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 > CALGUNS.NET > Announcements and Suggestions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Announcements and Suggestions This is a place for suggestions, news and updates about the site.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:29 AM
javaduke javaduke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Free World
Posts: 247
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Folks, pardon me for intervening, I mostly a lurker here and rarely post, but I thought I'd provide my feedback. First and foremost - I no longer live in California, so if this disqualifies me, please disregard the rest of my post.

I did live in CA for about 10 years, in San Mateo, to be specific. I work in the hi-tec industry and my office was in SF downtown, and most, if not all of my colleagues were very liberal and anti-gun (isn't it strange how these things always go together, like bagels and cream cheese?) Time after time we had the same conversations and my friends were repeating all the usual nonsense about dangerous instruments of war, guns kill people, yada, yada, yada, until one day I took a group of them to the range, introduced them to the art of shooting, and they all had a great time. One thing I did not do is I never mentioned any political aspect of shooting, no usual bashing of Kevin DeLeon and Diane Feinstein, no mentioning of 2nd amendment protecting the 1st, nothing like that.

One of my very best friends is also very liberal (yet he still remains one of my very best friends despite our differences). I did the same thing, took him to the range, then invited him to one of the NRA Basic Pistol classes I was teaching, and now he is a proud owner of a 1911 which I'm going to rebuild for him and make it a nice accurate bullseye gun. He still refuses to join the NRA though, and when I asked him why, his explanation was that NRA delivers very extremist message and calls for killing people with different political views. I was completely puzzled by his response, turned out he was alluding to one of the Dana Loesch NRA videos. While I was still unable to find any extremist wording in that video, I could understand my friend's point.

So here's my point - I believe CRPA, Calguns and all pro-gun organizations should change their message a little bit if they want to attract more members. As counterintuitive as it sounds, can we take the political element *temporarily* out of the equation? That doesn't mean our views should change. That only means that we can try different strategy. Let's stop preaching to the choir and reach out to most "anti" people you know. Treat them with respect even if they don't respect you back. Invite them to the range and focus on the sport aspect of it. Don't bring your AR right away, start with Ruger 10/22. Let them shoot fun targets, falling plates, what have you. Buy them a beer *after* you are done shooting. Ask them if they felt safe, if they had fun, if they want to do it again.

I really think the shooting community should be more inclusive. Everybody is welcome, white, black, Asians, any other race and nationality, we don't care as long as you observe all the safety rules. Young, old, men, women, LGBT, whatever. I believe in the grand scheme of things it will improve our relationship with the rest of the world.

Just my 2 shekels.

Last edited by javaduke; 09-01-2019 at 6:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 09-01-2019, 11:37 AM
Echidin Echidin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SBC
Posts: 2,810
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Agree with the above post. We need to get the message out across CA that 2A is for everyone, whether they choose to exercise that right or not. More community education and outreach that members, like myself, can get involved in.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 09-01-2019, 6:37 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, I've read five pages and am pretty impressed with some of the comments. Here is my take. This is the best gun site on the web. Period. I can suggest a change or two but it is 99% fine. There is a small group of people that have been here a long time that have very little tolerance for any view but their own. And are usually ***%ols when you try to have a conversation with anything they feel strongly about. If we are going to grow that needs to be addressed. The idea of backing a local candidate is a great place to start. The only way we are going to change Ca. ( except the courts ) is to start from the bottom up. Grassroots by the people. The republican party in Ca. seems to be worthless to effect change. We should get more involved in local politicts. When ever there is word of something going on the first place I look for more information is the OT forum. There is usually more true info there than the mainstream news. Maybe a special section could be created that just deals with breaking news. You have created a great venue and should be proud of it. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 09-02-2019, 12:56 AM
hillsidehutz's Avatar
hillsidehutz hillsidehutz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: San Jose
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What a spectrum of opinion- and the trolls aren't even out yet.

Gotta say, I earnestly feel for the most jaded, older guys here. Like it or not, the next generation do stand on your shoulders, including myself. And gramps, some of us are only able to see beyond the horizon because you are here. So we definitely owe it to you for the privilege.

In terms of future cultural/behavioral aspects; things will always transform. Just like our generational preferences in music, the "geriatric brigade" will never approve the "Chads & Kyles". You sir, may appreciate the beach boys and what have you, but some of us are rocking ac/dc, and even beyond that is the generation of eminem and taylor swift.

So, tacticool or not, that's how most of younger folks are exposed to the activities now. Pop culture. The grandfathered farm-boy days are probably over 20 years ago. The only younger guys with old "classic" guns (like me) are either delusional, got old soul, or have played too much metal gear solid.

So, from where I am, the majority of bickering is simply about differing tastes masquerading as differing "principles". In the core of it, we all enjoy owning/shooting firearms. We just have different outlook and ways to respond about them.

So deal with it. In due time, things will transform for the younger folks as well, and we'll have to deal with transforming landscape too. I, one day will get to witness mumble rap and get to disapprove that as well!

But until then, I'm going to be grateful for what we can enjoy here and now, share my experience with others in a positive light, and enact change with smaller steps. Invite a friend to go shoot, as done by many before me.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 09-02-2019, 11:17 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,953
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting that more of the replies are about changing Calguns rather than gun owners changing.

Calguns does not really need to change, and I'm not sure it can or should adapt to CA gun owner apathy, or that it should appease "common sense" gun law theorem. How can that ever be the goal?

What has changed quite exponentially is the apathy of California gun owners. I've seen how collected, cohesive, and volumetric it was back during the Gray Davis years, to now become a whiff of it's former self, impotent and passive.

That apathy was always there to some degree, the reason we are now where we are, but it has become the endemic norm these past 5 years. And it seems the up-coming crowd have been indoctrinated into the acceptance of anti-2nd Amendment legislation as that is all they've ever known.

It even seems that some of those gun owners have made it a hobby to adapt to not only proudly absorb the anti-2nd Amendment legislation as a badge of intelligence, but have made it a perverted prowess to be able to spit out the esoteric minutiae of CA gun-law script, to smugly quote them as they come down the pike, but do nothing to ever fight them in the first place.

How has Calguns changed?

There is more discussion here about silly, unrelated topics, the off-topic forum often the leading, or even sole thread and reply generator, when I notice that the CA 2nd Amendment forum often now goes for days, even weeks without bumping those threads or lighting afire updates on anti-2nd Amendment legislation, nor even inclusive of any discussion on how to attack and fight those bad bills, who are the politicians behind them, and what can be done to stop them.

It seems like Calguns has become just another internet reply zone to Yahoo-like stories, for a microcosm subculture of those of like and kind minds that allow one to seek out to flock with similar others, a 'Cheers' atmosphere so to speak, where 'everybody knows your name' and nods in approval to ramblings, rather than a resource for organizing real discussions and actions on fighting anti-2nd Amendment legislation in CA as it had been so valuable in the past.

But that's not Calguns' fault; the blame of it losing efficacity lies solely with California gun owners.

In other words, use it or lose it; whether that's a neglected gun gone rusty, your 2nd Amendment, or Calguns.


__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

Last edited by The Gleam; 09-04-2019 at 1:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 09-02-2019, 2:02 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
Interesting that more of the replies are about changing Calguns rather than gun owners changing.

Calguns does not really need to change, and I'm not sure it can adapt to CA gun owner apathy or that it should appease "common sense" guns law theorem. How can that ever be the goal?

What has changed quite exponentially is the apathy of California gun owners. I've seen how collected, cohesive, and volumetric it was back during the Gray Davis years, to now become a whiff of it's former self, impotent and passive.

That apathy was always there so some degree, the reason we are now where we are, but it has become the endemic norm these past 5 years. And it seems the up-coming crowd have been indoctrinated into the acceptance of anti-2nd Amendment legislation as that is all they've ever known.

It even seems that some of those gun owners have made it a hobby to adapt to not only proudly adapt and absorb the anti-2nd Amendment legislation as a badge of intelligence, but have made it a perverted prowess to be able to spit out the esoteric minutiae of CA gun-law script, to smugly quote them as they come down the pike, but do nothing to ever fight them in the first place.

How has Calguns changed?

There is more discussion here about silly, unrelated topics, the off-topic forum often the leading, or even sole, thread and reply generator, when I notice that the CA 2nd Amendment forum often now goes for days, even weeks without bumping those threads or updates on anti-2nd Amendment legislation, nor even inclusive of any discussion on how to attack and fight those bad bills, who are the politicians behind them, and what can be done to stop them.

It seems like Calguns has become more just another internet reply zone to Yahoo-like stories, for a microcosm subculture of those of like and kind minds that one may seek to flock with, a 'Cheers' atmosphere so to speak where 'everybody knows your name' and nods in approval to ramblings, than a resource for organizing any real discussions and actions on fighting anti-2nd Amendment legislation in CA as it had been so valuable in the past.

But that's not Calguns' fault; the blame of it losing efficacity lies solely with California gun owners.

In other words, use it or lose it; whether that's a neglected gun gone rusty, your 2nd Amendment, or Calguns
The Gleam, that's a perfect summary. Half the folks here continue, as they put it, "to fight the good fight". Wheel spinning results, mainly since California's gun owners will not, cannot, and just won't unify themselves in a cohesive group...no changes there over the last 20+ years. Interesting to see everybody's surprised at new laws, but that's what you get by voting for those who ignore the rights you're born with.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 09-03-2019, 4:10 PM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I sort of like it how it is...

So...
I carefully read Kestryl's post and then skimmed through 99% of the rest of the thread. And that is what I do with most threads here.

I am the opposite in every way of probably 98% of the people on this forum. (Female, Democrat, Sierra Club member, pro women's rights, pro environment, Anti trump, Anti Republican for the most part, more likely to march in a Pride parade than a 2A parade, etc.)

But I like CalGuns A LOT, and this is a Very useful forum for me personally. Why? Because there are knowledgeable people talking about the ONE thing I have in common with probably 100% of the people on this forum: Firearms. There are lots of bozos, lots of disinformation, and lots of fairly rude behavior. But this is still the best place to find out what is going on with the laws, with the ins and outs, and most of all with the guns.

So, personally, I don't need, or much want, CG to change much. I can sift through the garbage parts to get to all the diamonds pretty quickly, and that is VERY good. I am not going to be an activist or drive cultural change. I will vote my conscience, but I am more of a 5 or 6 issue voter than a single issue voter and some of those are conflicting issues.

And, to the dozens and dozens of people who do give so much to this forum, you have my deepest thanks!! I do often feel bad that I do not contribute to many of the conversations. But mostly that is because I am ignorant rather than not willing.

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 09-03-2019, 5:19 PM
jimmythebrain's Avatar
jimmythebrain jimmythebrain is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 444
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

I was at Chick-fil-A and it seemed that a quarter of the orders were being taken out by Grub-Hub type delivery services.

We live in a culture where a large portion are fixed on their cell phones and feel like they are too busy to even buy food themselves.
Are we proposing that in this environment that we can get a large number of people under 40 years of age to care enough about something to actually leave there house, attend an event and possibly risk getting black listed/or targeted by the "other side" for their right to bear arms.

People have taken out their friends to shoot and only small portion have become gun owners themselves. These new gun owners are not necessarily the "from cold dead hands" crowd. They live in a place of "many issues" with regards to voting, which means the 2nd amendment is not top on their list.
Look at the data, how many gun owners own just one gun and never shoot it. Many people have run out and bought a handgun for personal protection, shot just a few boxes of ammo and put it in a lock box, feeling safe that it is there. They do not see owning a gun as a core right and necessary for their survival. They can lose that gun in the lock box and be out $500 without any loss of sleep. Especially if it is framed as being "for the children".

Then you have the 55 and older crowd with grown children, dispersed children/grandchildren and ability to retire in other localities/states. They can choose to move. Our state is dismal on crime, taxes and is a nanny state. They are only using their natural intelligence to figure out moving is easier, cheaper and safer than staying here.

Then you have the die hard, core 2nd amendment rights person. I know a lot of these people up here in the state of Jefferson territory. They have plans to move. A large part of their motivation is gun rights and gun ownership. They see CA as a lost cause and they have their exit plans already made. They are no longer motivated to remain in CA just to fight for gun rights.

So, all that to say... the active pro gun rights crowd is shrinking and will continue to shrink. That is until we see a serious economic decline with concurrent spike in violent crime. At that time people will either look to the government to seize all guns and also provide for us, OR the common person will take responsibility to protect themselves and fight for possession of means to protect themselves.

FOR THIS WEBSITE-
If we enact a thought or ideology purity test the membership will sink- but there could be sections defining the purpose of the site and a goal that Calguns is trying to accomplish. Like a mission statement for the site and set out goals for each section, more than just catagories of where to file new posts.
If we become less civil with each other, many will leave the site.

I am guilty of having a busy life, and not taking time away from work and my family to do pro gun political or legal activities. When I get a few moments free I go shooting or ride my motorcycle.

I use this site to stay informed about gun stuff. New guns, gunsmithing, reloading, classified section. And also to stay informed about the new laws so I do not inadvertently become a criminal.

Calguns does a great job for what I want to use it for.
So as an end user, the site works just great.

However, if Kestryl wants this to become a more powerful political tool then he should make changes in that direction.

Last edited by jimmythebrain; 09-03-2019 at 5:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 09-03-2019, 5:46 PM
vintagearms's Avatar
vintagearms vintagearms is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 6,526
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
So...

I am the opposite in every way of probably 98% of the people on this forum. (Democrat, pro women's rights, Anti trump, Anti Republican for the most part, more likely to march in a Pride parade than a 2A parade, etc.)


But mostly that is because I am ignorant rather than not willing.

Kate
I think I have found your problem...
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 09-03-2019, 7:36 PM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagearms View Post
I think I have found your problem...
Without any disrespect or animus, this is a great example of one of the problems on this forum. I have a position with which someone does not agree. So then, they take something out of context, and make an ad hominem attack.

Clearly, in context, I was saying that I did not post as much because I was ignorant of the many gun-related topics discussed on these forums. But the post implies that I am "opposite" because I am ignorant of the broad societal issues, which is actually quite far from the truth.

If You really want more people to participate, You (the You who own this forum) should encourage people to at least try to discuss the ideas rather than the people. I suspect that were I the person VintageArms thinks I am, this would be my last time on this forum. Sorry, VA, there is value here in spite of you...

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 09-03-2019, 9:53 PM
bako88fan's Avatar
bako88fan bako88fan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 2,259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
So...

I carefully read Kestryl's post and then skimmed through 99% of the rest of the thread. And that is what I do with most threads here.



I am the opposite in every way of probably 98% of the people on this forum. (Female, Democrat, Sierra Club member, pro women's rights, pro environment, Anti trump, Anti Republican for the most part, more likely to march in a Pride parade than a 2A parade, etc.)



But I like CalGuns A LOT, and this is a Very useful forum for me personally. Why? Because there are knowledgeable people talking about the ONE thing I have in common with probably 100% of the people on this forum: Firearms. There are lots of bozos, lots of disinformation, and lots of fairly rude behavior. But this is still the best place to find out what is going on with the laws, with the ins and outs, and most of all with the guns.



So, personally, I don't need, or much want, CG to change much. I can sift through the garbage parts to get to all the diamonds pretty quickly, and that is VERY good. I am not going to be an activist or drive cultural change. I will vote my conscience, but I am more of a 5 or 6 issue voter than a single issue voter and some of those are conflicting issues.



And, to the dozens and dozens of people who do give so much to this forum, you have my deepest thanks!! I do often feel bad that I do not contribute to many of the conversations. But mostly that is because I am ignorant rather than not willing.



Kate
Surely you can see why someone would be upset at your use of the site for free education while supporting and advocating for those who would eliminate YOUR OWN civil right to bear arms..

You're welcome, I guess?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP911 View Post
sweet jesus, the subject matter experts are 97!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Osier77 View Post
If I ever build a tractor pull truck I'm naming it "Hobo Peen"
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 09-03-2019, 9:56 PM
user120312 user120312 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Coastal Oregon, formerly of California
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One change that would respect the dichotomy in demeanor generally allowed in Off-topic (OT) but not on the main forum would be to add a special member group, delineated by membership time and post quantity, to allow access to Off-topic. I use a similar member group method in vBulletin on my forum to allow access to private forums and the private message system. No doubt CG uses member groups for contributors and moderators, etc. It's pretty easy to do.

One thing I have to be careful with here is hitting the new posts button and selecting a thread in the non-OT areas and not noticing that and having to catch myself to adjust to the generally more genteel and polite interaction on the main forum. I prefer that tone of interaction and generally enforce it on my own forum but do understand CG has their own standards of demeanor and style they enforce.

Requiring community participation in non-OT areas first would iMO set a more general policy compliant tone for new members and also would effectively prevent banned/suspended/moderated members from easily re-registering and going right back to OT. Our current criteria is 50 posts and 30 days membership. Some forums I post on require 100 posts and six months of membership. That seems a bit steep but it's their forum and their prerogative. We also prohibit duplicate accounts/sockpuppets, etc.

Taking OT out of the equation, my prior opinion about the site being fine remains. IMO, get it off Amazon servers and onto a more independent and gun-friendly web host. Else, the specs look great. Kudos.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 09-04-2019, 4:45 AM
SactoDave's Avatar
SactoDave SactoDave is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 113
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Tough question, “Where to go?”. As a newly minted CCW permittee as of 7/2015 in Sacramento, I was shocked to hear they wanted to take away my ability to protect my family in the area of highest risk. I learned of CRPA in reading the bill. They were the first opposition. I signed up the family as members. I wrote emails to committee members and the author of SB707. I hand wrote a letter to Governor Brown. Guess what? Not a single reply. I became a life member of 2AF. In their stack of 14K letters of opposition delivered to the legislature, I had at least one.
Not a single reply.
Now the Democrats have a super majority.
When I step way back and look at the biggest picture my small mind can perceive, I see the effectiveness of TV programming on US culture. The propaganda reach in the education system now taking hold on high school and elementary schools. The dampening effect of our judicial system so quick to halt any measurable success and glacially slow to grant it. A legislature that can generate multiple infringements that take years to push back, if ever. The opposition is using guerrilla tactics (IRS on TEA party organization applications, social media on NRA supporting businesses, Google, FB and YT against conservative content creators, talk of adding justices to Supreme Court, decreasing voting age to 16) and 2A supporters are playing by the rules.
It seems this war is already over. Will we combat all those influencers using any means necessary? Blue Collar Logic’s most recent post talks of all the new conservative voices. But will that translate into votes? They say 2018 was won on the ground, going door to door during the summer. Anyone here planning to do that next summer?
__________________
Dave M
“If you are this terrified of your own government...then you’ve got bigger problems than just losing your guns, we all do...you’ve just described a communist regime, not the United States of America.” Skip Coryell, replying to a friend refusing to join the NRA because that friend didn’t want to end up on a government watch list, have the government know he owned guns and have them confiscated. Blood in The Streets
http://membership.nra.org/Join/Annuals
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:00 AM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bako88fan View Post
Surely you can see why someone would be upset at your use of the site for free education while supporting and advocating for those who would eliminate YOUR OWN civil right to bear arms..

You're welcome, I guess?


My apologies for the lack of clarity. I am totally pro-2A, and I very much care about my, and your, right to keep and bear arms.

My two points were:

-- "We" are not an homogenous group (and so we should not act like we are)

-- The personal attacks that are common/rampant in this forum will keep the shy from returning...

It's true that some I would support for their overall position would advocate for gun controls. That said, even Mr. Trump seems to be moving that way...

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:14 AM
javaduke javaduke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Free World
Posts: 247
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
I am totally pro-2A, and I very much care about my, and your, right to keep and bear arms.
And I really thank you for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
It's true that some I would support for their overall position would advocate for gun controls.
No disrespect here, but are you doing anything to change their position on this subject? Clearly there is a conflict of interests here, but have you actually tried to educate people on your side of the political spectrum about 2nd amendment, gun ownership, shooting sports, etc? Have you ever contacted your representatives? Have you ever raise your voice in opposition to all these meaningless feel good gun control laws? I see a great opportunity here, perhaps you have a chance to deliver our message across the line?
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:19 AM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,102
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Afraid you still don't get it.
But no worries, nor does the chicken who voted for Col. Sanders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post


My apologies for the lack of clarity. I am totally pro-2A, and I very much care about my, and your, right to keep and bear arms.

My two points were:

-- "We" are not an homogenous group (and so we should not act like we are)

-- The personal attacks that are common/rampant in this forum will keep the shy from returning...

It's true that some I would support for their overall position would advocate for gun controls. That said, even Mr. Trump seems to be moving that way...

Kate
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:20 AM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javaduke View Post
And I really thank you for that.



No disrespect here, but are you doing anything to change their position on this subject? Clearly there is a conflict of interests here, but have you actually tried to educate people on your side of the political spectrum about 2nd amendment, gun ownership, shooting sports, etc? Have you ever contacted your representatives? Have you ever raise your voice in opposition to all these meaningless feel good gun control laws? I see a great opportunity here, perhaps you have a chance to deliver our message across the line?
It's a fair and great question. And, actually, no I have not.

The last time I was politically active I worked for the Sierra Club, actually.

I tell myself I don't have time to do that. But clearly, it is about priorities. I have time to respond on this forum, so I should have time to write to the people I voted for...

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:28 AM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Afraid you still don't get it.
But no worries, nor does the chicken who voted for Col. Sanders.

And, here is another one.

Come on. Argue the way JavaDuke did. Argue the ideas. Be constructive. Just saying that I don't get it does not help in any way. Perhaps they make you feel superior and clever, but such comments will not get more people on your side, nor will they help expand the influence of CalGuns in general.


Last one, I promise.

Thank you, JavaDuke for trying...

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:37 AM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,102
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

100% agreed. Stop pampering fork tongued leftists who come in here trashing the NRA and complaining about gun rights being taken away, while in the same time they stab us in the back by voting for our arch enemies: Democrat politicians. Let's be frank about them: if they would give a crap about the Second Amendment they wouldn't support the people who are sworn to destroy it. It's past time to recognize and separate those who believe guns are a Constitutionally protected right, and those who believe guns are a hobby.
I'm not advocating for kicking them out of Calguns. I love having them around, my boatswain used to say "God made imbeciles so the rest of us could have comic relief laughing at them from time to time". I'm just saying they should be put on notice what they are doing is wrong and damaging to our cause, even if their delicate feelings are hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
Is this still the road this community wants to follow or should we pick a new path?

Yes and No. Modify the path. .

Should we refocus towards a single political ideology or Party?

No.

Should we forego the family and workplace friendly requirements expecting that younger members now are more 'worldly' and parents won't mind them seeing adult language, images and topics here?

loosen it up a little. We can’t have hurt feelings so much here. If we Americans had The same hurt feelings decades ago, we would’ve lost world war 2.

Should we limit discussion to solely pro-2A and not allow members to post opinions and views that aren't pro 2A?

No. But again we need to loosen up a little bit and let strong civil discourse opinions be spoken to our enemy, which is people against the Second Amendment, or ANY part of the constitution for that matter. After all, this is still a pro second amendment gun forum. The framing fathers believed in our rights, sealed them into history on paper, fought and then died for those rights for future generations to come. We can do the same in this forum through tactful words, explanations, and opinions but we do need to be a little tougher all around. We need more thick skinned people to voice and defend their pro-2A opinions. We need to honor what our forefathers created and then fought for.

Should we loosen or remove the rules mandating civil discussion and behavior among members, allow insults, name calling and rude posts?

Yes, loosen up some. No name calling, but also don’t ban someone that labels an anti gunner soy-boy for who he/she really is.

Should we focus more on being a 'gun talk' community and less on 2A rights, moving towards being a social community rather than a civil rights focused community?

Heck no! I think the thin skinned people need to go elsewhere.

Personally, I like to use the great Constitutionalist Mark Levin as an example of how we communicate with our anti-constitutional enemies out there. The left slams us, so we should “Trump” up the responses just a tad, but more like Mark Levin does on his radio show. That is with tact, no outward name calling with foul language, nor racism.

...you asked, just my opinion.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!


Last edited by tankarian; 09-04-2019 at 7:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:44 AM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,102
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Kapo. Google that word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
And, here is another one.

Come on. Argue the way JavaDuke did. Argue the ideas. Be constructive. Just saying that I don't get it does not help in any way. Perhaps they make you feel superior and clever, but such comments will not get more people on your side, nor will they help expand the influence of CalGuns in general.


Last one, I promise.

Thank you, JavaDuke for trying...

Kate
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!


Last edited by tankarian; 09-04-2019 at 7:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 09-04-2019, 8:54 AM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Kapo. Google that word.
Crud. I said, "Last one" and I am responding. My apologies. Hypocrisy is so hard to let float by...

@Tankarian, YOUR email responses said, "No name calling" and in your next post I believe you were calling me a "Kapo" in a pejorative way. (I hadn't heard that word, but Wikipedia says, it means, "A kapo or prisoner functionary was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who was assigned by the SS guards to supervise forced labor or carry out administrative tasks." So, I think you are calling me a "traitor" of some type...)

Just one of your mistakes is thinking that labeling, "an anti gunner soy-boy for who he/she really is" will help progress your position in any way.

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:21 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs up

Kate, are you in favor or not in favor with the Amendments to the Bill of Rights?

Welcome to calguns.net. Since you're not here often, I'd advise ignoring the children.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:49 PM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Kate, are you in favor or not in favor with the Amendments to the Bill of Rights?

Welcome to calguns.net. Since you're not here often, I'd advise ignoring the children.


I am totally in favor of the all amendments to the US Constitution. Although, I am not a huge fan of 16th, and I wish the 10th were more well considered and implemented. And, in regard to the 2nd, although I may not love it as dearly as many here, I completely believe both that it is an individual right, not just for militia, and that it is subject to limitation, as is every other amendment in the list... (You can't slander people in spite of the first amendment...) And, that limitation is the source of thousands of volumes...

Also, as for my cadre of guns -- my membership cards into this club, if you will -- although far smaller in number than probably everyone here, I own many more that even John Wyck could shoot in a 2 minute scene...

Kate

PS. Thanks for the reply, Hanko... I will heed your advice.
PPS. Also, although not asked, I am NOT in favor of the vast majority of limitations for the 2A being proposed today. But I probably am OK with better background checks. Not because they will stop mass shootings, but because we all agree that crazy people should not be able to buy guns.
PPS. Can I stay?
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-04-2019, 1:17 PM
hillsidehutz's Avatar
hillsidehutz hillsidehutz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: San Jose
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post

... fork tongued leftists ...,
our arch enemies: Democrat politicians...
It's past time to recognize and separate ...

..."God made imbeciles so the rest of us could have comic relief laughing at them from time to time"....

... even if their delicate feelings are hurt.
SIR!...No.More.Whisky.In.The.Coffee....
__________________
-some firearms-
-some wisecracks-
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-04-2019, 2:15 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post


I am totally in favor of the all amendments to the US Constitution. Although, I am not a huge fan of 16th, and I wish the 10th were more well considered and implemented. And, in regard to the 2nd, although I may not love it as dearly as many here, I completely believe both that it is an individual right, not just for militia, and that it is subject to limitation, as is every other amendment in the list... (You can't slander people in spite of the first amendment...) And, that limitation is the source of thousands of volumes...

Also, as for my cadre of guns -- my membership cards into this club, if you will -- although far smaller in number than probably everyone here, I own many more that even John Wyck could shoot in a 2 minute scene...

Kate

PS. Thanks for the reply, Hanko... I will heed your advice.
PPS. Also, although not asked, I am NOT in favor of the vast majority of limitations for the 2A being proposed today. But I probably am OK with better background checks. Not because they will stop mass shootings, but because we all agree that crazy people should not be able to buy guns.
PPS. Can I stay?
Not sure how "better" background checks will eliminate non-crazies that later go crazy. Generally, if someone wants a gun and they wouldn't pass California's waiting period and/or government NICS, they'll find a place to buy one outside normal legal channels...and that's what will not stop. News today noted only 3% of "mass" shooters bought guns through normal legal channels.

Again, welcome aboard. Darn straight you may stay.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-04-2019, 4:27 PM
johnk518's Avatar
johnk518 johnk518 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: HB
Posts: 928
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I want to help, I want to fight the ignorance and bring common sense to the table, but I just don't know what can be done. 2A does not have any leadership we just have factions. I donate, I join, I buy, but besides that, I do not know what I can do.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-04-2019, 5:07 PM
LouieT LouieT is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
Crud. I said, "Last one" and I am responding. My apologies. Hypocrisy is so hard to let float by...

@Tankarian, YOUR email responses said, "No name calling" and in your next post I believe you were calling me a "Kapo" in a pejorative way. (I hadn't heard that word, but Wikipedia says, it means, "A kapo or prisoner functionary was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who was assigned by the SS guards to supervise forced labor or carry out administrative tasks." So, I think you are calling me a "traitor" of some type...)

Just one of your mistakes is thinking that labeling, "an anti gunner soy-boy for who he/she really is" will help progress your position in any way.

Kate
Since you are a progressive leftist, it is safe to assume you are strongly pro-choice in the matter of abortion rights, correct?
Let's say next election the Democrat Party candidate in your district is a religious pro-life dude who supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Would you consider voting for him?
I bet you wouldn't in a million years. You'd probably prefer to have toothpicks inserted under your fingernails and wear a straight jacket full of fire ants for an entire week rather than supporting the guy, correct? Because you strongly and unequivocally believe abortion is a basic human right any female should have.
Why is it then you say you believe in gun rights yet you keep voting for the same people who relentlessly want to take away your constitutionally right to self defense?
I'll answer that for you: because the 2nd Amendment is far less important to you than the right to have an abortion. In fact, for once in your life be honest and admit it: for you guns are just a hobby, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 09-04-2019, 5:38 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Not sure how "better" background checks will eliminate non-crazies that later go crazy. Generally, if someone wants a gun and they wouldn't pass California's waiting period and/or government NICS, they'll find a place to buy one outside normal legal channels...and that's what will not stop...
Not intending to 'topic branch' this thread even more, but felt it should be added that this is precisely what they are saying occurred with the latest Texas shooter. He failed a background check.

Quote:
The West Texas man who killed seven people and wounded 25 in a shooting rampage failed a background check during an attempted firearm purchase in 2014 because he had earlier been adjudicated "a mental defective" and temporarily committed to an institution, three law enforcement sources told CNN on Wednesday.
So... He went 'outside' the system. Of course, if they'd simply required a background check...

Quote:
He had bought the weapon used in the rampage in a private sale, which doesn't require a background check, a law enforcement official previously told CNN.
Thus, the system requiring background checks so he couldn't go outside the system would mean that he couldn't go outside the system... right? Never mind that he went outside the system to get the firearm because the system told him he couldn't purchase it.

This is the essential conundrum and why people become exasperated. The demanded 'solutions' target people who are not the problem, meaning they don't truly address the problem; but, end up creating issues for those who aren't a problem. This is what confuses the issue, irritates or enrages those who aren't the problem, and appears to simply demand "more be done" to solve the problem - which, once again, leads to doing something which targets people who are not the problem, meaning...

It's a never-ending, downward spiral.

Just like what has happened to this thread. In a sense... I suppose you are addressing one of Kestryll's questions - Should we limit discussion to solely pro-2A and not allow members to post opinions and views that aren't pro 2A? In another, the thread is being hijacked and taken down a flaming road which does not address the rest of the questions he poses.

Well... It was a thought. As I said in my post earlier in this thread... Disagree on abortion, LGBTQ, social programs, immigration, et al.? Fine. Just remember that this is a 2nd Amendment Forum and there is no, single litmus test for "true" gun ownership in terms of one's overall politics, organizational memberships, or even what firearms are owned. Try to make it such and you not only risk turning off would-be allies, you appear to conflict with the very notion of being 'open-minded' and pushing 'individual rights;' for, in reality, all you are pushing is 'think like me or you don't belong and aren't welcome.'

My Grandmother was an Democrat all her life. Yet, guns were a part of the household. She hunted. She encouraged her kids to learn about guns. She went shooting, readily accepting all challengers. She was the best shot in the family, not to mention the surrounding area (and that was saying something), even as she got older, until the infirmities of age didn't permit her participation anymore; something which frustrated her no end.

On the flip side, my Grandfather was a solid, reliable Republican. He taught the progeny to shoot. He hunted, though his brother was the more active in that pursuit. He could shoot until... well... almost the day he passed in his 90's.

Somehow, they made it work for 70+ years, with 5 children, 9 grandchildren, and I've lost count (at the moment) of how many great-grandchildren. Some serving in the military. All able to shoot to one degree or another. Yet, all of them able to think for themselves and belonging to various political parties in a number of States.

That's how I see Calguns needing to go. The temptation when stressed or feeling 'attacked' is to withdraw to those you feel comfortable with and cloister yourself securely in what becomes an echo chamber. The problem is that if you want, as Kestryll phrased it, our 'voice to stand out as something to be reckoned with,' then you are going to have to step outside your comfort zone and be willing to discuss, not throw invective, educate, and persuade. Otherwise, as you feel comfortable in your echo chamber, what you'll fail to see and/or fail to impact is the world 'outside' continuing to change and, sooner or later, your 'safe space' will be razed in the name of progress.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-04-2019 at 5:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:12 PM
Zorba's Avatar
Zorba Zorba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ex-Monterey, now Florida
Posts: 738
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouieT View Post
Since you are a progressive leftist, it is safe to assume you are strongly pro-choice in the matter of abortion rights, correct?
Let's say next election the Democrat Party candidate in your district is a religious pro-life dude who supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Would you consider voting for him?
I bet you wouldn't in a million years. You'd probably prefer to have toothpicks inserted under your fingernails and wear a straight jacket full of fire ants for an entire week rather than supporting the guy, correct? Because you strongly and unequivocally believe abortion is a basic human right any female should have.
Why is it then you say you believe in gun rights yet you keep voting for the same people who relentlessly want to take away your constitutionally right to self defense?
I'll answer that for you: because the 2nd Amendment is far less important to you than the right to have an abortion. In fact, for once in your life be honest and admit it: for you guns are just a hobby, nothing more.
This is indeed the perilous choice of our times. Two wrongs don't make a right. When you have two choices and both are unpalatable, what to do? Marxists on the Left, Theocrats on the Right, here I am! The answer is to stop voting for either of the major parties - they're both parties of Slavery and Oppression (tm). Parties are the majority of the problem, our founders warned us about this - but I don't have the solution. The problem is people don't want true freedom - not for themselves and certainly not for anybody else. They just want fair masters and "those people" suppressed. When and if enough people put enough emphasis on freedom, this might change, until then, it won't. I don't see it happening anytime soon. Interestingly, California is a very toxic combination of both sides as I see it.

ONE OTHER THING: Your last 2 sentences are telling. Do NOT put words in somebody else's mouth - I don't know her feelings on the subject and neither do you! This underscores the problems in this forum, and really in our politics (on both sides) today.
__________________
I mock "Mock", and especially mock "Mocks"; which means I mock mock "Mocks".

Last edited by Zorba; 09-04-2019 at 7:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 09-04-2019, 7:22 PM
vintagearms's Avatar
vintagearms vintagearms is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 6,526
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

Well... It was a thought. As I said in my post earlier in this thread... Disagree on abortion, LGBTQ, social programs, immigration, et al.? Fine. Just remember that this is a 2nd Amendment Forum and there is no, single litmus test for "true" gun ownership in terms of one's overall politics, organizational memberships, or even what firearms are owned. Try to make it such and you not only risk turning off would-be allies, you appear to conflict with the very notion of being 'open-minded' and pushing 'individual rights;' for, in reality, all you are pushing is 'think like me or you don't belong and aren't welcome.'

My Grandmother was an Democrat all her life. Yet, guns were a part of the household. She hunted. She encouraged her kids to learn about guns. She went shooting, readily accepting all challengers. She was the best shot in the family, not to mention the surrounding area (and that was saying something), even as she got older, until the infirmities of age didn't permit her participation anymore; something which frustrated her no end.

On the flip side, my Grandfather was a solid, reliable Republican. He taught the progeny to shoot. He hunted, though his brother was the more active in that pursuit. He could shoot until... well... almost the day he passed in his 90's.

Somehow, they made it work for 70+ years, with 5 children, 9 grandchildren, and I've lost count (at the moment) of how many great-grandchildren. Some serving in the military. All able to shoot to one degree or another. Yet, all of them able to think for themselves and belonging to various political parties in a number of States.

.
No single litmus test? One party platform wants to abolish your right to own a gun and the other doesn't. I think you are completely wrong. You want to fight about "social justice" issues within the Republican Party, fine, BUT don't vote for a democrat who WILL take your gun rights away.

And as to your Grandparents...the democrat party isn't like what your Grandmother was involved in....its much worse now.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 09-04-2019, 8:49 PM
Kate Kate is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouieT View Post
Since you are a progressive leftist, it is safe to assume you are strongly pro-choice in the matter of abortion rights, correct?
Let's say next election the Democrat Party candidate in your district is a religious pro-life dude who supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Would you consider voting for him?
I bet you wouldn't in a million years. You'd probably prefer to have toothpicks inserted under your fingernails and wear a straight jacket full of fire ants for an entire week rather than supporting the guy, correct? Because you strongly and unequivocally believe abortion is a basic human right any female should have.
Why is it then you say you believe in gun rights yet you keep voting for the same people who relentlessly want to take away your constitutionally right to self defense?
I'll answer that for you: because the 2nd Amendment is far less important to you than the right to have an abortion. In fact, for once in your life be honest and admit it: for you guns are just a hobby, nothing more.
Ouch. I think you would have been wise to heed Zorba's advice.

I wrote two things to Hanko in a PM, but I will be more public...

I am a CCW holder in San Diego County. My GC statement had no problems sailing through even SD County. I have real, live, life-or-death reasons to be pro-2A. Do you? Real, specific, looked-in-the-eye type threats? Literally, it changes every single thing about you, and mostly not for the better... (And, if you do, we should meet some place, I will buy you the beverage of your choice, and we can cry on each other's shoulder for how we used to be...)

And...

I get in lots of trouble in my "other" circles when I tell them that I am totally pro-choice and totally anti-abortion at the same time. Because... I believe the CHOICE women have is whether or not to have sex. After that choice, the consequences are about responsibility. There are very few scenarios in which I am OK with killing babies...

Be careful when you think you know what another is thinking, LouieT…

Kate
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 09-04-2019, 9:49 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagearms View Post
No single litmus test? One party platform wants to abolish your right to own a gun and the other doesn't. I think you are completely wrong. You want to fight about "social justice" issues within the Republican Party, fine, BUT don't vote for a democrat who WILL take your gun rights away.

And as to your Grandparents...the democrat party isn't like what your Grandmother was involved in....its much worse now.
Therein lies your primary problem. It's not about PARTY. It's about PEOPLE, as in We the People.

Democrats want to strip rights; not just the 2nd Amendment. So do Republicans. (Patriot Act?) The former wants to do it quickly and overtly, while the latter has been doing it 'quietly' and in the name of...???

Democrats are fighting among themselves about so-called 'social justice' issues and, as you allude to, so are Republicans.

Each Party has good and bad. Each Party, however, has exactly the same agenda; accrual of power. Neither Party has the best interest of We the People, individuals, as their primary concern. Just as the police are not considered to have the duty to protect the individual, but the public, so too do politicians in both parties claim to be representing "the public's interest," not the interests of individuals.

Perhaps the individual voted Democrat, not to strip individuals of their 2nd Amendment rights, but for other issues; e.g., protecting public lands where Republicans would "drill baby drill." Perhaps the individual voted Republican due to the economy, with absolutely no interest in or awareness of their stance on the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps, being American and, therefore, genetically predisposed to being 'contrary,' they voted for one or the other because someone told them they CAN'T or DON'T vote for this or that individual.

If you think that today's Democrats are much worse than the Progressives of an "older era," you are only superficially correct and don't understand the concept of creating a foundation and building upon that. Simply because we are now seeing the fruition of a long-term building project doesn't, by definition, make the "new generation" worse than the old. It does mean, however, that the time for education and persuasion is much more pronounced. We are now teetering on the brink of a profound change to society. If we cannot stop it, then it will cost exponentially more to return it to what it is supposed to be.

All that partisanship and myopia will accomplish is to further strengthen the divisions which will culminate in the change. As of now, we are in an increasing minority; at least politically. The Old Guard is almost gone and Baby Boomers are entering that phase of life where they will inevitably decrease. The Left has been 'educating and persuading' for several decades and that cohort is growing.

Soap box. Education and persuasion. That's the first option. If you don't wish to discuss and simply wish to divide into ever more isolated camps of individuals, then you doom the...

Ballot box. Again, we are outnumbered. For the moment, we still hold the Electoral College, but even that is changing. Likewise, all politics is local; i.e., you are reliant on comparatively small clusters of individuals and the demographics are changing. As an example, Shasta County, a reliably conservative (Republican) county in Northern California, just had a special election to replace a State Representative.

I think there were 5 candidates; 1 Democrat and 4 Republicans (one of which was a pronounced 2nd Amendment advocate). If none of them took a majority, they'd have a run-off in November. The Democrat took 39.1% of the vote. The Republicans split the rest. So, there will be a run-off in November I guess.

Oh... The Republican 2nd Amendment advocate only got somewhere around 17% of the vote. Why? From what people I know who live there are telling me, many of the individuals who voted Republican ALSO believe in legalizing marijuana and the 2nd Amendment advocate didn't because it is still against Federal law.

Will a Republican (whoever it was that took the top amount of the four) retain that traditionally Republican seat? Hopefully. Maybe even likely. But, that brings us to the...

Jury Box. Once again, we've been predominantly losing on that score and while Trump is attempting to 'fix' the 9th Circuit and we do have a couple of conservative judges, we're still outnumbered and it's an extremely uphill climb with SCOTUS denying cert on 2nd Amendment cases.

Cartridge Box. Do even those claiming to want Civil War 2.0 to just get started really want to go there? I doubt it. It's one thing to duck the hideously painful slings and arrows of flame posts, firing back in kind on Internet forums. It's quite another to be trying to avoid bullets and shells, arrests and imprisonment, economic hardships and shortages of basic needs which such actions inevitably involve. Not to mention that during such situations, when one looks around for their compatriots, they are often left askance as to "Where is everyone?!" In other words, you generally have to educate and persuade others that it is in their best interest to act.

Okay. So, education and persuasion in the effort to gain allies in your fight seems to be an intrinsic part of every box. Now, are you going to simply preach to the choir, enjoying the echoes of your own convictions, or are you going to attempt to draw as many others to some common ground which will allow for actually defending your position?

It's not a binary choice and never has been. People... Individuals... have myriad interests and priorities; all of which can and do vary over time. Demanding that they abandon an interest or priority RIGHT NOW or they don't and won't belong disallows for change; change which can and often does come with experience, increased education, and the persuasion inherent in being involved with those who have differing priorities and interests.

Be an NRA member or you are NOT a true gun owner?
Be a CRPA member or you are NOT a true gun owner?
Be a GOA member or you are NOT a true gun owner?
Be a Republican or you are NOT a true gun owner?
Think and act as I do or you are NOT a true gun owner?
Disdain abortion, condemn homosexuality, etc. or you are NOT a true gun owner?

Uh... What was that about gun ownership being about the rights and responsibilities of INDIVIDUALS who can think and act for themselves?

What do we often accuse the Left of? Being mindless zombies who simply follow the dictates of...???

When it comes to so-called "assault weapons," what do we often hear? Hunters are continually selling us out because they don't see a need for such firearms for what they do, so they can't be 2nd Amendment advocates because they are acting in their own interests and don't care about our desire/perceived need to own/use such firearms?

Is hunting protected by the 2nd Amendment? No, it's solely about self-defense, despite the fact that the majority in Heller indicated differently? Well, you obviously don't understand the truth about the 2nd Amendment if you think it also encompassed... hunting and other lawful purposes. Thus, you can't be a true gun owner.

Have I made my point yet?

What is the litmus test you would propose beyond a belief in the right to keep and bear arms?

You do realize there are many out there who don't own firearms, but will defend your right to do so; even while you condemn them for being homosexual, supporting abortion, only being seemingly interested in hunting or bullseye competition, being interested in preserving public lands (much of which is hunted and shot upon by firearms owners), not being in your economic class and, thus, not being able to donate or spend money in times you deem necessary or appropriate to 'make a statement,' et al.

If the ONLY priority in being a true gun owner is active and single-minded defense of the right to keep and bear arms, fine. Just don't complain about abortion laws, the homeless, public lands, immigration, etc. While such issues may or may not contribute to the overarching priority, they are not THE priority, but ancillary ones which factor into, but do not, by themselves, determine the outcome of THE priority.

It's just like the numerous "What would you be willing to trade in exchange for..." threads. If you're willing to trade part of your right to gain... something... then that right is NOT the ONLY priority you have. If it is not the overriding priority, neither can it be the singular litmus test for gun ownership lest you fail that test as well.

Just something to think about. It's the same with Calguns. If you keep driving away people because they don't meet some arbitrary 'test' for membership, it won't take long before you find yourself with a severely curtailed number. So, when the time comes that San Francisco's declaration of the NRA being a domestic terrorist organization expands to include pro-2nd Amendment websites (particularly those involved with outfits such as CRPA, the State derivative of the NRA) or a social credit score for determining eligibility to keep/bear arms actually happens, who is going to be left to side you?
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:18 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba View Post
This is indeed the perilous choice of our times. Two wrongs don't make a right. When you have two choices and both are unpalatable, what to do? Marxists on the Left, Theocrats on the Right, here I am! The answer is to stop voting for either of the major parties - they're both parties of Slavery and Oppression (tm). Parties are the majority of the problem, our founders warned us about this - but I don't have the solution. The problem is people don't want true freedom - not for themselves and certainly not for anybody else. They just want fair masters and "those people" suppressed. When and if enough people put enough emphasis on freedom, this might change, until then, it won't. I don't see it happening anytime soon. Interestingly, California is a very toxic combination of both sides as I see it.
Marxist governments and various other attempts at socialism tend generally not to work.

The U.S. government is not a theocracy, but many of the Founding Fathers were theocrats...theocrats who had the ability to convince atheistic and agnostic colleagues of the validity of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Bible as guiding documents.

Stop voting = stop biatcing about your government.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:16 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,953
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post


I am totally in favor of the all amendments to the US Constitution. /// And, in regard to the 2nd, although I may not love it as dearly as many here, I completely believe both that it is an individual right, not just for militia, and that it is subject to limitation, as is every other amendment in the list... (You can't slander people in spite of the first amendment...) And, that limitation is the source of thousands of volumes...

Kate
Aye Katharina? 'twas it you that said... "I see a woman may be made a fool, If she had not a spirit to resist.”

So it be.

Yet, your attempt at a mate above to our situation is not fair, is charmed with laissez-faire, and wholly misguided.

For in the heart of slander lies the intent to infringe on others, yet nobody slams legislation down to cut out thy tongue to prevent thine from speaking ill of those that step light and innocent about it.

There are indeed consequences for using a silver forked slider in ways that defile and lay victims to waste, that would rob them of their visage and good standing without just cause or truth, no different than should be the laws against using a firearm to infringe against others, to injure them, threaten them, rob them of their fortitude, to use it to steal from their wallet, or to take their life. Those laws DO exist.

Laws against acts, not laws against potential to. Not laws based on unfounded persecution built on a foundation of fear.

However, do you think it just to then have thy tongue extracted to be sure you do not speak falsehoods? No?

Then how is it different that confiscation of inanimate objects in law-abiding ownership and their use, should be taken from those who own them just to be sure they down lay down lead against others?

Jay Leno owns hundreds of vehicles; does that make him a drunk driver by association? Does that make him more apt to run down a group of children waiting to board a school bus, that we need to confiscate his cars just to be sure he does not?

Is every Muslim a terrorist, guilty by association to those who had been, that we must ban that religion and be sure they don't practice it?

So your comparison is off. It's not equitable.

For that matter, yes, you CAN slander people in spite of the First Amendment but we don't make people mute just to be assured they do not.

Nor do we ban guns, or certain types of guns, and take them away from gun owners, just to be sure they don't go active shooter, and as it is, the majority do not, nor ever will.

They use their firearms for fun, the range, sporting, and hunting - but just as the real reason for the First Amendment is to speaks one's mind against tyranny and oppressors without reprisal, so it's also true that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to stop tyranny and attempts at oppression in its tracks should the need arise.

So it that the 2nd Amendment protects the First, and should you lose it, you can expect your tongue to soon be cut out in short order... just to be sure you shant fall to victim to speak ill of the rulers that disarmed you.


__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 09-05-2019, 1:04 AM
hillsidehutz's Avatar
hillsidehutz hillsidehutz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: San Jose
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Gleam and The Mental Gymnastic of Making Unintelligible yet Theatrical Paradoxes.

I am sorry Gleam, but at least Kate practices brevity...

And... some degree of pragmatism and consideration upon others without compromising her personal values and passion. Great job ma'am.

I won't be brief this time though.

Back to 2A-
The constitution's intent is to provide common defense AND general welfare.
Fact.

Fast forward to today's reality, 2A is wildly exploited by highly profitable businesses- selling small arms as commodity for conspicuous consumption of the American public. Also fact, and possibly the elephant we never want to talk about.

Guns are in movies, games, music, news everywhere. We were made to perceive them as objects of desire from the day we were born. Truth is, its mostly escapism. A hail-mary to made up identity and self contentment. And its working fine so far, until every week, kids are killing other kids for all the wrong reasons. So yes, we as the public, democratically voted for regulations to support the general welfare. We call that, the common sense. Not infringement.

Now onto oppression and tyranny.

Everyone is in the same boat. Are you retired? working but living paycheck to paycheck? disgruntled and feeling unappreciated? jaded and feeling old? Feeling out of place? out of time? or maybe having too much time?

We are not special, we live in a very global, modern capitalistic society. Most of us consumers, stand to lose in the end, and life is quite monotonous. So, having a gun makes us feel empowered. Able. Exact opposite of being oppressed, and of course, we'll defend to the death, the right to hold on to things that empowers us. Cut the bull**** and this is where we are at.

But that doesn't mean we must take an absolutist stance either. Most people do not rely on owning guns to feel whole. And as a citizens, we need to hold higher standard and moral ground to at least hear each other's needs earnestly, and instead of compromising one idea over another, we can collaborate and come up with reconciliatory ideas.

Also, dont you think public welfare and safety should overrule conspicuous consumptions? lethal one especially? IMHO, this where the national debate really matter in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 09-05-2019, 3:33 AM
Dooder's Avatar
Dooder Dooder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SGV
Posts: 976
iTrader: 81 / 100%
Default

How bout we get back to Kestryll's thread?

This is getting hilarious. Was this a test so Kestryll can see how long it takes for this thread to fall apart and show what has become of his forum? People focused for about 130some posts and now it's turned into 2A talk, what's wrong with CA politics, trying to point Kate out as being a hobbiest gun owner, who is more 2A than thou, some thespian monologue...does this thread get moved into Off Topic discussion now?
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 09-05-2019, 7:27 AM
Zorba's Avatar
Zorba Zorba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ex-Monterey, now Florida
Posts: 738
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Marxist governments and various other attempts at socialism tend generally not to work.

The U.S. government is not a theocracy, but many of the Founding Fathers were theocrats...theocrats who had the ability to convince atheistic and agnostic colleagues of the validity of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Bible as guiding documents.

Stop voting = stop biatcing about your government.
And you're "another one" who attempts to put words in other's mouths. Knock it off. I'm certainly the last one to advocate for Marxism - OR theocracy.

I didn't say I stopped voting, I said the choices were difficult. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with our laws - believe it or not, "morals" (a term I dislike, but for lack of a better) existed long before that BOOK was promulgated upon an unhappy planet. Our founders tried their very best to keep EVERYBODY'S religion out of gov't, and I would never accuse them of anything as evil as being theocrats.
__________________
I mock "Mock", and especially mock "Mocks"; which means I mock mock "Mocks".
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 09-05-2019, 1:10 PM
Didymus's Avatar
Didymus Didymus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Just outside La Jolla
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To answer Kestryl's questions:

Is this still the road this community wants to follow or should we pick a new path?

Yes, and I speak as one who as been called a "quisling" amid other pejoratives in this environment. The current Calguns environment encourages differing means through our common advocacy to one goal. I submit it's the best environment for real communication.

Should we refocus towards a single political ideology or Party?

No. However, by ideology, there is only one party to support. IMO, parties themselves are the problem.

Should we forego the family and workplace friendly requirements expecting that younger members now are more 'worldly' and parents won't mind them seeing adult language, images and topics here?

No. No. No.

Should we limit discussion to solely pro-2A and not allow members to post opinions and views that aren't pro 2A?

No. And I have never ventured into the off-topic areas.

Should we loosen or remove the rules mandating civil discussion and behavior among members, allow insults, name calling and rude posts?

No, civil discussion is the best avenue which makes possible real change to the human heart and will. This site's purpose would be undermined if this rule was lax.

Should we focus more on being a 'gun talk' community and less on 2A rights, moving towards being a social community rather than a civil rights focused community?

No. Personally, if the 2A focus were lost or diminished, I would lose interest in the site.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 09-05-2019, 7:15 PM
Midtown Gunner's Avatar
Midtown Gunner Midtown Gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sacramento. The fun part.
Posts: 276
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Man, it's amazing how this discussion is degenerating. My two zincs:


Should we refocus towards a single political ideology or Party?


Absolutely not. While the Democrats are mostly a lost cause, I am tired of Republicans assuming that they have our vote because they dress up in camo and hold onto a shotgun for 2 hours during their re-election campaign. I agree with Kate on a lot of things, not because I'm a liberal, but because I'm a libertarian. If anything, we need to expand our political outreach past "token" shoutouts. We need to get out of the practice of political affiliation, and the non-gun detritus that comes with it. I don't come here to read about your religious views, where you are on abortion, or gender identity, or any of that. I'm here for guns and 2A. PERIOD. We need to embrace gun organizations that fall outside of the GOP perview, like Pink Pistols and the National African American Gun Association. Don't approve of their possible political choices? Tough titties. Get over it--2A trumps everything else here.

Should we forego the family and workplace friendly requirements expecting that younger members now are more 'worldly' and parents won't mind them seeing adult language, images and topics here?

Again, a big "Nope". We've all been on other gun boards, and many of them are open sewers with more in common with 4chan than here. Many of the oldsters will be familiar with The High Road (before it changed hands). I like that this forum "takes the high road" in discussions and dealings. We are one of the largest and best-read gun forums in the US--no, the world. We have standards to uphold.


Should we limit discussion to solely pro-2A and not allow members to post opinions and views that aren't pro 2A?

Slippery slope on this one. We exist also as a source of knowledge for those new or hesitant to guns; to end that does them and us a disservice. Part of political activism is outreach and education. We've all met the "gun guy" who knows everything, understands nothing, and is eager to share with anyone unfortunate to stray into range. That guy does not represent me.
OTOH, we should limit dedicated antis to a small area to bleat out their protests--it shouldn't spill out to the experienced and newbies who are here to support and engage.

Should we loosen or remove the rules mandating civil discussion and behavior among members, allow insults, name calling and rude posts?

Absolutely not. Again, we take the high road here, and we try to represent the intelligent, civilized face of the gun community.

Should we focus more on being a 'gun talk' community and less on 2A rights, moving towards being a social community rather than a civil rights focused community?

We're big enough to do both, don't you think? And if we don't remain dedicated to protecting our rights, there won't be anything left to talk about.

Is this still the road this community wants to follow or should we pick a new path?


It's less about picking a new path than doing maintenance on the current one.
One of my pet peeves is the new "members" who only sign up to Buy & Sell. The Marketplace is an integral part of this board, but it also seems the part most vulnerable to bad press. I know no sales are brokered here, but all we need is one psycho who got hooked up here...
Perhaps a minimum number of posts needed to be able to access the Marketplace?
-----
I think it may be time to appeal to the other 49 states. We aren't simply the best and biggest gun forum in America: We are the front line in the fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment. We hear "You ought to move to a free state" all the time. Many of us can't, or just don't want to. We need others to understand that if we lose ground here, they are coming for you soon after.

I'm not sure how we do that.
__________________
When am I going to see Dragunov OLLs for sale??
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 09-05-2019, 8:00 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,953
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
The Gleam and The Mental Gymnastic of Making Unintelligible yet Theatrical Paradoxes.

I am sorry Gleam, but at least Kate practices brevity...

And... some degree of pragmatism and consideration upon others without compromising her personal values and passion. Great job ma'am.
I accept your apology, because it's clear it was beyond you.

If you read it again, and you know your Shakespeare, you'll see that there was no insult to Kate, it was done to amuse her, but without compromise on making the point that the very nature of all this "compromising" and false common-sense based on emotion that exists, by repeating ideas about what the 2nd Amendment and civil-rights are to be, by an error of comparisons to other machinations in society only serve to dilute the worth of those rights is a mistake that Calguns should not make in kind.

And that was embedded within the fun of my post, something that Calguns should not do either, as I explained previously.

Yet we've lost so much because of it.

It's the very angle that the media seeking a new Socialist atmosphere for America has taken in their agenda to disarm the public by way of implying what is 'trendy' and fashionable' or of 'woke' and 'virtue.' Social engineering at its finest.

It tricks newcomers to Calguns like Kate and yourself into indoctrination of thinking it's OK to discount the 2nd Amendment by changing its meaning to meet what it means to the 'hobbyist' or the 'escapist' that only see guns as an extension of the Playskool and Nerf toys they had as children, and not the very weapons that they are as purposed to be under the 2nd Amendment, to oppose tyranny.

And then often newcomers come here and try to change Calguns to serve that superficial "common sense" from that viewpoint of firearms merely being nothing more than ornaments and conversation peices.

You voting for 'common sense' to take away firearms I've owned for more than 40 years is infringement.

Because there isn't a singular bit of common sense to think that taking away my car, being someone who doesn't drink alcohol and never did, will stop drunk drivers from killing people, or that cutting off my dick will stop rape.

I am quite sure Kate is 'shrewd' enough to see the difference, and to have not taken any offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
Everyone is in the same boat. Are you retired? working but living paycheck to paycheck? disgruntled and feeling unappreciated? jaded and feeling old? Feeling out of place? out of time? or maybe having too much time?
Nope - speak for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
We are not special, we live in a very global, modern capitalistic society.
But our 2nd Amendment is not global, and there is a reason the People of the United States have had the freedoms we have had for so long; it's that very thing you want to dilute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
Most of us consumers, stand to lose in the end, and life is quite monotonous. So, having a gun makes us feel empowered. Able. Exact opposite of being oppressed, and of course, we'll defend to the death, the right to hold on to things that empowers us. Cut the bull**** and this is where we are at.
Again, speak for yourself. Consumers? That is the very problem as to where America has gone wrong these last 20 years.

You have been taught to have a distorted view of firearms, that they are only good for committing evil or solely as entertainment, that is very clear.

That is the exact distortion society has created about vilifying firearms in the first place; by perverting their purpose and ownership, and defining them as only good for evil and causing harm to others, as fetish luxuries, that those who are perverted, evil, and want to cause harm to others feel empowered by guns to do that very thing - because their parents taught them that is the only thing guns are about.

Is that you? Is that how you see guns?

Because I see them only for good, and no, I don't feel guns 'empower' me and never did. They were commonplace in my time as much as a toaster, shovel, blender, radio, or chain-saw.

However we did have the responsibility and reverence for them as to never forget they were weapons, and knew exactly what they were to be used for and apt to be very dangerous in the wrong, irresponsible hands of those who saw them as nothing more than luxurious consumer playthings; or more so, if in the hands of tyrants and/or those wishing to do evil.

We only saw, and I still only see guns, as for doing good and protecting one's life and the lives of others, against those of evil who would cause harm to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
But that doesn't mean we must take an absolutist stance either. Most people do not rely on owning guns to feel whole. And as a citizens, we need to hold higher standard and moral ground to at least hear each other's needs earnestly, and instead of compromising one idea over another, we can collaborate and come up with reconciliatory ideas.
We must ABSOLUTELY take an absolutist stand. Without fail, and without compromise as to the TRUE meaning of the 2nd Amendment and not allow these superficial stunts of banning certain types of guns, or restricting ownership by the law-abiding, or confiscation, which are all nothing more than grandiose theatrics of mental masturbation that do nothing to stop gun violence.

Nothing at all.

So tell me how does taking away my firearms or banning certain features stop active shooters? It doesn't.

There is no way to allow a "little bit of slavery" as a compromise to being free men. There is no way to limit religious thoughts and practices that do not then infringe "just a little bit" and give up your soul in the process. Is cutting out tongues acceptable punishment in 'compromise' to prevent hate-speech?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hillsidehutz View Post
Also, dont you think public welfare and safety should overrule conspicuous consumptions? lethal one especially? IMHO, this where the national debate really matter in the end.
NO I do not. There is not one thing that I own nor any reason to overrule my conspicuous consumption, that would have served to stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Seung Cho, or James Holmes, Scott Dekraai, or Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, or Eliot Rodger and so on, or rapists and drunk drivers for that matter.

Banning me from buying 5 gallons of gasoline at any one time won't stop arsonists nor would it have stopped the 'Ghost Ship' fire that killed 36 people in Oakland, merely because gasoline can be used to start a fire of like and kind quality.

Name one way that giving up my firearms or banning certain features on firearms I own, will serve public welfare and safety?

We need to be cautious of your kind, those who come here to Calguns in disguise, looking to turn the 2nd Amendment into something akin to New Zealand, or Australia, or the resemblance of something an 1933 to 1945 German Chancellor sought to have.

YOUR VERY POINTS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY THREATS TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT - ARE THE REASON CALGUNS SHOULD NOT CHANGE.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:58 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.