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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-11-2021, 8:33 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We're well past "bumper sticker" bravado. It's a much more nuanced conversation than that and it always has been; contrary to what many claim. What shall not be infringed? The right? What right and what might the limitations on that right have been at the time what was written was written?

I keep posting this segment, not because I believe that Scalia was the messenger of God; but, because he acknowledges an important reality...



That reality is the premise of how we are being attacked now. As I said before, in that sense, Biden is in agreement with Scalia when he says that 'no right is completely unlimited.' Where the two diverge is in what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. You cannot 'infringe' on the right if the limitation existed all the way along. At least that would be the argument.

Heller is a prime example of OUR 'lack of understanding.' We scoff at Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al. when they claim to 'support the 2nd Amendment.' The problem is, they do support it, but their understanding/interpretation of it is different than our's. They view it as the dissent viewed it in Heller, as a collective right, subject to collective constraints. We view it more along the lines of the majority in Heller; i.e., as an individual right, subject to the perceptions of the individual.

"Infringed" is defined: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." What we deem as 'infringement' is something they deem consistent with THEIR understanding/interpretation. What we deem as consistent with our understanding/interpretation is viewed as an 'infringement' by them as to, not only the 2nd Amendment, but in terms of how it 'fits' within the broader scheme of rights the public is entitled to. But, such a view, unto itself, is suggestive of an understanding/interpretation which is antithetical to the historical context of the Bill of Rights and its purpose. "Fundamental rights" are not 'privileges' bestowed by Government or decided upon by 50%+1 of We the People.

However, there is a difference between the abstract "freedom" and the pragmatism inherent to "liberty." That's where we tend to 'fail' in our rebuttals to actions such as these EO's. We talk about "freedoms" as an absolute while they 'infringe' upon our liberties. The two are not synonymous and we need to recognize (and accept) that while 'freedom' is a state of mind that can only be ameliorated by ourselves, 'liberty' is something which impacts or potentially impacts others and, thus, requires some 'limitation.'

Should that 'limitation' be self-imposed based on a 'reasonable' sense of appropriateness to the situation and circumstances? Absolutely.

Such 'limitation(s)' should NOT be dictated by individuals or groups. Why? Because they are not 'suitable for all audiences' or in 'all circumstances.' Yet, by the very nature of their 'dictation,' they are enforced as one-size-fits-all resolutions, are dependent upon the perceptions of others as to how our 'freedoms' are defined, and tend to aggregate. That last is where we are at now, in California.

It's not that any individual law is so heinous as to be, objectively and universally viewed as 'infringement' on the 'freedom;' though it may be seen as a 'limitation' on the 'liberty.' Such is typically presented and/or viewed as a 'necessary limitation,' even by some who are thereby 'limited.' Yet, as the 'limitations' increase in number and as the resultant degree of 'limitation' ultimately increases in pragmatic severity, such limitations begin to 'infringe' on the concept of 'freedom' as related to the right. The degree of infringement, once again, being dependent upon how one perceives the 'fundamental freedom.'

"Carry" is a good example. We have a 'freedom' (i.e., a fundamental right) to keep and bear arms. As Scalia noted in the above piece, the 'liberty' was never unfettered. Catch that? The RIGHT is absolute, but the LIBERTY isn't. Put another way, from Heller...



How is that, at least superficially, different than what Biden said the other day?



The limitations Scalia subsequently cited were those which existed at the time of the Founding and those we generally agree with, at least in principle. They are limitations to the liberty of keeping and bearing arms which were self-imposed (ostensibly, by We the People) based on a 'reasonable' sense of appropriateness; not necessarily as blanket limitations, but to the individual situation and circumstances. The inherent 'danger' in the mindset of Biden and his divergence from Scalia when it comes to these EO's is the difference, as I said, in how each view what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. In a sense, it's what is contained in the 'debate' between Originalism and Living Constitutionalism.

As I stated earlier in this post and in the thread... My personal freedoms and liberties are not open to your or anyone else's sense of an "appropriate" compromise. Any compromise I engage in must be a personal choice and that choice must be made voluntarily in the interest of 'gaining something' in exchange for 'giving something' in a specific circumstance. Put another way, I have the liberty to choose what limitations I place on my actions based, in part, on my conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question.

What Biden and his ilk argue is that THEY have the liberty to choose what limitations are placed on MY actions based, in part, on THEIR conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question. In a turn of phrase, that should be seen as "taking liberties," which is defined as: "Treat something freely, without strict faithfulness to the facts or to an original."

This is precisely what I feel Scalia was arguing and why he responded to Wallace asking how such limitations should be decided with... "Very carefully." ... and why he talked about the approach "Originalism" would take; i.e., faithfulness to the facts and/or to the original meaning. It's also, ostensibly, behind Justice Neil Gorsuch: Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution...



Which is a longer way of saying that "Originalism" pays faithfulness to the facts or to an original, far more so than the alternative. It's part of why, once again, I tend to tout the mindset of SCOTUS in 1943...



If we accept that the Constitution leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process, that the "original intent" (the very purpose) of the Bill of Rights was to place certain, fundamental rights (notably, but not exclusively limited to, those specifically enumerated) outside the 'authority' of elections and votes, and we are "faithful" to those facts and the original intent of the Founders, then Biden's (and the Left's) approach is antithetical to and is 'playing freely with' what has long been perceived and enumerated as "fundamental rights."

They are not interested in leaving such decisions to We the People; despite the Constitution specifically declaring that We the People have delegated or entrusted the 'power to decide' to certain individuals, but that the Declaration of Independence notes that such 'power' is not delegated wholly and exclusively in perpetuity or without exception. To paraphrase Gorsuch... You could even say the real complaint (problem) for Biden and his 'side' is with our democracy. As such, they are operating outside the bounds of their delegated powers and We the People need to avail ourselves of the soap box, ballot box, and jury box in terms of reminding them of that before all that we are left with is the cartridge box or even 'threatening' the use of it.
You're just repeating the mantra we all already know. IT'S NOT WORKING! We continue to lose ground in most every state most every year. NO courts are taking the hard line you do in your interpretation of the 2A. NONE. NOT ONE in ANY state EVER! Why do you think repeating it over and over will somehow change anything?

NONE of the Amendments are or ever have been taken with your hard line approach. Not the First (fire in a crowded theater) Not the 4th (search and seizure) not the 14th. Placeing limitations of the Bill of Rights is certainly not Biden's idea. It has been going on as long as we've had the Bill of Rights. We need to get over our fantasy that someone is going to sweep in and change that.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-11-2021, 9:05 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,667
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That reality is the premise of how we are being attacked now. As I said before, in that sense, Biden is in agreement with Scalia when he says that 'no right is completely unlimited.' Where the two diverge is in what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. You cannot 'infringe' on the right if the limitation existed all the way along. At least that would be the argument.
Civil rights are by nature expansive - in vacuum, they would be unlimited. In society, they are limited when they collide with other people's civil rights. Just saying "it's not unlimited" is a truism. What matters is how we determine the allowable limits. It's not a wish-list or a moral issue.

The left believes guns and self defense are Neanderthal and immoral. They believe humans have evolved past the violence and crime and we just need to shame the criminals into becoming part of the modern society. For the few stragglers, the police will take care of them. The reality is quite different, but policy makers on the left don't go to "those parts of the city." No one from the polite society goes "there," they just "help them" and feel good about being moral and ethical people. Holier than thou.

The left's argument is invalid because it is subjective. Objective arguments start with some baselines that provide hard boundaries. Here is my list:
  • Strict Scrutiny is the default judicial standard of review. The government has to prove what they are trying to accomplish (compelling interest), must address only what they claim to fix (narrowly tailored) and cannot overreach (least restrictive way).
  • Anything police can have, people can have. Police don't go to war. They live in the same society as the rest of the people.
  • Disarming people in any area creates liability for personal protection of those disarmed.

We can add many more, but this is my "smell test." If a gun is meant to "kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time" and therefore is not suitable for people, it's certainly not suitable for police - why would police need to kill as many people as possible? If the goal is to "take guns away from criminals," do not take them away from law abiding. If there is a need for "background checks," do not record serial numbers and make/model since background checks are the same regardless of the firearm. If there is a a "gun free zone," make sure that it is a controlled environment such as stadiums or airports and that bad guys cannot choose not to disarm.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-11-2021, 9:08 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,667
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
We continue to lose ground in most every state most every year.
We just added, what, three more constitutional carry states this year already? We are up to 19-20 from exactly 0 a few decades back. We have sanctuary states for 2A and dropping restrictions in all but a handful of states.

No, we are gaining grounds. That's why they are panicking and tightening controls in the few remaining states they dominate. We just have to keep pushing to get the liberation we need.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 04-11-2021 at 10:45 AM.. Reason: Missing words
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-11-2021, 9:27 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 5,843
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
We continue to lose ground in most every state most every year.
That simply isn't true. That's only the case in California and a couple of other blue states. Living in California gives you a skewed perspective and makes you overly pessimistic. More and more states are going constitutional carry.

Gov. Bill Lee signs [Tennessee] constitutional carry bill into law
https://news.yahoo.com/gov-bill-lee-...232855720.html

18 States: As Constitutional Carry Advances, There’s Still a Long Way to Go
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/co...eeds-our-help/




States are loosening gun controls and gun rights advocates are winning court cases.


West Virginia: Pro-Gun Bills Pass
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...gun-bills-pass

Four Pro-Gun Bills Headed to Louisiana Governor
https://www.guns.com/news/2020/06/03...siana-governor

Arizona's Ducey signs bill protecting state gun laws from federal legislation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ari...al-legislation

Judge Affirms Hunters Can Use Traditional Ammo in NRA Case
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...mo-in-nra-case

Victory in Colorado Preemption Case
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...reemption-case

NRA Victory in Washington Court of Appeals
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...urt-of-appeals

Your California-centric, pessimistic, "the sky is falling, we have to agree to more background checks" (even though they have failed miserably to stop mass shootings and keep violent criminals from obtaining firearms) approach is misguided at best, and mostly unhelpful.

Gun controls are very ineffective at preventing gun-related crimes or suicides. They are very effective at making it easier for otherwise law-abiding gun owners to commit a (mostly victimless) gun control law violation, and at wasting the time and money of law-abiding gun owners. Giving in to ("compromising") with gun controllers doesn't appease, satisfy, or stop them. It just allows them to check off another item on their wish list so they can move on to the next item.



Listen, and understand. Gun controllers are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until your gun rights are dead.

Gun control advocates love no one more than gun owners like you who support their policies. It gives weight to their claims that their proposals are "reasonable" and "common sense". Joe Biden was talking about gun owners like you when he said:

"These are some of the best tools we have right now to prevent gun violence and save lives. But all these bills, they had support of both Democrats and Republicans in the House. And universal background checks are supported by the vast majority of the American people and, I might add, the vast majority of responsible gun owners."

You see, gun owners who agree with Joe Biden about so-called "universal" background checks are responsible gun owners, praised and admired by Joe Biden and his ilk. That implies that anyone who disagrees with you and Biden about so-called "universal" background checks is not a responsible gun owner. See how it works? You are playing right into their hands.

Gun owners who support more gun control are Benedict Arnolds who are giving aid and comfort to our gun control enemies. And it is the wrong approach, because outside of California and a few other blue states, we are winning, not losing. It just seems to you like you are losing because you live in California.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-11-2021, 3:47 PM
M1A-08 M1A-08 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 423
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diverwcw View Post
Spot on! Instead of a sports drink or some gourmet coffee in the AM, send one of these outfits a few dollars to help. Gavin newscum raised millions by begging for $5. Any amount will help: $5, $10. Cash talks and BS walks.

Exactly. As an off-roader too I see the Sierra Club, and other anti-access organizations, taking in cash by asking for the smallest donation. Those donations are used against off-roaders in court battles by paying their attorneys fees. I try and donate $25/ quarter (every 3 months or so) to organizations that deal in both of my hobbies, off-roading and firearms. I’m not saying everyone should do $25 but even $5 or $10 here and there can keep our heads above the water line.
__________________
NRA Life Member
CRPA Member
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-11-2021, 7:51 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
You're just repeating the mantra we all already know. IT'S NOT WORKING! We continue to lose ground in most every state most every year.
Well... As you have had repeatedly pointed out to you and as has been posted on myriad threads, we aren't 'losing ground' in every state. "Constitutional carry" and "Sanctuary State" status are two examples. As I told you before, the premise of your argument is... flawed... to say the least. You expound on partial truth as the be all, end all of "Truth" and carry on from there. It makes for weak argument and repetitive discussion; which you then turn around and accuse others of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR
NO courts are taking the hard line you do in your interpretation of the 2A.
In case you've missed it, it's not "MY" interpretation. As I pointed out, it's my understanding of what Scalia was getting at; i.e., an understanding that Thomas and, to a slightly lesser degree, Alito have carried forward. It's an 'understanding' that Gorsuch seems to be pursuing, at least in part. It references how the Supreme Court felt in 1943 about fundamental rights and while that has changed some over the decades, it's still representative of how some on the Court feel about certain rights. (The key being which rights each Justice still feels compelled to treat as "beyond the reach of majorities and elections.")

By the way, what you reference as "MY" interpretation is the traditional interpretation of a fundamental right, going back to the Founders. Once again, don't confuse theory and application; e.g., freedom with liberty. The Supreme Court has had 'trouble' attempting to define both. However, when it comes to "liberty"...

Quote:
...As used in Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom act according to one's own will...
Put simply, it is the ability to "Do" something or "Act." Being a bit more abstract, "freedom" is something more often 'referenced' than 'defined' and is typically 'cloaked' in discussions as being "the right;" e.g., 'limitations' on the right is, in some ways, definitional, but not necessarily definitive. This is why I used the exemplar of "carry." We have a 'freedom' (i.e., a fundamental right) to keep and bear arms. As Scalia noted in the above piece, the 'liberty' was never unfettered. Catch that? The RIGHT is absolute, but the LIBERTY isn't.

More bluntly, the right ('freedom') to "keep and bear arms" is immutable and, according to the majority opinion in Heller, an individual one. An individual's ability to ACT ('liberty') on that right has always been constrained, by law, by social convention, by circumstances, etc. It's why Wallace asked "What arms are protected?" and Scalia, ultimately, answered "We'll see." Put another way, the right ('freedom') is absolute to keep and bear arms; but, the liberty of which arms, how they can be carried, and where/when they can be carried is what the discourse, debate, and controversy has been and continues to be all about.

To put it in the context of Biden's example of "yelling fire in a theater," it's not against the law to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You have that right ('freedom'). What you are not shielded from are the consequences of ACTING ('liberty') on that right.

Which is where INTENT comes into play and is exactly where the hypothetical came from in the SCOTUS case it rests in. If there is an actual fire, many would consider it to be your civic duty to yell "Fire!" with the intention of saving lives. If, however, there is no fire, and your intent is to do harm, then there are and will be consequences to your actions. That's not an 'interpretation' on my part. In Schenck v. United States...

Quote:
...We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree...
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, which 'modified' Schenck...

Quote:
...These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action...

...The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action... They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas as in Yates and advocacy of political action as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience...
There's more, but the point is that while the 'freedom' to act is absolute, the 'liberty' of acting comes with consequences. The nature of those consequences don't always involve legalities and aren't limited to them. However, 'legal consequence' is (or is supposed to be) limited by the actions taken, the circumstances of those actions, and the intent of those actions. As IVC notes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Civil rights are by nature expansive - in vacuum, they would be unlimited. In society, they are limited when they collide with other people's civil rights. Just saying "it's not unlimited" is a truism. What matters is how we determine the allowable limits. It's not a wish-list or a moral issue...
A lack of "individual self-control" will cause a social group to develop 'rules' as regard conduct. When the 'rules' become insufficient insofar as controlling behaviors, 'laws' are then put in place. But, 'laws' are, by their nature, 'warnings' regarding certain types of behavior, 'parameters' for after-the-fact evaluations of the behavior, and provide for consequences should the behavior be evaluated as unacceptable. It's the very reason for the levels of scrutiny in the Judiciary; i.e., the 'parameters' for after-the-fact evaluation of the behavior. It's why those levels represent a 'spectrum' and why, in theory, when it involves a 'protected liberty'...

Quote:
Strict Scrutiny is at the opposite end of the spectrum. The Supreme Court has declared government regulation should be scrutinized very strictly when it infringes on a protected liberty (like procreation or marriage) or a protection action (like political speech), or when it unfairly discriminates against a protected class (like race or national origin).
It's how we 'lost' open carry. The freedom (right) to bear arms wasn't in question. The liberty to do so openly was. However, the INTENT of people such as...





...was provocation and confrontation. Just like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater where the INTENT is to do harm rather than protect life. Clearly, social norms were insufficient to create self-constraint; thus, laws were passed and here we are. You are still 'free' to openly carry if you so choose. However, expect that your 'liberty' is going to be severely curtailed if you choose to do so inappropriately.

Inappropriately? Yes. One is still allowed to 'open carry,' even in California, under certain, specific circumstances. While Thee and Me may feel 'constrained' by such limitations, the reality is that such 'constraint' is the result of being averse to the potential consequences should we stray from those specific limitations on the liberty vis a vis what we, as individuals, deem to be compliance with our 'right' (freedom).

But, this goes back to what I said earlier regarding such limitations needing to be a personal choice rather than a societal imposition in that individual choice can be used to determine appropriateness "in the moment," while societal imposition in the form of 'laws' are enforced as one-size-fits-all resolutions, are dependent upon the perceptions of others as to how our 'freedoms' are defined, and tend to aggregate. Unfortunately, if we evidence an inability to 'control' ourselves as individuals, then, as noted, society will attempt to impose such 'control.' When the number in that society become sufficient and/or those in 'power' adopt a certain mindset, such societal attempts tend toward repression/oppression and preemption/usurpation rather than being circumspect, evaluative, and limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR
NONE. NOT ONE in ANY state EVER! Why do you think repeating it over and over will somehow change anything?
Are you sure? Heller? McDonald? Judge Benitez? Constitutional Carry States? Sanctuary States? Insofar as the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, aren't we seeing such repeated and, in some ways, with greater urgency/frequency? Isn't it the very basis of the 'debate' and why Biden's EO's were more 'limited' (for now) than many were concerned they would be; i.e., that the continual repetition was a 'warning' not to go 'too far' and, especially, 'too fast' or a backlash would result? Isn't that what Democrats were supposed to have 'learned' from their decision(s) in 1994 and why it's taken them a full generation to bring it back at this level again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR
NONE of the Amendments are or ever have been taken with your hard line approach. Not the First (fire in a crowded theater) Not the 4th (search and seizure) not the 14th. Placeing limitations of the Bill of Rights is certainly not Biden's idea. It has been going on as long as we've had the Bill of Rights. We need to get over our fantasy that someone is going to sweep in and change that.
What you appear to have missed is that I'm not the one who is calling for, as I cited Gorsuch as saying... "philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers." I am the one who is noting that Biden and Scalia agree that no amendment is completely unlimited. What I am noting is that, rather than fantasy, the courts have, traditionally, seen the issue as I have described and that the 'danger' we now face is an usurpation (and/or abandonment) of Judicial authority in favor of... something else. Instead of our liberties and freedoms being unconnected to "the vicissitudes of political controversy" and "beyond the reach of majorities and officials," those now in power wish to deliberately and overtly change the very structure and ignore the very traditions which form the basis of this country.

In many respects, you are attempting the same thing. You wish to abandon the 'mantra' of Truth, as it has been promulgated from the Founders, to a 'perception' stemming from 'partial truth' (and, sorry, outright 'falsehood') to accomplish... something. I'm just not clear on what that 'something' is at this point. If it is to purvey a 'mantra' of "compromise is necessary to avoid...," then there is some truth in that. But, as I said to you previously, such a 'mantra' is something you chant based on the false premise that we have 'never' done that when, in fact, that's about ALL we have done (or allowed to transpire) and, sooner or later, you run out of cake.

In the end, it's not about how thin the pieces of a cake can be sliced so that everyone has a 'piece.' It's about how thin you can slice pieces from the cake and how often you can continue slicing those pieces while keeping enough on the platter for it to be perceived as a 'cake.'
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-11-2021, 8:52 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Civil rights are by nature expansive - in vacuum, they would be unlimited. In society, they are limited when they collide with other people's civil rights. Just saying "it's not unlimited" is a truism. What matters is how we determine the allowable limits. It's not a wish-list or a moral issue.

The left believes guns and self defense are Neanderthal and immoral. They believe humans have evolved past the violence and crime and we just need to shame the criminals into becoming part of the modern society. For the few stragglers, the police will take care of them. The reality is quite different, but policy makers on the left don't go to "those parts of the city." No one from the polite society goes "there," they just "help them" and feel good about being moral and ethical people. Holier than thou.

The left's argument is invalid because it is subjective. Objective arguments start with some baselines that provide hard boundaries. Here is my list:
  • Strict Scrutiny is the default judicial standard of review. The government has to prove what they are trying to accomplish (compelling interest), must address only what they claim to fix (narrowly tailored) and cannot overreach (least restrictive way).
  • Anything police can have, people can have. Police don't go to war. They live in the same society as the rest of the people.
  • Disarming people in any area creates liability for personal protection of those disarmed.

We can add many more, but this is my "smell test." If a gun is meant to "kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time" and therefore is not suitable for people, it's certainly not suitable for police - why would police need to kill as many people as possible? If the goal is to "take guns away from criminals," do not take them away from law abiding. If there is a need for "background checks," do not record serial numbers and make/model since background checks are the same regardless of the firearm. If there is a a "gun free zone," make sure that it is a controlled environment such as stadiums or airports and that bad guys cannot choose not to disarm.
Which is why I expanded in a subsequent post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...The limitations Scalia subsequently cited were those which existed at the time of the Founding and those we generally agree with, at least in principle. They are limitations to the liberty of keeping and bearing arms which were self-imposed (ostensibly, by We the People) based on a 'reasonable' sense of appropriateness; not necessarily as blanket limitations, but to the individual situation and circumstances. The inherent 'danger' in the mindset of Biden and his divergence from Scalia when it comes to these EO's is the difference, as I said, in how each view what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. In a sense, it's what is contained in the 'debate' between Originalism and Living Constitutionalism.

As I stated earlier in this post and in the thread... My personal freedoms and liberties are not open to your or anyone else's sense of an "appropriate" compromise. Any compromise I engage in must be a personal choice and that choice must be made voluntarily in the interest of 'gaining something' in exchange for 'giving something' in a specific circumstance. Put another way, I have the liberty to choose what limitations I place on my actions based, in part, on my conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question.

What Biden and his ilk argue is that THEY have the liberty to choose what limitations are placed on MY actions based, in part, on THEIR conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question. In a turn of phrase, that should be seen as "taking liberties," which is defined as: "Treat something freely, without strict faithfulness to the facts or to an original."...
In a sense, you are correct and on a certain level, I agree with you. Unfortunately, we are now up against legerdemain and not simply an 'honest' philosophical debate. As a result...

Strict Scrutiny is the default judicial standard of review... Actually, that's not correct. Strict Scrutiny is supposed to be the standard when it comes to fundamental rights. But, even there, one must be cautious. First, you must establish that the "right" itself is "at issue/risk." Second, one needs to remember, as was argued in Heller, by the dissent, that...
Quote:
...Respondent proposes that the Court adopt a “strict scrutiny” test, which would require reviewing with care each gun law to determine whether it is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” ... But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws—prohibitions on concealed weapons, forfeiture by criminals of the Second Amendment right, prohibitions on firearms in certain locales, and governmental regulation of commercial firearm sales—whose constitutionality under a strict scrutiny standard would be far from clear...

Indeed, adoption of a true strict-scrutiny standard for evaluating gun regulations would be impossible. That is because almost every gun-control regulation will seek to advance (as the one here does) a “primary concern of every government—a concern for the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens.” ... The Court has deemed that interest, as well as “the Government’s general interest in preventing crime,” to be “compelling,” ... and the Court has in a wide variety of constitutional contexts found such public-safety concerns sufficiently forceful to justify restrictions on individual liberties...

Thus, any attempt in theory to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations will in practice turn into an interest-balancing inquiry, with the interests protected by the Second Amendment on one side and the governmental public-safety concerns on the other, the only question being whether the regulation at issue impermissibly burdens the former in the course of advancing the latter...
Put another way: "Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it."

Remember, Scalia did not expound upon "strict scrutiny;" but, simply took issue with Breyer's "interest balancing" approach, noting... "since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field..." In that vein, the majority deliberately did not attempt to "set a standard of review" for 2nd Amendment cases and that is one of the 'weaknesses' many perceive and/or have pointed to in Heller.

Anything police can have, people can have. Police don't go to war... The "War" on Drugs? The "militarization" of the police? The "War" on terror isn't just limited to the 'military' is it? The "War on Police?" Again, be careful. It's not as Leave It To Beaver idyllic as it used to be.

Disarming people in any area creates liability for personal protection of those disarmed... Is that true or is that a personal perception? Remember, SCOTUS has ruled, multiple times, that the 'duty' of Government is protection of the "public," not individuals. Are you 'disarmed' if you still have 'access' to 'arms' of some kind? Again, be cautious.

If the goal is to "take guns away from criminals," do not take them away from law abiding... That's the 'stated' agenda in many, though not all, cases; but, is that, truly, what their GOAL is? It's not about inference. It's about paying attention to how their statements are contextualized/couched. Just like so-called "assault weapons." The argument is that "if such firearms were not available, then criminals..." Ostensibly, the agenda is perceived to be 'access by criminals,' but the goal, as stated, is to make the firearms unavailable... period.

If there is a need for "background checks," do not record serial numbers and make/model since background checks are the same regardless of the firearm... Such fails to address the basis of the perceived "need." Generally speaking, proponents contextualize UBC as 'necessary' to prevent or preclude potential violence. Does the potential for violent use of the firearm 'end' with the individual making the initial purchase? While Thee and Me may understand that 'firearm tracing,' after-the-crime, is a fallacious premise or tool for 'prevention,' such legerdemain does not obviate the subjective aspect that many feel regarding the... possibilities. The same applies to...

If there is a a "gun free zone," make sure that it is a controlled environment such as stadiums or airports and that bad guys cannot choose not to disarm... Is "public safety" an absolute or an ideal and is it measured pragmatically or subjectively? Based on our legal system, without the pretense of a 'gun free zone,' how would you enforce disarmament in that zone? Once again, don't confuse the fallacy in their 'logic' with the agenda or goal behind it.

As I said, you are not 'wrong' and, at some level, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dried simple. If it were, things would be much 'easier.'
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-12-2021, 8:57 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,667
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, that's not correct. Strict Scrutiny is supposed to be the standard when it comes to fundamental rights. ...
Of course... My post was about what I personally see as the baseline for evaluating any gun control proposal. Anything below that threshold doesn't pass the smell test (for me).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-12-2021, 2:48 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silence Dogood View Post
Despite calling out the classic anti-gunner lies that Joe repeated, this piece starts off by pushing the “mass shooting” narrative.

This choice of words reinforces the inaccurate idea that mass shootings are a primary source of death in America. The raw numbers compiled annually by the CDC show this to be false going back for decades, not only as conpared to total population but more tellingly when conpared to other causes of death. The unbiased inquisitive mind will ask:

In the same period of time (last few weeks)
-how many people died from gun wounds not associated with “mass shootings”?
-how many people died from non-gun related criminal behavior?
-how many people were killed in highway incidents?
-how many times was a gun used ethically and lawfully in defense of an innocent person?

That single sentence is damaging to our cause. It would have been just as accurate had it read, “In the wake of 23,000 deaths due to drug overdose in the past two weeks. . .” and it would not have perpetuated the false narrative that “mass shootings” are an epidemic that must be cured.
Why you sugar coating it... America does not have a random gun violence problem in general if you take away inner city ethnic gun violence.. plain and simple.. But, good luck getting media and politicians to talk about that.. since the perps and victims are largely their ethnic pets...
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-12-2021, 2:50 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We're well past "bumper sticker" bravado. It's a much more nuanced conversation than that and it always has been; contrary to what many claim. What shall not be infringed? The right? What right and what might the limitations on that right have been at the time what was written was written?

I keep posting this segment, not because I believe that Scalia was the messenger of God; but, because he acknowledges an important reality...



That reality is the premise of how we are being attacked now. As I said before, in that sense, Biden is in agreement with Scalia when he says that 'no right is completely unlimited.' Where the two diverge is in what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. You cannot 'infringe' on the right if the limitation existed all the way along. At least that would be the argument.

Heller is a prime example of OUR 'lack of understanding.' We scoff at Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al. when they claim to 'support the 2nd Amendment.' The problem is, they do support it, but their understanding/interpretation of it is different than our's. They view it as the dissent viewed it in Heller, as a collective right, subject to collective constraints. We view it more along the lines of the majority in Heller; i.e., as an individual right, subject to the perceptions of the individual.

"Infringed" is defined: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." What we deem as 'infringement' is something they deem consistent with THEIR understanding/interpretation. What we deem as consistent with our understanding/interpretation is viewed as an 'infringement' by them as to, not only the 2nd Amendment, but in terms of how it 'fits' within the broader scheme of rights the public is entitled to. But, such a view, unto itself, is suggestive of an understanding/interpretation which is antithetical to the historical context of the Bill of Rights and its purpose. "Fundamental rights" are not 'privileges' bestowed by Government or decided upon by 50%+1 of We the People.

However, there is a difference between the abstract "freedom" and the pragmatism inherent to "liberty." That's where we tend to 'fail' in our rebuttals to actions such as these EO's. We talk about "freedoms" as an absolute while they 'infringe' upon our liberties. The two are not synonymous and we need to recognize (and accept) that while 'freedom' is a state of mind that can only be ameliorated by ourselves, 'liberty' is something which impacts or potentially impacts others and, thus, requires some 'limitation.'

Should that 'limitation' be self-imposed based on a 'reasonable' sense of appropriateness to the situation and circumstances? Absolutely.

Such 'limitation(s)' should NOT be dictated by individuals or groups. Why? Because they are not 'suitable for all audiences' or in 'all circumstances.' Yet, by the very nature of their 'dictation,' they are enforced as one-size-fits-all resolutions, are dependent upon the perceptions of others as to how our 'freedoms' are defined, and tend to aggregate. That last is where we are at now, in California.

It's not that any individual law is so heinous as to be, objectively and universally viewed as 'infringement' on the 'freedom;' though it may be seen as a 'limitation' on the 'liberty.' Such is typically presented and/or viewed as a 'necessary limitation,' even by some who are thereby 'limited.' Yet, as the 'limitations' increase in number and as the resultant degree of 'limitation' ultimately increases in pragmatic severity, such limitations begin to 'infringe' on the concept of 'freedom' as related to the right. The degree of infringement, once again, being dependent upon how one perceives the 'fundamental freedom.'

"Carry" is a good example. We have a 'freedom' (i.e., a fundamental right) to keep and bear arms. As Scalia noted in the above piece, the 'liberty' was never unfettered. Catch that? The RIGHT is absolute, but the LIBERTY isn't. Put another way, from Heller...



How is that, at least superficially, different than what Biden said the other day?



The limitations Scalia subsequently cited were those which existed at the time of the Founding and those we generally agree with, at least in principle. They are limitations to the liberty of keeping and bearing arms which were self-imposed (ostensibly, by We the People) based on a 'reasonable' sense of appropriateness; not necessarily as blanket limitations, but to the individual situation and circumstances. The inherent 'danger' in the mindset of Biden and his divergence from Scalia when it comes to these EO's is the difference, as I said, in how each view what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. In a sense, it's what is contained in the 'debate' between Originalism and Living Constitutionalism.

As I stated earlier in this post and in the thread... My personal freedoms and liberties are not open to your or anyone else's sense of an "appropriate" compromise. Any compromise I engage in must be a personal choice and that choice must be made voluntarily in the interest of 'gaining something' in exchange for 'giving something' in a specific circumstance. Put another way, I have the liberty to choose what limitations I place on my actions based, in part, on my conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question.

What Biden and his ilk argue is that THEY have the liberty to choose what limitations are placed on MY actions based, in part, on THEIR conceptualization of the 'freedom/right' protected by the Amendment in question. In a turn of phrase, that should be seen as "taking liberties," which is defined as: "Treat something freely, without strict faithfulness to the facts or to an original."

This is precisely what I feel Scalia was arguing and why he responded to Wallace asking how such limitations should be decided with... "Very carefully." ... and why he talked about the approach "Originalism" would take; i.e., faithfulness to the facts and/or to the original meaning. It's also, ostensibly, behind Justice Neil Gorsuch: Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution...



Which is a longer way of saying that "Originalism" pays faithfulness to the facts or to an original, far more so than the alternative. It's part of why, once again, I tend to tout the mindset of SCOTUS in 1943...



If we accept that the Constitution leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process, that the "original intent" (the very purpose) of the Bill of Rights was to place certain, fundamental rights (notably, but not exclusively limited to, those specifically enumerated) outside the 'authority' of elections and votes, and we are "faithful" to those facts and the original intent of the Founders, then Biden's (and the Left's) approach is antithetical to and is 'playing freely with' what has long been perceived and enumerated as "fundamental rights."

They are not interested in leaving such decisions to We the People; despite the Constitution specifically declaring that We the People have delegated or entrusted the 'power to decide' to certain individuals, but that the Declaration of Independence notes that such 'power' is not delegated wholly and exclusively in perpetuity or without exception. To paraphrase Gorsuch... You could even say the real complaint (problem) for Biden and his 'side' is with our democracy. As such, they are operating outside the bounds of their delegated powers and We the People need to avail ourselves of the soap box, ballot box, and jury box in terms of reminding them of that before all that we are left with is the cartridge box or even 'threatening' the use of it.

I will boil all this down one more time for you.. it is going to be up to WE THE PEOPLE at the end of the day... be it 1 day from now or 5 years from now..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-12-2021, 6:15 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
I will boil all this down one more time for you.. it is going to be up to WE THE PEOPLE at the end of the day... be it 1 day from now or 5 years from now..
Since you seem to feel those who disagree with you don't see the big picture or are simpletons, I remind you of the last paragraph of what you quoted from me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
They are not interested in leaving such decisions to We the People; despite the Constitution specifically declaring that We the People have delegated or entrusted the 'power to decide' to certain individuals, but that the Declaration of Independence notes that such 'power' is not delegated wholly and exclusively in perpetuity or without exception. To paraphrase Gorsuch... You could even say the real complaint (problem) for Biden and his 'side' is with our democracy. As such, they are operating outside the bounds of their delegated powers and We the People need to avail ourselves of the soap box, ballot box, and jury box in terms of reminding them of that before all that we are left with is the cartridge box or even 'threatening' the use of it.
What you and others have to be prepared for is that the "fundamental changes" the Left has 'promised' for this country, while being unacceptable to us, may be acceptable to a significant number of We the People, even to the point of "them" being a majority. It's not about We the People as an hegemonic 'militaristic force' and, in fact, that is supposed to be the LAST resort. Sometimes, it's about being an "Irish Democracy"...

Quote:
...Meanwhile, in Connecticut a massive new gun-registration scheme is also facing civil disobedience. As J.D. Tuccille reports: "Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as 'assault weapons,' and 2 million plus high-capacity magazines. ... But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for 'assault weapon' registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines."

This is more "Irish Democracy," passive resistance to government overreach. The Hartford (Conn.) Courant is demanding that the state use background-check records to prosecute those who haven't registered, but the state doesn't have the resources and it's doubtful juries would convict ordinary, law-abiding people for failure to file some paperwork...
Fire in the belly is good. Resistance is not futile. But, choose carefully the type of resistance you use that fire in the belly to exercise and promote or allude to in that you need to make sure that We the People are with you. Remember... There has long been debate over the definition of who is among "We the People"...

Quote:
The Constitution famously begins with a flourish, “We the People.” Less famously, the phrase “the people” appears in several other constitutional clauses, five of which are in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment ensures “the right of the people” to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”; the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people” against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to “the people” nonenumerated rights and powers, respectively. Do these references to “the people” point to particular individuals, or are they merely rhetorical? If they point to particular individuals, do they refer to American citizens, or to everyone in the country irrespective of citizenship? Finally, could “the people” mean different things in different amendments?...

Finally, in principle, the groups that Heller’s analysis of “the people” potentially excludes — minors, felons, and noncitizens — are groups that lack political power. They cannot vote, they likely lack the finances to influence policy, and they may lack facility with English. Because these groups cannot represent themselves as effectively as others, we should be especially careful before potentially depriving them of central rights. And these rights — which include expression, association, and privacy — are fundamental to democracy, liberty, and basic decency. These ideas have been part of the American creed since the Founding. Thus, while it may be possible to view Heller as a commentary on the meaning of “the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments, this interpretation is at odds with the Court’s precedents, the Constitution’s purposes, and this country’s principles.
Heller was, barely, a 5-4 decision in our favor. A major part of that is a distinct difference in how "fundamental rights" are viewed. As I also said in what you quoted...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Heller is a prime example of OUR 'lack of understanding.' We scoff at Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al. when they claim to 'support the 2nd Amendment.' The problem is, they do support it, but their understanding/interpretation of it is different than our's. They view it as the dissent viewed it in Heller, as a collective right, subject to collective constraints. We view it more along the lines of the majority in Heller; i.e., as an individual right, subject to the perceptions of the individual.
So... When you "boil it down," make sure of what you'll actually have left in the pot before ringing the dinner bell. What's left might not be to your taste, my taste, or anyone else's.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-12-2021 at 6:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-12-2021, 9:25 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Since you seem to feel those who disagree with you don't see the big picture or are simpletons, I remind you of the last paragraph of what you quoted from me...



What you and others have to be prepared for is that the "fundamental changes" the Left has 'promised' for this country, while being unacceptable to us, may be acceptable to a significant number of We the People, even to the point of "them" being a majority. It's not about We the People as an hegemonic 'militaristic force' and, in fact, that is supposed to be the LAST resort. Sometimes, it's about being an "Irish Democracy"...



Fire in the belly is good. Resistance is not futile. But, choose carefully the type of resistance you use that fire in the belly to exercise and promote or allude to in that you need to make sure that We the People are with you. Remember... There has long been debate over the definition of who is among "We the People"...



Heller was, barely, a 5-4 decision in our favor. A major part of that is a distinct difference in how "fundamental rights" are viewed. As I also said in what you quoted...



So... When you "boil it down," make sure of what you'll actually have left in the pot before ringing the dinner bell. What's left might not be to your taste, my taste, or anyone else's.

I an not agreeing or disagreeing.. I am telling you how it will be
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-12-2021, 11:09 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
I an not agreeing or disagreeing.. I am telling you how it will be
Correction... You're indicating how you THINK it will be.

What I'm indicating is that you might be correct; but, not necessarily in the way many think/espouse on this board. What needs to be done in the meantime is to make sure we do all we can with the soap box, ballot box, and jury box BEFORE the power that is "We the People" take a direct hand. Otherwise, "We the People" may not be comprised of who we think or want them to be and they could very well have a different understanding of things than we hold true and dear.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-13-2021, 12:57 PM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is offline
Progressives Suck!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bye Bye Commiefornia!
Posts: 5,582
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Biden is a piece of SH111111T. Thanks all you Democracks!

I am out of California shortly. All you delusional Dim gun owners, just keep marinating in your denial and stupidity. Libertarian, and Conservative voting gun owners excepted.

California gun owners have been too divided and too stupid to organize and fight back.....And now it's too late... The commie Democrats don't fear gun owners will vote them out of office anymore thanks to your limp and tepid response over the decades. Its over, you can stop fighting now, you've been over run, stop fighting against your restraints, you are soon to become slaves. Turn them in.

The only thing the Commies fear is the Courts, and they've just about intimidated the Supreme Court into submission. After that the only barricade left is State power. It's too late for Commiefornia, the writing is on the wall, your fates are sealed. You have become slaves.


I'm moving to a red state and I'm going to put in as much effort as I can to try to keep my new home free. You too can move to a free State and help to keep it free. But leave your Commie Democrat politics behind.

I fear for America, it looks like the Great Experiment in Freedom is dying rapidly from an internal infection from the far left.

The Woke Zombie Useful Idiots and Marxist CEOs have joined the corrupt Dims in the Government, to conspire for our destruction. And unknowingly, their destruction too.

I'm working on a plan, that if all else fails I can get my wife and I out of the US too. That's how bad I think it could get. If you give up your guns and ammo you are a slave.
__________________
C'mon man, shouldn't we ban Democracks from Cal-Guns? Or at least send them to re-education camps.

Last edited by ScottsBad; 04-13-2021 at 1:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-13-2021, 1:31 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
We just added, what, three more constitutional carry states this year already? We are up to 19-20 from exactly 0 a few decades back. We have sanctuary states for 2A and dropping restrictions in all but a handful of states.

No, we are gaining grounds. That's why they are panicking and tightening controls in the few remaining states they dominate. We just have to keep pushing to get the liberation we need.
Constitutional carry (in basically Red states) is meaningless. Frankly we are all amazed they didn't have that already. Wake me up when CA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, FL or other big states with actual populations live go constitutional carry.

In the meantime, CA, NY and NJ continue to tighten it down. After Newtown shooting, CT enacted anti- AW laws. Same laws now being advanced in CO, FL and others. MANY states around the country are following CA's lead. That is NOT progress for us. Now the Feds are riled up because of the LATEST mass shooting, so now that might be in play.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-13-2021, 2:16 PM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is offline
Progressives Suck!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bye Bye Commiefornia!
Posts: 5,582
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The discussion put forth here is filled with weak and sad arguments. Its only meaningful to discuss the Constitution and law if THEY intend to properly and judiciously interpret and follow it. But they don't believe in the Constitution and have NO intention to abide by it.

What is happening goes WAY beyond guns! They want single party rule, and they don't want anyone contesting their take over. Taking away guns is just part of the plan. They don't think seriously about it except to consider how our rights will be eliminated. They will pack the Court if they can.

In case people missed it, Biden said, "No amendment is absolute". He is signalling that he intends to run over the Constitution.

Forget about it, these people are not operating in good faith. There is no intention to do what is right for America, to stand by our traditions, and follow the direction set by the Founders. There will be no compromise.

When are you people going to wake up? They are NOT playing by the rules, they don't care about critical thinking, or fairness except their definition of it.

Haven't you figured it out yet? I'm reminded of the movie Terminator:

Biden and the Woke Zombies can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with. These Commies don't feel pity or remorse or fear and they absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are a slave or dead.
__________________
C'mon man, shouldn't we ban Democracks from Cal-Guns? Or at least send them to re-education camps.

Last edited by ScottsBad; 04-13-2021 at 2:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-13-2021, 3:21 PM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is offline
Progressives Suck!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bye Bye Commiefornia!
Posts: 5,582
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We're well past "bumper sticker" bravado. It's a much more nuanced conversation than that and it always has been; contrary to what many claim. What shall not be infringed? The right? What right and what might the limitations on that right have been at the time what was written was written?

I keep posting this segment, not because I believe that Scalia was the messenger of God; but, because he acknowledges an important reality...

That reality is the premise of how we are being attacked now. As I said before, in that sense, Biden is in agreement with Scalia when he says that 'no right is completely unlimited.' Where the two diverge is in what limitations did exist, what limitations would/should exist/be allowed, and who gets to decide. You cannot 'infringe' on the right if the limitation existed all the way along. At least that would be the argument.

Heller is a prime example of OUR 'lack of understanding.' We scoff at Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al. when they claim to 'support the 2nd Amendment.' The problem is, they do support it, but their understanding/interpretation of it is different than our's. They view it as the dissent viewed it in Heller, as a collective right, subject to collective constraints. We view it more along the lines of the majority in Heller; i.e., as an individual right, subject to the perceptions of the individual.

Blah

Blah

Blah

They are not interested in leaving such decisions to We the People; despite the Constitution specifically declaring that We the People have delegated or entrusted the 'power to decide' to certain individuals, but that the Declaration of Independence notes that such 'power' is not delegated wholly and exclusively in perpetuity or without exception. To paraphrase Gorsuch... You could even say the real complaint (problem) for Biden and his 'side' is with our democracy. As such, they are operating outside the bounds of their delegated powers and We the People need to avail ourselves of the soap box, ballot box, and jury box in terms of reminding them of that before all that we are left with is the cartridge box or even 'threatening' the use of it.

Your last paragraph is somewhat relevant to what is happening in America, but the other side won't listen to that... Do you really think that Biden, who doesn't have enough brain left to get through a sentence, is thinking deeply about anything? He was never that bright anyway. When he said, "No amendment is absolute", there was no subtlety there. The guy reads what is put in front of him, that's why he seldom answers questions.

You argue nuance, which would be great if that's where we were as a Country, but have you heard ANY coherent, thoughtful, and logical debate in the media???

On the contrary, we are well past nuanced conversations, the other side ignores them. Yours and others mental masturbatory "nuanced" post is like someone engaging the owner of car, which sitting on the train tracks, in a discussion of Newton's Third Law instead of pushing the car off the tracks as the train bears down at 75MPH.

It is pointless; THEY are not about carefully respecting the 2nd Amendment. THEY are about RAW power and obtaining it. Respecting Democracy and the Rule of Law is not what THEY are about.

Its obvious. You don't threaten to eliminate the filibuster, threaten to pack the Court, or add two more liberal States to ensure a Democrat Senate, flood the Country with potential Democrat voters, threaten to disarm Conservatives, threaten Trump voters, call White people racists, indoctrinate soldiers and teachers with Critical Race Theory, monitor and purge the Military of "extremists" and on-and-on etc. etc. UNLESS you want to push America over the edge and hope you can capture power permanently.

Because there is NO GOING BACK to a civilized Country now. It'll be conflict growing hatred and probably growing political violence from now on.

There is no room and its too late for BS nuanced discussions about the law.

SCOTUS is being threatened. What do you think the outcome of that will be.

WAKE UP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Heller is a prime example of OUR 'lack of understanding.' We scoff at Obama, Hillary, Biden, et al. when they claim to 'support the 2nd Amendment.' The problem is, they do support it, but their understanding/interpretation of it is different than our's. They view it as the dissent viewed it in Heller, as a collective right, subject to collective constraints. We view it more along the lines of the majority in Heller; i.e., as an individual right, subject to the perceptions of the individual. .
^^^ This straight up nonsense. You are quite naive if you think they don't understand what the Founders meant, of course they do, but they just don't like it. Just like the 1st amendment protections for religion and the 4th amendments protections of illegal search and seizure. They don't like it and they will interpret these things the way they want, because they want to eliminate these protections. You are full of crap much of the time.
__________________
C'mon man, shouldn't we ban Democracks from Cal-Guns? Or at least send them to re-education camps.

Last edited by ScottsBad; 04-13-2021 at 3:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-13-2021, 5:32 PM
Silence Dogood's Avatar
Silence Dogood Silence Dogood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
Why you sugar coating it... America does not have a random gun violence problem in general if you take away inner city ethnic gun violence.. plain and simple.. But, good luck getting media and politicians to talk about that.. since the perps and victims are largely their ethnic pets...
I wasn’t sugar-coating anything. I was saying something else entirely.

I was drawing attention to the fact that although the citied article seems to support our movement by revealing Biden’s lies through “fact-checking”, it is written to undermine our movement by reinforcing the false narrative that mass shootings cause a great deal of death each year, a false narrative perpetuated by sensationalism and used to strike fear into the hearts of people who are ignorant of the facts so as to illicit an emotional reaction from them. The article’s bias shouldn’t be a surprise since the source was a known “propaganda” machine, to use the word of one of it’s own editors as he recently described it in hidden camera video released by Project Veritas.

You are correct, in that we do not have a “gun violence epidemic”, as anti-gunners say we do, and you don’t need to qualify that statement by demographics OR geography. We just don’t have it period.

The CDC numbers for each year going back decades show that not including suicides, we only have ~14k gun deaths each year—TOTAL. In a nation of 330 million, that’s not even half of one percent of one percent (<.5/1%/1%, specifically 0.000042). To put that number into perspective, if you made an egg for breakfast every morning of a long full life, that number is like dropping the egg on the floor on one day. Although mathematically significant, it is practically zero. And that includes the demographics/geographies that you excluded.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-13-2021, 6:52 PM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,562
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
Why you sugar coating it... America does not have a random gun violence problem in general if you take away inner city ethnic gun violence.. plain and simple.. But, good luck getting media and politicians to talk about that.. since the perps and victims are largely their ethnic pets...
In 2017 the black community in America, making up just 13% of the US population was responsible for;

51.3% of all murders
54.3% of all Robberies
28.7% of all rapes
33.5% of all aggravated assaults
29.8% of all burglaries
43.9% Illegal weapons posessions
37% of ALL VIOLENT CRIME!

The 2017 FBI Uniform Crime Report is the source of the statistics...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43
__________________
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ----Sen. Barry Goldwater
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-13-2021, 7:32 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad View Post
Your last paragraph is somewhat relevant to what is happening in America, but the other side won't listen to that...

You argue nuance, which would be great if that's where we were as a Country, but have you heard ANY coherent, thoughtful, and logical debate in the media???...
That's one of the questions still at issue and something we continue to 'debate,' even on this site. Does the "media" represent/present the attitudes and understandings of the American People or do they present, primarily, a single side of the attitudes/understanding of an 'elite' or do they simply 'troll' for ratings? If it's the first, you are correct, we are in real trouble as a nation. If it's the second, it represents, in part, the problem we're having and provides a direction for pushing back. If it is the last, then it demonstrates a problem that needs to be resolved by how we address First Amendment issues... more speech and consequences for the 'abuse' of a protected right; i.e., something Trump is, ostensibly, looking into with starting his own version of "Twitter" and what is being 'discussed' in relation to BigTech and their 'abuse' of near 'monopoly' powers. If it is a combination, the 'answer' is more complicated; but, will still have to be taken in similar bites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
On the contrary, we are well past nuanced conversations, the other side ignores them...
You don't defeat what you loathe by becoming what you loathe. While the tactics may end up seeming similar, there are differences. If I have to explain that any further, you wouldn't understand. Suffice to say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a saying which is around for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
It is pointless; THEY are not about carefully respecting the 2nd Amendment. THEY are about RAW power and obtaining it. Respecting Democracy and the Rule of Law is not what THEY are about.

Its obvious. You don't threaten... UNLESS you want to push America over the edge and hope you can capture power permanently.
That depends. Don't confuse the USE of power with an irredeemable evil. It's similar to those on this site continually calling for "Civil War." Why do they call for such use of "power?" Because their efforts to establish what they believe to be "proper democracy" have been frustrated. Many of those on the Left feel a similar frustration and they have 'learned' that the methods they are using can be 'successful' in allowing them to implement "their version" of "proper Government." How have they learned it? Because it has worked or, more accurately, it has been 'allowed' to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
Because there is NO GOING BACK to a civilized Country now. It'll be conflict growing hatred and probably growing political violence from now on.
We've been here, as a Country, a number of times before. Somehow, we always came back to a more... uh... 'civilized' state. Right now, the Country is far from "total anarchy" and it can be kept from that state of affairs... IF... We recognize that BOTH sides need what Kestryll referred to in reference to what's going on within the NRA...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
To be honest nearly all of what I've seen of ja308 is darn near fanatical defense of the NRA, to be blunt almost to the point of blindness.


On this we agree but as I said to eta, there are some 'on our side' who DO want to see the NRA fall.
They want the recognition, spotlight and yes money that comes with the idea of 'filling the void' after the NRA is gone. Harsh words I know but that doesn't make them less true.


Frankly if I had my way with this latest dust up I'd take both Wayne and Chris in to a small room with a sap and tell them 'You're working this out so we can get back to real 2A issues or you're both going home as walking bruises.'
Put another way, right now, the extremes from both side are all we get to hear. They don't necessarily represent the majority. The 'great majority' simply want to be let alone and wish both extremes would 'knock it off.'

In short, it's not just about 'nuance'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
There is no room and its too late for BS nuanced discussions about the law.

SCOTUS is being threatened. What do you think the outcome of that will be.

WAKE UP.
It's about recognizing and accepting that neither 'extreme' is a true solution or even one desired by the majority. In a sense, both 'extremes' are an expression of built-up frustrations and a nearly prurient desire to not only establish the 'rightness' of their position, but the full implementation of their desires. Such is exemplified by constant use of "Wake Up," as if the 'audience' you are speaking to simply hasn't thought about it, can't see/feel it, and needs to be participating to make it 'work.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
^^^ This straight up nonsense. You are quite naive if you think they don't understand what the Founders meant, of course they do, but they just don't like it.
The debate over meaning has been going on since BEFORE the Founders 'settled' on what they did. In a very real sense, what we inherited was a compromise; i.e., the 'best solution' that could be derived from among competing ideas, understandings, and beliefs. In other words, historically, the 'debate' has continued all along and the question has always been one of maintaining a 'balance' between the two... the rights of the individual vs. the needs of the 'collective.' (In a very real sense, that's precisely what Scalia did in crafting Heller; creating a necessary 'compromise' to achieve a 'foundation'... the precedent of an individual right. The "to be determined" aspects of the limitations/specifics is exactly what we were given as a country; e.g., "a republic if you can keep it.")

If you think such tension is simply naïveté, you don't appear to grasp what we were given as a country by the Founders. More likely, you are simply expressing your own version of...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad
...They don't like it and they will interpret these things the way they want, because they want to eliminate these protections. You are full of crap much of the time.
They ALSO have "rights"... the right to express their opinions, the right to 'change' things as they feel appropriate (redress grievances), the right to implement their understanding, the right to... the same things we claim a right to. What we were given is the CHALLENGE of balancing such differing perspectives, erring on the side of the individual over the collective, but realizing that, without the collective, there is no cohesion and, thus, no Country, just anarchy.

What is "crap" is the idea that one side (which, by default, means "my side" or "your side" or "their side") reigns supreme and, thus, all "other sides" must be crushed. Isn't that exactly what you claim "they" are doing, attempting to implement, and are desirous of?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-13-2021 at 7:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 04-13-2021, 10:28 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Correction... You're indicating how you THINK it will be.

What I'm indicating is that you might be correct; but, not necessarily in the way many think/espouse on this board. What needs to be done in the meantime is to make sure we do all we can with the soap box, ballot box, and jury box BEFORE the power that is "We the People" take a direct hand. Otherwise, "We the People" may not be comprised of who we think or want them to be and they could very well have a different understanding of things than we hold true and dear.
we can agree to disagree!
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-13-2021, 10:36 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad View Post
The discussion put forth here is filled with weak and sad arguments. Its only meaningful to discuss the Constitution and law if THEY intend to properly and judiciously interpret and follow it. But they don't believe in the Constitution and have NO intention to abide by it.

What is happening goes WAY beyond guns! They want single party rule, and they don't want anyone contesting their take over. Taking away guns is just part of the plan. They don't think seriously about it except to consider how our rights will be eliminated. They will pack the Court if they can.

In case people missed it, Biden said, "No amendment is absolute". He is signalling that he intends to run over the Constitution.

Forget about it, these people are not operating in good faith. There is no intention to do what is right for America, to stand by our traditions, and follow the direction set by the Founders. There will be no compromise.

When are you people going to wake up? They are NOT playing by the rules, they don't care about critical thinking, or fairness except their definition of it.

Haven't you figured it out yet? I'm reminded of the movie Terminator:

Biden and the Woke Zombies can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with. These Commies don't feel pity or remorse or fear and they absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are a slave or dead.
Scott.. don't know you but always love your posts.. I am with your thinking... and many conservatives are still hanging on to DUE PROCESS... which the commies have shown they IGNORE, BLOCK, GO AGAINST, OR PLAIN OUT SAY NO TO IT! I am talking about people in KEY positions of power or stop gap echelons that WE THE PEOPLE count on to be fair..

To be very honest.. if it comes down to it.. many so called 'conservatives' I feel will outright go to the other side and we will be fighting them as well.. its mainly the boomers (sorry guys) but some from all generations and walks of life... a certain % of the nations Repubs/Conservs fully intend to COMPLY when push comes to shove.. they want to live their lives in 'peace' and do not want some of us to mess with their 'plans' straight talk my boi....
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-13-2021, 10:38 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silence Dogood View Post
I wasn’t sugar-coating anything. I was saying something else entirely.

I was drawing attention to the fact that although the citied article seems to support our movement by revealing Biden’s lies through “fact-checking”, it is written to undermine our movement by reinforcing the false narrative that mass shootings cause a great deal of death each year, a false narrative perpetuated by sensationalism and used to strike fear into the hearts of people who are ignorant of the facts so as to illicit an emotional reaction from them. The article’s bias shouldn’t be a surprise since the source was a known “propaganda” machine, to use the word of one of it’s own editors as he recently described it in hidden camera video released by Project Veritas.

You are correct, in that we do not have a “gun violence epidemic”, as anti-gunners say we do, and you don’t need to qualify that statement by demographics OR geography. We just don’t have it period.

The CDC numbers for each year going back decades show that not including suicides, we only have ~14k gun deaths each year—TOTAL. In a nation of 330 million, that’s not even half of one percent of one percent (<.5/1%/1%, specifically 0.000042). To put that number into perspective, if you made an egg for breakfast every morning of a long full life, that number is like dropping the egg on the floor on one day. Although mathematically significant, it is practically zero. And that includes the demographics/geographies that you excluded.
No.. It wasn't a blame I was adding to your statement
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-13-2021, 10:46 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad View Post
Biden is a piece of SH111111T. Thanks all you Democracks!

I am out of California shortly. All you delusional Dim gun owners, just keep marinating in your denial and stupidity. Libertarian, and Conservative voting gun owners excepted.

California gun owners have been too divided and too stupid to organize and fight back.....And now it's too late... The commie Democrats don't fear gun owners will vote them out of office anymore thanks to your limp and tepid response over the decades. Its over, you can stop fighting now, you've been over run, stop fighting against your restraints, you are soon to become slaves. Turn them in.

The only thing the Commies fear is the Courts, and they've just about intimidated the Supreme Court into submission. After that the only barricade left is State power. It's too late for Commiefornia, the writing is on the wall, your fates are sealed. You have become slaves.


I'm moving to a red state and I'm going to put in as much effort as I can to try to keep my new home free. You too can move to a free State and help to keep it free. But leave your Commie Democrat politics behind.

I fear for America, it looks like the Great Experiment in Freedom is dying rapidly from an internal infection from the far left.

The Woke Zombie Useful Idiots and Marxist CEOs have joined the corrupt Dims in the Government, to conspire for our destruction. And unknowingly, their destruction too.

I'm working on a plan, that if all else fails I can get my wife and I out of the US too. That's how bad I think it could get. If you give up your guns and ammo you are a slave.
Moving to OK at the end of the year.. I finally was approved for a transfer..

I have thought about moving out of the country as well (because I honestly sadly think its over) but, I figure, I hate when other people move to the U.S. when their country is a POS.. so why should I do the same...

I want to 'get involved' if it comes to that... hopefully not... but....
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-14-2021, 10:39 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,580
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
Moving to OK at the end of the year.. I finally was approved for a transfer..

I have thought about moving out of the country as well (because I honestly sadly think its over) but, I figure, I hate when other people move to the U.S. when their country is a POS.. so why should I do the same...

I want to 'get involved' if it comes to that... hopefully not... but....
When people say this i always wonder where would you go that is better, economically, politically, etc? I'm not sure that this experiment, even in a failed state, isn't better than everywhere else on this earth.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-14-2021, 11:11 AM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
When people say this i always wonder where would you go that is better, economically, politically, etc? I'm not sure that this experiment, even in a failed state, isn't better than everywhere else on this earth.
Poland
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-14-2021, 12:01 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,629
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

These EA edicts are a crock of crap.

They go against the founders design.

There is no slack in the Bill of rights for a president to modify.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-15-2021, 3:10 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 61
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are Biden EO on firearms not real?
They are not to be seen here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/pres...joe-biden/2021
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-17-2021, 8:27 PM
JoshTy's Avatar
JoshTy JoshTy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 194
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

AmazonSmile will donate 0.5% of your eligible purchases to the charitable organization of your choice. In my case, I have CRPA. NRA is also listed.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/com...%20AmazonSmile
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-18-2021, 4:58 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snailbait View Post
Are Biden EO on firearms not real?
They are not to be seen here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/pres...joe-biden/2021
You are looking at and for Executive ORDERS. What Biden issued were Executive ACTIONS.

As per the White House... FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initial Actions to Address the Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic

Quote:
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing six initial actions to address the gun violence public health epidemic...

But this Administration will not wait for Congress to act to take its own steps – fully within the Administration’s authority and the Second Amendment – to save lives. Today, the Administration is announcing the following six initial actions...
Executive action vs. executive order: What's the difference?

Quote:
...But wait. Executive actions? Executive orders? What’s the difference? Is there a difference?

It’s easy to mistake the two as synonyms — after all, the words themselves are nearly identical — but a hefty legal difference divides them...

Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and are legally binding. They give presidents the power to create unilateral directives, though they can be overturned if a court rules they’re unconstitutional. Executive orders remain in place until rescinded or modified by a president, reversed by a court or nullified by legislation.

Executive actions, by contrast, bear little weight. They’re not published in the Federal Register and aren’t subject to legal review. But these so-called threats-to-orders often draw reactions as sharp as the responses to orders themselves...
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-18-2021, 8:35 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,234
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Resident Biden, yes I wrote that correctly, is an embarrassment.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-18-2021, 6:34 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
Resident Biden, yes I wrote that correctly, is an embarrassment.
For us, certainly and for good and myriad reasons. The question really needs to be how many of those who voted for him feel 'embarrassed' about/by him; especially by those who voted for him simply to be shed of Trump rather than for ideological reasons.

For the Left, I don't know that 'embarrassment' would be the correct term; though it is assuredly part of the 'shaming' and 'sentiment' they wish to engender.

To the Left, he is a convenient 'mask' to do what they feel is necessary to achieve their ends in the vein of thought that is: "Whatever it takes." Remember, to be 'embarrassed,' one feels a sense of 'shame' and/or 'awkwardness.' I would posit that is exactly the opposite of how the Left feels. In fact, isn't that what we talked about leading up to the election; i.e., that the Left was shamelessly (and cruelly) using Biden? Is Biden interfering with (i.e., creating impediments) to implementation of their plans or is he, knowingly or unknowingly, easing the path to such implementation by allowing access for the Left to the powers inherent in the Office he holds?

Thus, in one sense, he is an embarrassment. In another, more pragmatic sense, he's a very real 'danger' in that he's being used to 'hide' machinations which aren't acceptable or for the nation's good.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-18-2021, 7:35 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
For us, certainly and for good and myriad reasons. The question really needs to be how many of those who voted for him feel 'embarrassed' about/by him; especially by those who voted for him simply to be shed of Trump rather than for ideological reasons.

For the Left, I don't know that 'embarrassment' would be the correct term; though it is assuredly part of the 'shaming' and 'sentiment' they wish to engender.

To the Left, he is a convenient 'mask' to do what they feel is necessary to achieve their ends in the vein of thought that is: "Whatever it takes." Remember, to be 'embarrassed,' one feels a sense of 'shame' and/or 'awkwardness.' I would posit that is exactly the opposite of how the Left feels. In fact, isn't that what we talked about leading up to the election; i.e., that the Left was shamelessly (and cruelly) using Biden? Is Biden interfering with (i.e., creating impediments) to implementation of their plans or is he, knowingly or unknowingly, easing the path to such implementation by allowing access for the Left to the powers inherent in the Office he holds?

Thus, in one sense, he is an embarrassment. In another, more pragmatic sense, he's a very real 'danger' in that he's being used to 'hide' machinations which aren't acceptable or for the nation's good.

This commie son-of-a-b1tch is going to start with REAL issues now ... Russia...the West is rattling sabers because Europe wants those gas fields in and around Donbass and Putin is going to dig heels in...

Trump knew better.. but this communist regime and globalist wants to make money off that natural energy... along with the MIC

seems off topic but Biden may have his hands full pretty soon...
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-18-2021, 8:46 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
...seems off topic but Biden may have his hands full pretty soon...
Which is exactly why there are many, many people questioning whether "this is Biden" or if Biden is simply a 'near zombie' whose actions are not so much conscious as they are conscientious in the interest of "being in Office."

Think of it within the context of the plot for the episode "Patterns of Force" from the original Star Trek series...



While Biden may not be as 'extreme' an example, there is an argument to be made, with a certain plausibility, that such is precisely what is happening now. The questions being: "Who or what is the 'real' power/decision-maker and what is the actual agenda?" How one answers those questions plays a pivotal role in whether they view Biden as an 'embarrassment' or a 'mask' or both.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-19-2021, 7:53 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Which is exactly why there are many, many people questioning whether "this is Biden" or if Biden is simply a 'near zombie' whose actions are not so much conscious as they are conscientious in the interest of "being in Office."

Think of it within the context of the plot for the episode "Patterns of Force" from the original Star Trek series...



While Biden may not be as 'extreme' an example, there is an argument to be made, with a certain plausibility, that such is precisely what is happening now. The questions being: "Who or what is the 'real' power/decision-maker and what is the actual agenda?" How one answers those questions plays a pivotal role in whether they view Biden as an 'embarrassment' or a 'mask' or both.
Its the same players as always.. multi national corps.... SOROS.... the Rocka's.. etc etc...... then, the entire global banking system..the MIC, then on a lesser level, the Clintons.. the Bushes.. Gates..... etc etc..

There is a sh1t ton of evil mofos who are pulling that puppet up by the strings called Biden...but, he just shows it really well because he cannot PRETEND to stand on his own two feet like the other American presidential despots have...
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:24 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW948 View Post
Its the same players as always.. multi national corps.... SOROS.... the Rocka's.. etc etc...... then, the entire global banking system..the MIC, then on a lesser level, the Clintons.. the Bushes.. Gates..... etc etc..

There is a sh1t ton of evil mofos who are pulling that puppet up by the strings called Biden...but, he just shows it really well because he cannot PRETEND to stand on his own two feet like the other American presidential despots have...
Did you notice that whomever posted that on YouTube was accusing Trump, et al. of the same thing?

Maybe it's time the American people start looking toward "the power behind" the politicians rather than at the politicians themselves. While it's easy (and often accurate) to say... "Follow the money." ... I'm a bit suspicious that it's not going to be that simple. Why?

Look at what they've accomplished. They've polarized the nation to a point where anyone claimed to be to the "left" of Margaret Thatcher (who I liked) is considered an evil, wretched, traitorous "libtard" and anyone portrayed as to the "right" of Bernie Sanders is deemed to be a disciple of Vlad the Impaler. As a result, just like the disappearing middle class, moderate politicians are in jeopardy of becoming 'extinct.' Someone or some entity that can manage that isn't likely to make their identity 'simple' to discover.

Newt Gingrich was on, the other night or yesterday morning or both, referring to those around Biden as a 'cabal telling him to do this or that.' I suspect that's true. The issue being, who/what is giving the 'cabal' it's orders. Put another way, it may be the same players, but who is the coach and who owns the team?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-20-2021, 9:11 AM
johncage johncage is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 84
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

a conspiracy is superfluous at this point. the people on the left who are in power have basically the same interests by now. and they don't need to pay off the don lemons of the world individually, they will be happy to parrot their socialist rhetoric on air or on the net because they believe it is in their own interests. same goes for most of journalism, academia, and the entertainment industry.

as to the popular characterization of the left, i would say that's mostly accurate. i don't know of any other mainstream political party whose members routinely denounces america, its values, and advocates taking to the streets to loot and riot. or unflaggingly supports unconstitutional laws and policies.

the problem in america isn't that anyone left of margaret thatcher is considered an extremist, it's that's anyone right of mao zedong is. the ideological clash you're seeing is a natural response, ie the political pendulum. and this liberal progressive virtue signalling mess has been in american politics and culture far longer than we believe. mccarthy was right. and the fact that everyone could be made to believe he was wrong shows how far the marxist termites have already burrowed.

there is no power behind the scenes, the truth is more mundane. we've allowed ourselves to be compromised through sheer complacency. if you follow the path of least resistance you will find a socialist sitting at a dead end. and that's what we've done, we've become lazy and allowed the media and career politicians and hollywood charlatans who are elitist and insulated from the real world by nature to make our decisions for us.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:25 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,667
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post
there is no power behind the scenes, the truth is more mundane. we've allowed ourselves to be compromised through sheer complacency. if you follow the path of least resistance you will find a socialist sitting at a dead end. and that's what we've done, we've become lazy and allowed the media and career politicians and hollywood charlatans who are elitist and insulated from the real world by nature to make our decisions for us.
Much like there is no conspiracy, as you point out, there is also not "us allowing things to happen." The human nature is very primitive and it indeed takes the path of least resistance, which is why every society throughout the history inevitably "evolved" into entrenched, corrupt stratification.

Socialism is a very appealing concept to fill the vacuum left behind after religion is pushed away from the mainstream society. It provides an alternative value system that is abstract enough to appeal to the majority that is envious of the successful minority, which in turn is ideal for dominating the society by the minority.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-20-2021, 12:17 PM
GregW948 GregW948 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post
a conspiracy is superfluous at this point. the people on the left who are in power have basically the same interests by now. and they don't need to pay off the don lemons of the world individually, they will be happy to parrot their socialist rhetoric on air or on the net because they believe it is in their own interests. same goes for most of journalism, academia, and the entertainment industry.

as to the popular characterization of the left, i would say that's mostly accurate. i don't know of any other mainstream political party whose members routinely denounces america, its values, and advocates taking to the streets to loot and riot. or unflaggingly supports unconstitutional laws and policies.

the problem in america isn't that anyone left of margaret thatcher is considered an extremist, it's that's anyone right of mao zedong is. the ideological clash you're seeing is a natural response, ie the political pendulum. and this liberal progressive virtue signalling mess has been in american politics and culture far longer than we believe. mccarthy was right. and the fact that everyone could be made to believe he was wrong shows how far the marxist termites have already burrowed.

there is no power behind the scenes, the truth is more mundane. we've allowed ourselves to be compromised through sheer complacency. if you follow the path of least resistance you will find a socialist sitting at a dead end. and that's what we've done, we've become lazy and allowed the media and career politicians and hollywood charlatans who are elitist and insulated from the real world by nature to make our decisions for us.
Its not really a conspiracy theory though.. its just the natural flow of variables in the equation that have a logical place in the situation... I think we will be more and more surprised as time goes on when these so called 'tin foil hat' wearers are found to be correct... if I told you even just 5 years ago that this election would turn out the way it did, you would call the cops on me for 5150 (mental health)... straight up..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-20-2021, 8:59 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post
a conspiracy is superfluous at this point. the people on the left who are in power have basically the same interests by now. and they don't need to pay off the don lemons of the world individually, they will be happy to parrot their socialist rhetoric on air or on the net because they believe it is in their own interests. same goes for most of journalism, academia, and the entertainment industry...

there is no power behind the scenes, the truth is more mundane. we've allowed ourselves to be compromised through sheer complacency. if you follow the path of least resistance you will find a socialist sitting at a dead end. and that's what we've done, we've become lazy and allowed the media and career politicians and hollywood charlatans who are elitist and insulated from the real world by nature to make our decisions for us.
But... That's part of the actual discussion vs. the perception that's been or is being created. When you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage
...as to the popular characterization of the left, i would say that's mostly accurate. i don't know of any other mainstream political party whose members routinely denounces america, its values, and advocates taking to the streets to loot and riot. or unflaggingly supports unconstitutional laws and policies...
Is it the Democrat Party or is it elements which claim that as their Party affiliation?

Just like those "on the Right" who, even on this board, "call for open Civil War" or "executing those on the Left" or even called for "neutralization of the election results as announced." Are they the Republican Party or are they elements which claim the Republican Party as their affiliation?

Is it possible that, in both cases, those elements no longer (and may never have) represented Party platforms and had a different agenda? Is it possible that such elements, in both cases/Parties, were simply used to heighten and increase already existing dissent? Is it possible that, in both cases, existing platforms were taken to an unintended extreme? Why would such a thing occur? Maybe to establish 'conflict' and 'division?'

Naturally, each side blames the other; i.e., it's not "us," it's "them"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage
the problem in america isn't that anyone left of margaret thatcher is considered an extremist, it's that's anyone right of mao zedong is. the ideological clash you're seeing is a natural response, ie the political pendulum. and this liberal progressive virtue signalling mess has been in american politics and culture far longer than we believe. mccarthy was right. and the fact that everyone could be made to believe he was wrong shows how far the marxist termites have already burrowed.
What is said to be the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled off?



That wasn't just a movie line, it goes farther back.

Just as Bloomberg's PR campaign against the NRA over the last couple of years targeted existing fractures/factions within the NRA itself, so too is the cultural campaign targeting the "path of least resistance"... pre-existing tensions. Heighten the tensions, convince people that the successes of the last century (give or take) are irrelevant, don't exist, or are mere tokens, and equate modern incidents with true apostasy's of yore (even if there is no or only vague resemblance) and then let "human nature" take its course.

To believe this is all "naturally" happening is to assume that "everything has upended at once." Put another way, that it's all just happenstance or coincidence resulting from a political pendulum swing. As author Ian Fleming noted in the book edition of Goldfinger... "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." Just like the Gibbs character on NCIS has "Rules." Some seem applicable here...

Quote:
...Gibbs' Rule #3: Never believe what you are told. Double check...

Gibbs' Rule #4: Best way to keep a secret. Keep it to yourself. Second best, tell one other person—if you must. There is no third best...

Gibbs' Rule #7: Always be specific when you lie...

Gibbs' Rule #8: Never take anything for granted...

Gibbs' Rule #20: Always look under...

Gibbs' Rule #27: Two ways to follow someone. First way, they never notice you. Second way, they only notice you...

Gibbs' Rule #35: Always watch the watchers...

Gibbs' Rules #36: If it feels like you're being played, you probably are...

Gibbs' Rule #39: There is no such thing as a coincidence...

Gibbs' Rule #40: If it seems like someone’s out to get you, they are...
Before dismissing such 'advice' as 'media' and 'political' chicanery, bear in mind that Fleming was a real-life intelligence officer and that NCIS has real investigators as show advisors. In other words, such things didn't just 'appear' out of the creativity of fiction writers and are, instead, based on real-world investigations. In fact, after 9/11, there were many fiction writers who were hired by the Government to proffer possible scenarios for terrorist attacks. Why? Because they could think outside the 'box; which hampered/hampers the thinking of officials.

Bearing in mind that - Gibbs' Rule #51: Sometimes you're wrong. - doesn't mean you are always wrong or wrong in this case. It means to consider all the possibilities, not simply the 'easy' one or the 'obvious' one. When dealing with issues such as these, it's not always about Occam's razor or an Holmesian fallacy. It's about keeping an open mind...



So, yes. At least part of this whole thing is "human nature" being allowed to run its course.

Is it possible that it's all just happenstance or coincidence? As they say, "anything is possible." But, that includes being so 'blinded' by our own predilections that we can't see other... possibilities.. where even recognizing alternatives could lead to cognitive dissonance.

But, that leads us back to what is more probable... That this is all just 'naturally' occurring or that someone or some group has set this in motion and is using "human nature" to do most of the leg work.
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 3:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical