let the CPOA know that.

Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-06-2013 at 2:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-06-2013, 5:21 PM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

once again, cops are caught guns smuggling:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/...muggling-ring/

and the rest of us will pay....
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

"I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!!!" A Few Good Men
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:45 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Someone wrote,
Quote:
As for taking up sides on legislation... Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California????
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Yes, the California Peace Officers Association (www.cpoa.org) not only supports gun control bills, they on occasion help draft them.
As SVT−40 has pointed out, citing a website and saying this does not make it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Some history I have found on the site:
Please provide proof. This means that you supply the links to the statements that you are quoting.

nwgunslinger says that he's quoting from the site,
Quote:
AB 1527 would ban the open carry of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. There are several exemptions including an honorably retired peace officer authorized to openly carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun. This bill is currently with the Governor awaiting action. CPOA is in support of this bill.

In reference to SB249 by Yee which died last year: " The probability of this type of legislation emerging during the next legislative year is likely and CPOA will work with any author to make sure that any legislation brought fourth is well thought out and not simply a hasty reaction to specific events."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
In a May 20, 2013 post they stated "CPOA has been tracking 25 pieces of legislation pertaining to gun/ammunition and will begin taking formal positions at the end of May." So far, I haven't seen them take any formal positions beyond "watch" but I expect they will soon. Rest assured they are doing a lot of lobbying behind the scenes to get the bills crafted to their liking.
Let's go back to my original statement on this. "police unions don't take political stands except as it directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." It should be obvious that I was talking about associations of officers who work at a police department.

Now you bring up the CPOA. So let's look at some facts. Some of this is from their site, www.cpoa.org
  • The CPOA does not have anything to do with negotiating for officers on local matters of pay or working conditions.
  • The CPOA does not represent any single agency's officers.
  • The CPOA has about 3,000 members. According to stats from 2000 there are just under 74,000 sworn police officers in California. The CPOA membership is 4% of the sworn officers in the state. BUT WAIT ...
  • Those 3,000 members ARE NOT all sworn police officers. ANYONE can join. We have no idea how many of these 3,000 are actually sworn police officers. Making even that 4% figure, doubtful. BUT WAIT ...
  • Their site states "CPOA has over 3,000 members of all ranks from municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies from throughout the state of California. (Note that police unions represent the rank and file for the most part. Some include sergeants, but for the most part, the administrators and executives have their own unions). There is no indication of how many of those members are police executives or administrators!

As if all that wasn't enough for you, here's a list of their BOD (Board of Directors)
  • President − Rick Braziel
    Chief of Police, retired
    Sacramento Police Department
  • 1st Vice President − Rich Lucero
    Chief of Police
    Fremont Police Department
  • 2nd Vice President − Mark Yokoyama
    Chief of Police
    Alhambra Police Department
  • 3rd Vice President − Scott Jones
    Sheriff
    Sacramento Co. Sheriff's Department
  • Treasurer − David McGill
    Assistant Chief
    Newport Beach Police Department
  • Parliamentarian − Erik Maness
    Chief Deputy
    Sacramento Co. Sheriff's Department

The lowest ranking officer on the BOD is a captain. Are you seeing a pattern here? Do you see any rank and file officers here?

I think it's pretty clear that this IS NOT what ANYONE is talking about when referring to "police unions." Yes, the CPOA bears the name "Association." But it's obvious that no one is talking about such a group.

And AGAIN, as I, and others have said, OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms."

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Watch the site in the coming days, we should see them state their positions as the current crop of bills get nailed down and brought to the floor.
It makes no difference. They're not a police union, they have a very small membership, and that membership is not just police officers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Since you're an officer I suggest you contact them directly, they'll communicate with you, they won't communicate with me. I really urge you to do so. They claim to represent California peace officers so if enough officers actually call them and express opposition to all these gun control laws they may actually oppose them.
This statement utterly absurd. They only care what their members say, not police officers who are not members. What a waste of time this would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
That said, they don't support ALL gun control laws but they historically have not supported any increase in 2A rights that I've seen. The CPOA is in Sacramento talking to lawmakers and telling them that they represent the rank and file law enforcement officers of CA and they're telling them that you support stronger gun control. If you don't, you need to let the CPOA know that.
More absurdity. They don't give a darn what anyone says but their leadership. And that leadership is AGAIN completely made up of police executives and administrators.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-06-2013, 8:38 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Someone wrote,



As SVT−40 has pointed out, citing a website and saying this does not make it so.



Please provide proof. This means that you supply the links to the statements that you are quoting.

nwgunslinger says that he's quoting from the site,



Let's go back to my original statement on this. "police unions don't take political stands except as it directly affects their members on such matters as pay and working conditions." It should be obvious that I was talking about associations of officers who work at a police department.

Now you bring up the CPOA. So let's look at some facts. Some of this is from their site, www.cpoa.org
  • The CPOA does not have anything to do with negotiating for officers on local matters of pay or working conditions.
  • The CPOA does not represent any single agency's officers.
  • The CPOA has about 3,000 members. According to stats from 2000 there are just under 74,000 sworn police officers in California. The CPOA membership is 4% of the sworn officers in the state. BUT WAIT ...
  • Those 3,000 members ARE NOT all sworn police officers. ANYONE can join. We have no idea how many of these 3,000 are actually sworn police officers. Making even that 4% figure, doubtful. BUT WAIT ...
  • Their site states "CPOA has over 3,000 members of all ranks from municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies from throughout the state of California. (Note that police unions represent the rank and file for the most part. Some include sergeants, but for the most part, the administrators and executives have their own unions). There is no indication of how many of those members are police executives or administrators!

As if all that wasn't enough for you, here's a list of their BOD (Board of Directors)
  • President − Rick Braziel
    Chief of Police, retired
    Sacramento Police Department
  • 1st Vice President − Rich Lucero
    Chief of Police
    Fremont Police Department
  • 2nd Vice President − Mark Yokoyama
    Chief of Police
    Alhambra Police Department
  • 3rd Vice President − Scott Jones
    Sheriff
    Sacramento Co. Sheriff's Department
  • Treasurer − David McGill
    Assistant Chief
    Newport Beach Police Department
  • Parliamentarian − Erik Maness
    Chief Deputy
    Sacramento Co. Sheriff's Department

The lowest ranking officer on the BOD is a captain. Are you seeing a pattern here? Do you see any rank and file officers here?

I think it's pretty clear that this IS NOT what ANYONE is talking about when referring to "police unions." Yes, the CPOA bears the name "Association." But it's obvious that no one is talking about such a group.

And AGAIN, as I, and others have said, OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms."



It makes no difference. They're not a police union, they have a very small membership, and that membership is not just police officers.



This statement utterly absurd. They only care what their members say, not police officers who are not members. What a waste of time this would be.



More absurdity. They don't give a darn what anyone says but their leadership. And that leadership is AGAIN completely made up of police executives and administrators.
My response was to SVT-40's question "Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California???? " I responded with the CPOA which is an LEO association.

You say it makes no difference but it does. They are an organization that tells lawmakers that they are representing the rank and file officers of CA. The lawmakers believe that and listen to them. They have the ear of the lawmakers and that's what makes it matter. yes, their actual membership may be small but they get heard by the lawmakers and that matters a lot. It's obvious that lawmakers don't listen to us. Yes, their board is made up of admin types but their claim is that they represent ALL officers. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter if the legislature believes it's true.

I personally don't think it would be a waste of time if officers called them and made their opinions known. I think it would be more effective than any regular citizen calling Yee or Steinberg.

You have said that OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms."

That hasn't been my experience here in CA. There are many but not an overwhelming number. I will often engage officers in conversations about this when I see them at a coffee shop or other place where it might be appropriate to just talk to them. If I'm up here in the mountains then yes, just about every one of them is supportive of 2A rights. Down in the bay area, not so much. Most of the officers I've spoken with down there (Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View) believe that they are better off if no citizen has guns outside the home and generally think that no one outside LE should have "assault weapons". This is the biggest difference I've seen between LE in CA and LE in WA where I lived prior to here. In WA the law enforcement community really did support the peoples rights. More than that, they actively and openly opposed gun control regs and they let the lawmakers there know it. The result is that gun control democrats get no traction even though they control both houses and the governors office.

If we are ever going to win the gun rights battle in CA we need the LE community to be more like they are in WA. They need to actively oppose these laws and actively support rights. The people, the average citizen, in this state no longer matter on this issue. If you ask any democrat in Sacramento if law enforcement supports the gun control laws they're considering they will answer "yes". If you ask a random citizen who isn't into guns or shooting if law enforcement supports strong gun control most of them will answer "yes". Even if it's not true, it's the perception and that is helping to rapidly erode our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-06-2013, 10:40 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
My response was to SVT-40's question "Can you please post any proof regarding any LEO association supporting any gun control legislation here in California???? " I responded with the CPOA which is an LEO association.
I'd bet that if you were to ask SVT−40, he'd say that he was talking about the same kind of POA (Police Officer's Association) that I was, a union that represents the officers of a department in labor negotiations and the like, NOT a PAC (Political Action Committee) which is all the CPOA is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
You say it makes no difference but it does. They are an organization that tells lawmakers that they are representing the rank and file officers of CA.
I can form an organization with another cop and make the same statement. It means nothing. The legislators know who they're dealing with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
The lawmakers believe that and listen to them.
Please supply proof that legislators "believe that and listen to them." The truth is that legislators "listen to" anyone who agrees with them and they ignore those who disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
They have the ear of the lawmakers and that's what makes it matter. yes, their actual membership may be small but they get heard by the lawmakers and that matters a lot.
Again, please provide proof of this. I'd ask you to show us someplace that they've changed a legislator's mind about something. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and I don't agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
It's obvious that lawmakers don't listen to us.
Of course the legislators don't listen to us, they have an opposite opinion from us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Yes, their board is made up of admin types but their claim is that they represent ALL officers.
Again, proof please. They may say that they represent all ranks of police officers but no one with a shred of common sense (which may exempt most CA legislators) realize that NO organization speaks for all the police officers in the state. You greatly overestimate their importance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Whether that's true or not doesn't matter if the legislature believes it's true.
We're completely lacking in any proof that the "legislature believes it's true." Got any?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I personally don't think it would be a waste of time if officers called them and made their opinions known. I think it would be more effective than any regular citizen calling Yee or Steinberg.
I disagree. I think that calling any of the parties under discussion would be a complete waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
You have said that OVERWHELMINGLY the rank and file LEO's in CA support the right "of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Yep, that's correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
That hasn't been my experience here in CA. There are many but not an overwhelming number. I will often engage officers in conversations about this when I see them at a coffee shop or other place where it might be appropriate to just talk to them. If I'm up here in the mountains then yes, just about every one of them is supportive of 2A rights. Down in the bay area, not so much. Most of the officers I've spoken with down there (Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View) believe that they are better off if no citizen has guns outside the home and generally think that no one outside LE should have "assault weapons".
I'd suggest that you talk to some cops out of the bay area. It's a very small, very liberal part of the state and in MANY THINGS, they think differently than the rest of the state. On my department of about 130 sworn officers, we had one officer who thought that we'd be better off if civilians didn't have guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
If we are ever going to win the gun rights battle in CA we need the LE community to be more like they are in WA. They need to actively oppose these laws and actively support rights.
Not gonna happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
The people, the average citizen, in this state no longer matter on this issue. If you ask any democrat in Sacramento if law enforcement supports the gun control laws they're considering they will answer "yes".
Of course they will. Just about every LE executive in the state has taken a stand to support such laws. The legislators either think that the rank and file falls in line with them or, just as likely, they don't care. They have the support of the Chiefs and Sheriffs and don't care what the individual officers think. Individual officers or officers' unions telling them that they don't support those laws, will have no effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
If you ask a random citizen who isn't into guns or shooting if law enforcement supports strong gun control most of them will answer "yes". Even if it's not true, it's the perception and that is helping to rapidly erode our rights.
See above.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 09-07-2013, 4:35 AM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to stay in a state of denial about the CPOA feel free.

They exist. They're a lobbying organization in Sacramento. The lawmakers listen to them.

You're statement that the open support for gun rights and open opposition to gun control laws is "never gonna happen" says it all. That's why CA laws are so different from surrounding states. LE in other states don't have that attitude. The position that LE takes on gun laws carries a lot of weight with lawmakers, far more than that of any other lobbying group.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 09-07-2013, 6:36 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to stay in a state of denial about the CPOA feel free.
No denial here. You are wrong about the CPOA. They are not the kind of "union/association" that anyone was talking about. They are not representative of rank and file LEO's, the people in LE who support "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The entire board of directors consists of active or retired Chief of Police, Sheriffs or other administrators, and they set the tone for the organization. If you think that the rank and file determine the agenda of this group, YOU are the one in denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
They exist.
Yes, they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
They're a lobbying organization in Sacramento.
Yes they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
The lawmakers listen to them.
The "lawmakers listen to them" when they agree with them. When they don't, they don't. And I noticed that you completely have avoided my request for proof that it works any other way, making your point highly doubtful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
You're statement that the open support for gun rights and open opposition to gun control laws is "never gonna happen" says it all.
Iím facing facts and you're living in la la land. Police "unions/associations" are not political action groups. They never have been and they never will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
That's why CA laws are so different from surrounding states.
Tripe. CA laws are so different from surrounding states because the major population areas of the state have become so liberal. They've elected the most liberal legislators of ANY of the rest of the states, with the possible exceptions of other states extremely liberal population centers such as US, New York, Colorado, or Illinois. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Police "unions/associations" have not taken up an "open opposition to gun control laws." I'd ask for proof for support of this bizarre opinion, again that's all it is, your opinion, but you've said that you're out of this discussion. But if you decide to post again, please support your opinion with proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
LE in other states don't have that attitude.
Another opinion masquerading as fact. Please supply us with proof that Police "unions/associations" in other states have come out in open opposition to gun control laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
The position that LE takes on gun laws carries a lot of weight with lawmakers, far more than that of any other lobbying group.
MORE NONSENSE. AGAIN, please provide proof to support this opinion. Without it, your statements are just your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 09-07-2013, 6:38 AM
Hogstir Hogstir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the rank and file officers support 2a rights why don't they donate a little money and form their own political lobby organization which can lobby for 2A rights without danger to their careers?
Having an LEO pro 2A organization to counter the lobby efforts of the anti rights Chiefs associations might be a big help.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 09-07-2013, 6:47 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
If the rank and file officers support 2a rights why don't they donate a little money and form their own political lobby organization which can lobby for 2A rights without danger to their careers?
Having an LEO pro 2A organization to counter the lobby efforts of the anti rights Chiefs associations might be a big help.
I'd suggest that rank and file cops are generally not activists or politicians. While they support the right, there's no drive to be politically active about it.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 09-07-2013, 2:51 PM
nwgunslinger nwgunslinger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
No denial here. You are wrong about the CPOA. They are not the kind of "union/association" that anyone was talking about. They are not representative of rank and file LEO's, the people in LE who support "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The entire board of directors consists of active or retired Chief of Police, Sheriffs or other administrators, and they set the tone for the organization. If you think that the rank and file determine the agenda of this group, YOU are the one in denial.



Yes, they do.



Yes they are.



The "lawmakers listen to them" when they agree with them. When they don't, they don't. And I noticed that you completely have avoided my request for proof that it works any other way, making your point highly doubtful.



I’m facing facts and you're living in la la land. Police "unions/associations" are not political action groups. They never have been and they never will be.



Tripe. CA laws are so different from surrounding states because the major population areas of the state have become so liberal. They've elected the most liberal legislators of ANY of the rest of the states, with the possible exceptions of other states extremely liberal population centers such as US, New York, Colorado, or Illinois. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Police "unions/associations" have not taken up an "open opposition to gun control laws." I'd ask for proof for support of this bizarre opinion, again that's all it is, your opinion, but you've said that you're out of this discussion. But if you decide to post again, please support your opinion with proof.



Another opinion masquerading as fact. Please supply us with proof that Police "unions/associations" in other states have come out in open opposition to gun control laws.





MORE NONSENSE. AGAIN, please provide proof to support this opinion. Without it, your statements are just your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
WACOPS (www.wacops.org) is one of the LE Lobbying organizations in WA and is made up of "law enforcement guilds from across the state"

As an example of the kind of LE support gun rights receive in WA, a WACOPS rep appeared at a hearing on HB-1016 in 2011. According to another hearing attendee: "He also gave healthy support to the notion that civilians should be able to use silencers too".

That's the kind of support WA officers show publicly.

The bill passed and became law. WA residents can now legally own and use suppressors. To date, as far as I've been able to determine, not one single crime has been committed with a lawfully owned suppressor.

Is there an organization similar to WACOPS in CA? I hope so and if there is I'd like to give them money !!


I left WA over a year ago. I don't know what "proof" you would require that Seattle and other population centers in WA are liberal but in my "opinion", they are just as liberal as CA population centers.

As for lawmakers listening to LEOs, I asked my rep personally if they weighed the opinions of LEOs more that that of regular citizens and he said "It depends. On matters of public safety, absolutely an officer's opinion carries more weight. in other matters, no it does not." Of course I have no "proof" of this conversation with Rep. Reichert. I did not tape it, I did not transcribe it and have him sign it and I suspect that is the only proof you would accept.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you guys about CPOA. In fact, I think the CPOA is a pretty good organization. If you take the time to look at all that they do in Sacramento on behalf of law enforcement officers I think you might agree. They are there for you and I think they work hard on behalf of all CA officers. I just happen to think that on this issue they are wrong and I think it would help if LEOs called them and told them basically that. If you called and said "Hey guys, Thanks for all you do for us. It's appreciated. But on the gun issue I think you're wrong." I don't believe any harm could come from that call and it just might help in our fight for our rights.


I don't understand why you want to be so argumentative about this. This is a discussion board, not a court room subject to rules of evidence. Most of what we speak here is opinion and recollections based on experience and attempts to convey perceptions that exist.

Last edited by nwgunslinger; 09-07-2013 at 4:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 09-07-2013, 5:04 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,724
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I don't understand why you want to be so argumentative about this. This is a discussion board, not a court room subject to rules of evidence. Most of what we speak here is opinion and recollections based on experience and attempts to convey perceptions that exist.
You are wasting your time with bigger hammer.

The only experience he will consider as fact is his own.

You could have 270 pages of documented and notarized incident reports, but bigger hammer will inform you that your evidence is unsatisfactory or subject to wide interpretation. According to bigger hammer, there is always another explanation for anything that may or may not have happened.

Even if you personally experienced some incident, he will refuse to acknowledge it ever happened, because he wasn't there.

Cue bigger hammer to school me in the errors of my ways.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 09-07-2013, 10:24 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
WACOPS (www.wacops.orgwww.wacops.org) is one of the LE Lobbying organizations in WA and is made up of "law enforcement guilds from across the state"

Is there an organization similar to WACOPS in CA? I hope so and if there is I'd like to give them money !!
I don't know anything about this organization but I took a look at their site. I find the lack of information about the "Officers and Staff info" kind of mysterious. The LEA's that those folks are from are mentioned but none of them are pictured in uniform and neither their rank, nor their assignment is given. Are these people even LEO's? Are they rank and file? Are they administrators? Are they Chiefs or other Executives. One can't tell. Why would they conceal this information?

Some of them may not be. One works for the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, although I realize that there may be some sworn officers in such a position.

In order to view the "Executive Board Bios" one must be a registered member. Why would this information not be available to the general public on their website? Such info certainly is available to anyone who visit the CPOA website or the website for other police unions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I left WA over a year ago. I don't know what "proof" you would require that Seattle and other population centers in WA are liberal but in my "opinion", they are just as liberal as CA population centers.
Again you're welcome to your opinion and again, you're wrong. Let's just look at one example of the degree of liberalism. There are 21 "Sanctuary Cities" in California, cities where the condition of being an illegal alien is "overlooked." THAT'S MORE THAN ANY OTHER STATE. Washington has two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
As for lawmakers listening to LEOs, I asked my rep personally if they weighed the opinions of LEOs more that that of regular citizens and he said "It depends. On matters of public safety, absolutely an officer's opinion carries more weight. in other matters, no it does not." Of course I have no "proof" of this conversation with Rep. Reichert. I did not tape it, I did not transcribe it and have him sign it and I suspect that is the only proof you would accept.
I have no doubt that this conversation took place. I do wonder about you simply accepting his response though. Do you think that a legislator might ever tell one of his constituents what he thought that constituent wanted to hear ? Are you really this naÔve?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you guys about CPOA. In fact, I think the CPOA is a pretty good organization.
I'll disagree. I've not been impressed by them at all. It's a bunch of Chiefs and Executives serving their own ends, pretending to represent the rank and file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
If you take the time to look at all that they do in Sacramento on behalf of law enforcement officers I think you might agree.
I don't think the good outweighs the bad. And given that this thread is about LEO's supporting our Second Amendment rights, which they do not, I'm kinda surprised that you brought them up. Interestingly you brought them up to support the argument that LEO organizations do not support gun rights, that the opposite is true, that they support gun control legislation. Your first statement about the CPOA was
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
Yes, the California Peace Officers Association (www.cpoa.org) not only supports gun control bills, they on occasion help draft them.
SUDDENLY now that this organization has been shown for what it really is, a bunch of self serving police executives and administrators, you talk about how much they do for LE, conveniently overlooking the reason that you brought them to our attention!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
They are there for you
They are there for themselves. And given their anti gun positions, I'll have nothing to do with them. Feel free to support them all you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I think it would help if LEOs called them and told them basically that. If you called and said "Hey guys, Thanks for all you do for us. It's appreciated. But on the gun issue I think you're wrong."
I don't think it would do any good. Their BOD does not hold positions in opposition to gun laws and that's not about to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
I don't understand why you want to be so argumentative about this.
YOU are the one misstating the facts and twisting things to your own end. I'm just pointing it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwgunslinger View Post
This is a discussion board, not a court room subject to rules of evidence. Most of what we speak here is opinion and recollections based on experience and attempts to convey perceptions that exist.
Yes, I know. But when one spouts a nonsense opinion as fact, it needs to be supported if you want anyone to accept it and agree with it. When I ask for support for your contentious statements and you fail to provide it, or worse, twist the main thrust of a discussion in a vain attempt to make yourself right, YOU are the one who is being argumentative. Again, I'm just pointing it out.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-07-2013, 10:25 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
You are wasting your time with bigger hammer.

The only experience he will consider as fact is his own.
A lie if there ever was one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
You could have 270 pages of documented and notarized incident reports, but bigger hammer will inform you that your evidence is unsatisfactory or subject to wide interpretation. According to bigger hammer, there is always another explanation for anything that may or may not have happened.
Wrong AGAIN, Not "always" is there another explanation, but often there is. You are just blind to any other explanation for something happening, than the one you've formed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Even if you personally experienced some incident, he will refuse to acknowledge it ever happened, because he wasn't there.
Another lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Cue bigger hammer to school me in the errors of my ways.
No cue needed. You're just butt hurt because I've spanked you so soundly in previous discussions and you're not man enough to admit it. And so, you take these cheap shots. No facts. No substance. No honesty. No integrity. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Just shoddy personal attacks. You just revealed the kind of person you are. I'm not the slightest bit surprised.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-08-2013, 6:21 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd suggest that you follow your own advice. I provided the FULL CONTEXT of what you wrote. I just responded to each statement separately.
So, let me get this straight: You respond to a post that's not directly addressed to you, that's over a topic which goes at least a page back, and somehow it's my fault that you flew off the handle and responded without being informed? Do you happen to strongly identify with Barack Obama on issues such as personal responsibility?

Quote:
Nope, you're wrong. The law is based on technicalities. In CA, for example, to be guilty of burglary one must have the intent to commit a theft (or other felony) AT THE TIME OF ENTRY. If that intent can't be established, burglary has not been committed.
Oh, OK. So no one can be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon unless there is intent to commit a crime with it? Got it!

Quote:
Similarly since ONLY SCOTUS has the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, until they make that decision, a law is technically constitutional.
OK, so we went from intent to SCOTUS and constitutionality in one fell swoop, but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Since we're in the mood of coming up with bizare parallels, how about this one: A man who just fell off an 80 story building is not dead unless there is someone there to declare him dead? We can have everyone live forever if we just forbid people from declaring others to be dead! Technically, of course.

Quote:
Too late. They're already connected and you're wrong.
And let me guess, next you were going the say "I win," maybe followed by "you suck." I guess you are used to winning arguments by virtue of loudness rather than substance, right?

Quote:
Still wrong. It's only your opinion that a law "blatantly violates civil rights." ONLY SCOTUS makes the decision on this. Pretty funny how you keep trying to twist these, very simple facts.
Again with the appeal to authority fallacies. I guess that's why no one who's ever challenged a law based on constitutionality had been right, before.


Quote:
You admit that you've not spoken to your "local CLEO" and take the OPINION of (no doubt a small number of) "local deputies" that "SEEM TO INDICATE" their boss' opinion. Could you throw in a few more weasel words in this attempt to make yourself appear to be right? I don't think so.

This is what I said. To remind you, "I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional."

They get to express their opinions, just as you do. Don't those folks have a 1st Amendment right, or is that ANOTHER part of the Constitution that doesn't apply.

So in response to my request to "give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is 'fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law.' " you give us the vague, unsupported opinion of "more than one officer?" Sorry, but this HARDLY supports your argument on any dependable or reasonable level.
No, but when deputies happen to reply with the same liturgy about constitutionality and technicalities and "we know CA law is wrong but..." to justify themselves, you know it's coming from higher up. The sheriff in this particular case has billed himself as a "Constitutional" sheriff (his words), yet so far has refused to answers all questions specific to the constitutionality of the 2A posed to him in public forums so far but actions speak louder than words. How about you try that, too? Why don't you get a politician to tell YOU the truth about how he thinks?

But "constitutional" sheriffs that disregard the 2A are a pet peeve of mine. They're not the main topic of discussion. So, more to the main point that you so poorly understood at the beginning: You seem to be claiming that because a law has technically not been declared unconstitutional, no harm has been committed if applied, even if that law is later deemed unconstitutional, right? Please, no more bigger and bigger stammer responses. Let's try to keep the response brief.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-08-2013, 6:21 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,724
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post

No cue needed. You're just butt hurt because I've spanked you so soundly in previous discussions and you're not man enough to admit it. And so, you take these cheap shots. No facts. No substance. No honesty. No integrity. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Just shoddy personal attacks. You just revealed the kind of person you are. I'm not the slightest bit surprised.
On the contrary. I am not "butt hurt" at all. In our previous conversations, I have observed that you appear to be well versed in putting people in their place and have a hard time admitting you are wrong. In fact, I think you are incapable of accepting that you may be wrong.

No personal attacks, just pointing out to the other poster that it can be difficult to have a conversation with you because you believe your position is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Again, not a personal attack, but my observation based upon what you post.

You state that I cannot accept any explanation other than the one I have already formed, but I would say the same applies to you, although you must always take it to the extreme. I will certainly accept an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic. Sometimes the sky is just blue, and arguing about the probability that it isn't makes for difficult conversation.

No honesty or integrity? I assure you that you are wrong in that assumption, but you will argue that as well. Please accept my apologies for disturbing the tranquility of 'your' thread.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-08-2013, 4:39 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
So, let me get this straight: You respond to a post that's not directly addressed to you,
Yeah, that's now forums work. Anyone can respond to any post. If you want to carry on a private conversation ... that's what PM's and email are for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
that's over a topic which goes at least a page back
That too is how forums work. Anyone can respond at anytime to any post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
and somehow it's my fault that you flew off the handle and responded without being informed?
I neither "flew off the handle" nor did I respond "without being informed."

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
The law is based on technicalities. In CA, for example, to be guilty of burglary one must have the intent to commit a theft (or other felony) AT THE TIME OF ENTRY. If that intent can't be established, burglary has not been committed. Similarly since ONLY SCOTUS has the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, until they make that decision, a law is technically constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
Oh, OK. So no one can be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon unless there is intent to commit a crime with it? Got it!
It's hard to believe that someone will deliberately try and twist a conversation in a vain effort to make himself right, but here we are. Do you think that the readers are really buying this?

I'll go slowly so you can keep up. When I wrote that the law is based on technicalities it was an obvious reference to the fact that ONLY SCOTUS makes a decision as to whether a law in constitutional or not,. NOT YOU, not me, and not anyone else. Note the last part of my statement, which directly address this issue. "Similarly since ONLY SCOTUS has the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, until they make that decision, a law is technically constitutional." The fact is that until SCOTUS makes this decision, laws are technically considered under the law to be constitutional. They were not unconstitutional until that moment.

Now to my example of "the technicality of the law" which obviously was too deep for you. I was illustrating the concept of this "technicality" with the definition of burglary. The intent part of the statement applied to burglary, not to all laws. If you had even the most basic understanding of the law you'd know that some crimes are "specific intent," that is, in order to have committed a crime one must have the intent to commit the crime ALONG with a physical act. Other crimes are general intent and one merely has to commit the physical act. With those crimes intent is not necessary. Burglary is an example of a specific intent law and CCW (without a permit) is a general intent crime. So, yes, you can be arrested for CCW without a permit, without the intent to commit a crime. There, that should be easy to understand, even for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
OK, so we went from intent to SCOTUS and constitutionality in one fell swoop
Yes, we did. It was an explanation of how technicalities exist in the law. Sorry that you weren't able to keep up. When writing for you I'll try and keep it simpler from now on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
And let me guess, next you were going the say "I win," maybe followed by "you suck." I guess you are used to winning arguments by virtue of loudness rather than substance, right?
I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is right and which of us is wrong. I feel no need to either declare victory or use such rudeness. "[L]oudness?" I think we're both writing at the same "volume" here. As to "substance ... " you're seriously lacking.

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
You admit that you've not spoken to your "local CLEO" and take the OPINION of (no doubt a small number of) "local deputies" that "SEEM TO INDICATE" their boss' opinion. Could you throw in a few more weasel words in this attempt to make yourself appear to be right? I don't think so.

This is what I said. To remind you, "I think that you'll find that they believe that the laws that they're having their officers enforce, are constitutional."

They get to express their opinions, just as you do. Don't those folks have a 1st Amendment right, or is that ANOTHER part of the Constitution that doesn't apply.

So in response to my request to "give us an example of when this has happened. And this means proving that the CLEO is 'fully aware of the likely unconstitutionality of [the] law.' " you give us the vague, unsupported opinion of "more than one officer?" Sorry, but this HARDLY supports your argument on any dependable or reasonable level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
No, but when deputies happen to reply with the same liturgy about constitutionality and technicalities and "we know CA law is wrong but..." to justify themselves, you know it's coming from higher up.
Sorry but you don't know this. Perhaps they don't know. Or perhaps they're just passing the buck because they don't want to get into this kind of discussion with you. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
The sheriff in this particular case has billed himself as a "Constitutional" sheriff (his words), yet so far has refused to answers all questions specific to the constitutionality of the 2A posed to him in public forums.
Here's a hint, he's not required to answer any "2A [questions] posed to him in public forums." I've asked you a couple of questions that you've not answered. You insinuate that he's hiding, are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
You seem to be claiming that because a law has technically not been declared unconstitutional, no harm has been committed if applied
Still as confused as ever I see. Since YOU seem to think that I'm "claiming" this, please show us a post where I made such a "claim." Here's ANOTHER situation that you probably will run and hide from. The topic of "harm" has not arisen in anything I've said.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 09-08-2013, 4:40 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
On the contrary. I am not "butt hurt" at all. In our previous conversations, I have observed that you appear to be well versed in putting people in their place and have a hard time admitting you are wrong. In fact, I think you are incapable of accepting that you may be wrong.
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong? I've been wrong a couple of time on this forum. When it's proven, I quickly admit it, apologize, and move on. For example, in the thread titled, "Retired Marine Colonel speaks on the Militarization of American LEO" I misunderstood something that another poster had said. When I discovered this error I wrote, "Well I sure blew that. I misread your post and thought that you were saying this. Apologies."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
No personal attacks, just pointing out to the other poster that it can be difficult to have a conversation with you because you believe your position is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Again, not a personal attack, but my observation based upon what you post.
WRONG AGAIN! I don't think that my "position is always right and everyone else is always wrong." Those who agree with me are as right as I am. ROFL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
You state that I cannot accept any explanation other than the one I have already formed, but I would say the same applies to you, although you must always take it to the extreme. I will certainly accept an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic. Sometimes the sky is just blue, and arguing about the probability that it isn't makes for difficult conversation.
Can you not see that sometimes the sky is not blue? In space, it's black. At times of inclement weather it may be gray or black. In a whiteout, it's white. You hardly have the market cornered on saying how things actually are. My perception is that you think that you're always right. Do you have an example of you "accept[ing] an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic." that you previously disagreed with? I can't recall it happening. Going back to our previous discussion where your BIL had his house raided, I gave several explanations for what happened. I don't recall you [i]"accept[ing] any of them. Is my memory faulty on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
No honesty or integrity? I assure you that you are wrong in that assumption
There was a complete absence of honesty, integrity, or substance in your post that I replied to. Perhaps elsewhere in your life it exists, in that post, not at all. It consisted of two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
but you will argue that as well.
Of course I will. You're wrong AGAIN! LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Please accept my apologies for disturbing the tranquility of 'your' thread.
I think that your "sarcasm" mode is full on. So I won't "accept [your] apology." And it's hardly "[my] thread." I think this is gobler's thread.

But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 09-08-2013, 7:55 PM
USMC0621 USMC0621 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: so cal
Posts: 352
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
Senator Leland Yee alone received donations from the following agencies.
  • CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY PATROLMEN
  • CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
  • CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION
  • SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION FUND
  • SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SF POA)

SF POA is hardly an executive association with it's members ranging from traffic division to admin staff.

Yeah dude these are the unions. Doesn't mean we actually support Yee. We have no say so.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 09-08-2013, 8:05 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,724
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong? I've been wrong a couple of time on this forum. When it's proven, I quickly admit it, apologize, and move on. For example, in the thread titled, "Retired Marine Colonel speaks on the Militarization of American LEO" I misunderstood something that another poster had said. When I discovered this error I wrote, "Well I sure blew that. I misread your post and thought that you were saying this. Apologies."
Wow. A couple of times. Imagine that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
WRONG AGAIN! I don't think that my "position is always right and everyone else is always wrong." Those who agree with me are as right as I am. ROFL.
How many time have you typed, "You're wrong!" in this forum. More than a couple, I would wager.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Can you not see that sometimes the sky is not blue? In space, it's black. At times of inclement weather it may be gray or black. In a whiteout, it's white. You hardly have the market cornered on saying how things actually are.
Certainly there are times the sky is not blue. But during the times it is, you would be supplying alternate explanations to inform us it is not what it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
My perception is that you think that you're always right. Do you have an example of you "accept[ing] an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic." that you previously disagreed with? I can't recall it happening.
Sure, during some of those pot grower threads. Some of the arguments actually convinced me that it should be legalized, therefore reducing illicit demand and the negative activity that surrounds the grow sites. It seems reasonable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Going back to our previous discussion where your BIL had his house raided, I gave several explanations for what happened. I don't recall you [i]"accept[ing] any of them. Is my memory faulty on that?
Not at all. I don't accept any of your explanations because they are not valid. You provided a half-dozen reasons why a team of LEO would fail to comprehend a clearly written warrant and serve the residence next door to the intended target. But none of those reasons applied to the situation. Nor did they explain why the team would continue to batter the door when the occupant repeatedly offered them the key. I am sure your justifications make sense in your mind, but they do not apply to reality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
There was a complete absence of honesty, integrity, or substance in your post that I replied to. Perhaps elsewhere in your life it exists, in that post, not at all. It consisted of two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks.
I am not surprised that is how you see it. You have no problem judging others, but can't accept being judged.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Of course I will. You're wrong AGAIN! LOL.
Of course. How could you have it any other way?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion?
Sounds good to me. Unless I am wrong. I'm sure you will let me know.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 09-08-2013, 8:14 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,724
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC0621 View Post
Yeah dude these are the unions. Doesn't mean we actually support Yee. We have no say so.
The same issue with other public unions exists. They don't speak for the rank & file but have no problem using member contributions to support the clowns in office.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 09-09-2013, 7:17 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Wow. A couple of times. Imagine that.
Yep I'm usually careful to say that I'm stating an opinion when I make statements that are based on my opinion. YOU OTOH often state your opinion as if it was a fact. And often you have your facts wrong. For example, you said, "The only experience [ I ] will consider is [my] own." The FACT is that anytime someone gives their experience I "consider" it. In our previous discussion where you talked about your BIL's experience, I never denied that something happened. I gave alternative explanations for the ones that you drew from that experience and I pointed out that accuracy in our recollection of an incident is colored by our own perception.

You also wrote, "Even if you personally experienced some incident, he will refuse to acknowledge it ever happened, because he wasn't there." Again, referring to your BIL's experience, I never "refuse[d] to acknowledge that it ... happened."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
How many time have you typed, "You're wrong!" in this forum. More than a couple, I would wager.
Quite a few. We have quite a few people expressing their opinion as fact and we have quite a few people getting their facts wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Certainly there are times the sky is not blue. But during the times it is, you would be supplying alternate explanations to inform us it is not what it seems.
YOU'RE WRONG. ROFL. When the sky is blue, it's blue. When it's another color and someone says that it's blue, they're wrong. Typically sky is blue in due to moisture in the air refracting the light from the sun. But when there is no moisture in the air, as in outer space, there is an "alternate explanation" for the fact that then, the sky is black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Sure, during some of those pot grower threads. Some of the arguments actually convinced me that it should be legalized, therefore reducing illicit demand and the negative activity that surrounds the grow sites. It seems reasonable.
It's good to know that you can change your mind after you reconsider evidence. Unfortunately I wasn't in those discussion to see it. I'll take your word for it. Oh wait, wasn't that one of the things that you said I don't do? ROFL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Not at all. I don't accept any of your explanations because they are not valid. You provided a half-dozen reasons why a team of LEO would fail to comprehend a clearly written warrant and serve the residence next door to the intended target. But none of those reasons applied to the situation.
I think that you're wrong again. I don't think that I "provided a half dozen reasons why a team of LEO would fail to comprehend a clearly written warrant and serve the residence next door to the intended target." Absent criminal intent, the only reason is that someone screwed up. They made a mistake. THAT was pointed out in that discussion. In our previous discussion I described a similar incident that my team was involved in and described it as "A clear case of poor LE work."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Nor did they explain why the team would continue to batter the door when the occupant repeatedly offered them the key. I am sure your justifications make sense in your mind, but they do not apply to reality.
Guess what, AGAIN, you're wrong. I'm sure that it makes sense to you, but that's because you AGAIN refused to accept the facts. In this case they were already "batter[ing] the door." They're not going to stop because someone says that they have the key. I did this once when I was new. It was nothing but a delaying tactic. The crook was trying to hinder our entry so that his GF could dispose of the evidence. That CERTAINLY DOES apply to reality. YOU are the one, denying reality here. AGAIN, I might add.

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
There was a complete absence of honesty, integrity, or substance in your post that I replied to. Perhaps elsewhere in your life it exists, in that post, not at all. It consisted of two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
I am not surprised that is how you see it. You have no problem judging others, but can't accept being judged.
Except that your post DID contain "two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks." That's not a case of me "being judged." It's a case of you lying, being wrong and making a couple of ad hominem attacks in an effort make yourself right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Of course. How could you have it any other way?
I'd just as soon have an argument where you're not wrong so often, but you keep doing it. LOL. It's not on me, it's on you.

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Sounds good to me. Unless I am wrong. I'm sure you will let me know.
Well instead of "get[ting] back to the discussion" you again took us down this road. I merely followed. I'm not about to let your lies and mistakes, particularly when they're about me, stand without putting the lie to them.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 09-09-2013, 7:18 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
The same issue with other public unions exists. They don't speak for the rank & file but have no problem using member contributions to support the clowns in office.
I'd suggest that you take a closer look at those contributions. I showed in Post #120 that they are specifically supporting their "members on such matters as pay and working conditions." These are not "I like your politics, here's some money" donations.

This is a matter of "Hate the game, not the player." These people may be distasteful, to put it mildly, but giving funds is how the "game" is played if one wants to sway their votes.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 09-09-2013, 7:39 AM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd suggest that rank and file cops are generally not activists or politicians. While they support the right, there's no drive to be politically active about it.
.....Because they are generally exempt from Ca's tyrannical laws. This is by design.

Last edited by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca; 09-09-2013 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 09-09-2013, 7:50 AM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
Wow. A couple of times. Imagine that.




How many time have you typed, "You're wrong!" in this forum. More than a couple, I would wager.




Certainly there are times the sky is not blue. But during the times it is, you would be supplying alternate explanations to inform us it is not what it seems.



Sure, during some of those pot grower threads. Some of the arguments actually convinced me that it should be legalized, therefore reducing illicit demand and the negative activity that surrounds the grow sites. It seems reasonable.




Not at all. I don't accept any of your explanations because they are not valid. You provided a half-dozen reasons why a team of LEO would fail to comprehend a clearly written warrant and serve the residence next door to the intended target. But none of those reasons applied to the situation. Nor did they explain why the team would continue to batter the door when the occupant repeatedly offered them the key. I am sure your justifications make sense in your mind, but they do not apply to reality.





I am not surprised that is how you see it. You have no problem judging others, but can't accept being judged.




Of course. How could you have it any other way?




Sounds good to me. Unless I am wrong. I'm sure you will let me know.
All I see is one excuse after another with some here. For some there is nothing that LE do that can't be explained away with some .
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 09-09-2013, 8:57 AM
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd suggest that you take a closer look at those contributions. I showed in Post #120 that they are specifically supporting their "members on such matters as pay and working conditions." These are not "I like your politics, here's some money" donations.

This is a matter of "Hate the game, not the player." These people may be distasteful, to put it mildly, but giving funds is how the "game" is played if one wants to sway their votes.
This argument doesn't sway me in the least: "We give them money because they support bill A, not for all that other stuff."

You want to reward a politician for their vote on a single bill or single subject, fine. But money is fungible. The politician doesn't spend that cash on print/radio/tv ads that only tout their vote on bill A. They don't list those groups as "bill A" supporters of theirs on their campaign website.

Perhaps what our 2A supporting LEOs need to do is get together and form a PAC--ask the CalGuns Foundation for assistance--and start speaking out as both LEOs AND 2A supporters. You'd have quite a bit of sway.

Stop telling us you're on the side of California citizen-ownership of firearms and start showing us.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:32 AM
Hogstir Hogstir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
I'd suggest that rank and file cops are generally not activists or politicians. While they support the right, there's no drive to be politically active about it.
The reason they are not politically active about it is that they keep getting exempted from everything. It's the " I've got mine so screw everyone else attitude".
This is a big reason why a lot of people resent police. The huge double standard. Exempt from virtually all the gun control laws and when they screw up they usually get little or no punishment. If a citizen uses a gun in self defense in his own home there is a very good chance he will be charged with something. Yet 2 officers fire over 100 rounds at some women simply delivering newspapers in a vehicle which did not match a suspects vehicle and they get their wrists slapped ( gently).
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:49 AM
IrishJoe3's Avatar
IrishJoe3 IrishJoe3 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,054
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
If a citizen uses a gun in self defense in his own home there is a very good chance he will be charged with something. Yet 2 officers fire over 100 rounds at some women simply delivering newspapers in a vehicle which did not match a suspects vehicle and they get their wrists slapped ( gently).
There is your fallacy. You have no proof that a legitimate case of self defense results in an arrest. I have even seen the county sheriff release press releases that defend the citizens use of lethal force. I have seen well intentioned citizens fire shots but who were clearly really really stupid (but didn't hurt anyone) get pulled aside and told "yeah....don't do that again".

The problem is those cases don't fit the cozy agenda that some here are looking for, so they are ignored. Yet the alleged cases of "self defense" where the shooter is arrested are in reality not as portrayed by members here.

Hell, there was a local case recently where a Pimp heard his prostitute being robbed, so he kicked in the hotel door. The john pointed a gun at the pimp, who shot and killed the john. That was ruled a good shoot.

The OTHER problem is you have people who buy a firearm for protection, but don't bother to take the time to learn when they can legally defend themself. Chasing the tweaker down the street who you saw trying to break into your car and shooting him in the back is NOT self defense and will get you arrested. You would never have an unloaded firearm at home for defense, why would you ever set yourself up where you might have to take a life and not bother to understand the scope of that use of force? THAT is where your average citizen gets in trouble.

Last edited by IrishJoe3; 09-09-2013 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 09-10-2013, 5:48 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca View Post
.....Because they are generally exempt form Ca's tyrannical laws.
Yet ANOTHER opinion masquerading as fact. Do you have any FACTS to back this up?
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 09-10-2013, 5:48 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca View Post
All I see is one excuse after another with some here. For some there is nothing that LE do that can't be explained away with some.
And we see another turn to how horrible LEO's are, and away from the topic. To some their agenda trumps all.

Just about every LEO here has said that sometimes cops do the wrong thing and need to be disciplined, fired, and/or jailed. But those cases are very rare. It's not making "excuse[s]" to explain the training, logic and reasoning behind why things are done a certain way. You just don't want to see it. You'd prefer to believe that there's a vast LE conspiracy against you.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 09-10-2013, 5:49 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
This argument doesn't sway me in the least: "We give them money because they support bill A, not for all that other stuff."
Some are swayed by the fact and others have their own agenda and won't let the facts confuse them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
You want to reward a politician for their vote on a single bill or single subject, fine. But money is fungible. The politician doesn't spend that cash on print/radio/tv ads that only tout their vote on bill A. They don't list those groups as "bill A" supporters of theirs on their campaign website.
I don't like the system either, but that's how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
Perhaps what our 2A supporting LEOs need to do is get together and form a PAC--ask the CalGuns Foundation for assistance--and start speaking out as both LEOs AND 2A supporters. You'd have quite a bit of sway.
No thanks. Not interested. And I disagree that we "have quite a bit of sway." I've yet to see anything but opinion behind this statement. Do you have any facts to back it up? In fact if you'll look at how donations went in my post #120, you'll see that a lot of times the politician voted against what the association wanted done.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 09-10-2013, 5:50 PM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,670
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
The reason they are not politically active about it is that they keep getting exempted from everything. It's the " I've got mine so screw everyone else attitude".
The fact is that FEW cops are gun guys and give a darn about these exemptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
This is a big reason why a lot of people resent police. The huge double standard.
Nah the real reason "why a lot of people resent police" is that we get to give tickets and arrest you when you break the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
Yet 2 officers fire over 100 rounds at some women simply delivering newspapers in a vehicle which did not match a suspects vehicle and they get their wrists slapped ( gently).
What is the nature of this "wrist slap[ping]?" I haven't heard about any discipline coming down.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 09-10-2013, 6:14 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 7,494
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Forget LEO's... How much $$$ is the NRA or any other "gun rights" organization spending in California to stop the pending laws...

That would be very little to nothing, as the handwriting is on the wall. No matter how much money is spent, or who opposes it, the legislation it WILL pass..

Just a sad fact.

California has gone down the tube... It's one of the main reasons I left..

Good luck to all you gun owners there...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 09-11-2013, 7:21 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong? I've been wrong a couple of time on this forum. When it's proven, I quickly admit it, apologize, and move on. For example, in the thread titled, "Retired Marine Colonel speaks on the Militarization of American LEO" I misunderstood something that another poster had said. When I discovered this error I wrote, "Well I sure blew that. I misread your post and thought that you were saying this. Apologies."



WRONG AGAIN! I don't think that my "position is always right and everyone else is always wrong." Those who agree with me are as right as I am. ROFL.



Can you not see that sometimes the sky is not blue? In space, it's black. At times of inclement weather it may be gray or black. In a whiteout, it's white. You hardly have the market cornered on saying how things actually are. My perception is that you think that you're always right. Do you have an example of you "accept[ing] an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic." that you previously disagreed with? I can't recall it happening. Going back to our previous discussion where your BIL had his house raided, I gave several explanations for what happened. I don't recall you [i]"accept[ing] any of them. Is my memory faulty on that?



There was a complete absence of honesty, integrity, or substance in your post that I replied to. Perhaps elsewhere in your life it exists, in that post, not at all. It consisted of two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks.



Of course I will. You're wrong AGAIN! LOL.



I think that your "sarcasm" mode is full on. So I won't "accept [your] apology." And it's hardly "[my] thread." I think this is gobler's thread.

But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion?
OK, I agree with your last point there. The rest, I could care less for.

You know, bigger hammer, you could be taken more seriously if you leave emotion out of your answers and actually got to the point every once in awhile.

You seem to have a huge problem admitting you can make a mistake. It feels like an insecurity thing. I don't know. What I do know is that you've spend about half a dozen posts trying to avoid this issue:

A law that is later deemed unconstitutional by the courts does cause harm whenever it's presently enforced, all of the technicalities and other hiding places aside. My point from the beginning has been simple: Officers have to live with the reality that in some cases, they will harm the public that they've sworn to protect just because of the nature of how the system works, but their choices and discretion also play a part. There is no way around that.

I don't know why you take that point so personally and why you get so bent out of shape. It's just the nature of the beast. When it comes to "right to bear arms" CLEOs (particularly sheriffs), have power that can either put them in the right side or what many of us believe will be the wrong side of history (if and when shall-issue comes to Cali. I know, huge "IF").

This isn't a direct attack on bigger hammer or whatever do you think you represent (unless of course you happen to be one of those fake "constitutional" sheriffs, which I doubt). So just chill and stop trying to intimidate others down in this forum through mischaracterization, deflection, and downright nastiness. It only speaks badly about all of us as a community. Let's try to contribute productively instead.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 09-11-2013, 7:31 AM
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Yet ANOTHER opinion masquerading as fact. Do you have any FACTS to back this up?
Well, there's the safe handgun roster to start with. How's that for a FACT?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 09-11-2013, 7:32 AM
cr250chevy cr250chevy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 814
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I have not come across even one single LEO who is against legal concealed carry by a law abiding citizen.

FYI this poll is pointless. LEO's are NOT and DO NOT have the ability to change the laws on the books. Getting 100% of LEO's in California to unite and come to a consensus to not enforce the laws will never happen. There will always be those who will uphold the entire laws and make arrests.
In order for change to happen;
-The representatives need to be replaced
or
-The PEOPLE (citizens) need a MASS display of defiance over the law. IE thousands in one group all carrying loaded guns. (I am not encouraging or promoting this in any manner).

Last edited by cr250chevy; 11-25-2013 at 9:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 09-11-2013, 9:10 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,026
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigger hammer View Post
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong? I've been wrong a couple of time on this forum. When it's proven, I quickly admit it, apologize, and move on. For example, in the thread titled, "Retired Marine Colonel speaks on the Militarization of American LEO" I misunderstood something that another poster had said. When I discovered this error I wrote, "Well I sure blew that. I misread your post and thought that you were saying this. Apologies."



WRONG AGAIN! I don't think that my "position is always right and everyone else is always wrong." Those who agree with me are as right as I am. ROFL.



Can you not see that sometimes the sky is not blue? In space, it's black. At times of inclement weather it may be gray or black. In a whiteout, it's white. You hardly have the market cornered on saying how things actually are. My perception is that you think that you're always right. Do you have an example of you "accept[ing] an interpretation of events given reasonable evidence combined with some logic." that you previously disagreed with? I can't recall it happening. Going back to our previous discussion where your BIL had his house raided, I gave several explanations for what happened. I don't recall you [i]"accept[ing] any of them. Is my memory faulty on that?



There was a complete absence of honesty, integrity, or substance in your post that I replied to. Perhaps elsewhere in your life it exists, in that post, not at all. It consisted of two lies about me. At least one error, and several personal attacks.



Of course I will. You're wrong AGAIN! LOL.



I think that your "sarcasm" mode is full on. So I won't "accept [your] apology." And it's hardly "[my] thread." I think this is gobler's thread.

But now, as often happens in "Off Topic" we're arguing about arguing, and are completely off the topic. Please, can we get back to the discussion?
OK, I agree with your last point there. The rest, I could care less for.

You know, bigger hammer, you could be taken more seriously if you leave emotion out of your answers and actually got to the point every once in awhile.

You seem to have a huge problem admitting you can make a mistake. It feels like an insecurity thing. I don't know. What I do know is that you've spend about half a dozen posts trying to avoid this issue:

A law that is later deemed unconstitutional by the courts does cause harm whenever it's presently enforced, all of the technicalities and other hiding places aside. My point from the beginning has been simple: Officers have to live with the reality that in some cases, they will harm the public that they've sworn to protect just because of the nature of how the system works, but their choices and discretion also play a part. There is no way around that.

I don't know why you take that point so personally and why you get so bent out of shape. It's just the nature of the beast. When it comes to "right to bear arms" CLEOs (particularly sheriffs), have power that can either put them in the right side or what many of us believe will be the wrong side of history (if and when shall-issue comes to Cali. I know, huge "IF").

This isn't a direct attack on bigger hammer or whatever do you think you represent (unless of course you happen to be one of those fake "constitutional" sheriffs, which I doubt). So just chill and stop trying to intimidate others down in this forum through mischaracterization, deflection, and downright nastiness. It only speaks badly about all of us as a community. Let's try to contribute productively instead.
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 9:43 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.