Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Calguns Members Support Jerry Brown and Dianne Feinstein?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    I can't believe what I'm seeing....

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=256017

    Jerry Brown is getting 50% of the Calguns vote? What a joke!

    The justification appears to be because he supports Mcdonald. Talk about voting on a single issue! The 8 votes for Dianne Feinstein are almost as disturbing

    For me, this explains alot. After reading the endless name calling and immature attacks directed towards UOCers in other threads, I will no longer be supporting that organization. From their comments, it would seem that they're more opposed to UOC than the average anti-gun bay area resident!

    So far, the message seems to be: Stand down, Give up your rights, Vote Jerry Brown...

    I'm not impressed!


  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    So which WINNING pro gun candidate are you voting for. JB has done a lot (rather kept DOJ from doing a lot against us) on gun issues. You should research the reasons many cal gunnys will be voting for him.

    I will be biting my tongue and voting Dem. for the first time (hopefully the last) in my life.

    I did the same for the Repubs and the Taxinator and that reallysucked (thanks for AB962 :X- which by the way CGF is going to tie-up in court and win; it will never take effect ).

    None of the R candidates are strong on RKBA (some hostile)and none will win. And in CA I'm a single issue voter for now. I want RKBA and I want my wife and children safe when I'm not around!



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    So which WINNING pro gun candidate are you voting for. JB has done a lot (rather kept DOJ from doing a lot against us) on gun issues. You should research the reasons many cal gunnys will be voting for him.

    I will be biting my tongue and voting Dem. for the first time (hopefully the last) in my life.

    I did the same for the Repubs and the Taxinator and that reallysucked (thanks for AB962 :X- which by the way CGF is going to tie-up in court and win; it will never take effect ).

    None of the R candidates are strong on RKBA (some hostile)and none will win. And in CA I'm a single issue voter for now. I want RKBA and I want my wife and children safe when I'm not around!

    I'm going to vote for Chelene Nightingale. The Republicans are unacceptable. If there was a real "lesser of two evils" in the race that I could justify giving my precious vote, I would do it. Jerry Brown is just evil and won't be getting my vote.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    So which WINNING pro gun candidate are you voting for. JB has done a lot (rather kept DOJ from doing a lot against us) on gun issues. You should research the reasons many cal gunnys will be voting for him.

    I will be biting my tongue and voting Dem. for the first time (hopefully the last) in my life.

    I did the same for the Repubs and the Taxinator and that reallysucked (thanks for AB962 :X- which by the way CGF is going to tie-up in court and win; it will never take effect ).

    None of the R candidates are strong on RKBA (some hostile)and none will win. And in CA I'm a single issue voter for now. I want RKBA and I want my wife and children safe when I'm not around!

    Cato, I've read your arguments for a "stand down" and I respect your opinion. I've never seen you post disparaging comments about UOCers, so don't take my remarks as being a criticism of your actions. You've been respectful and stated your position reasonably.

    This is not the case with many of the others at Calguns including Board Members. I don't have an issue with them making a "stand down" argument. I DO have an issue with people that attack those of us that are will to take the risks and exercise our rights.

    ...and supporting Jerry Brown shows very poor judgement in my opinion.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    cato wrote:
    So which WINNING pro gun candidate are you voting for. JB has done a lot (rather kept DOJ from doing a lot against us) on gun issues. You should research the reasons many cal gunnys will be voting for him.

    I will be biting my tongue and voting Dem. for the first time (hopefully the last) in my life.

    I did the same for the Repubs and the Taxinator and that reallysucked (thanks for AB962 :X- which by the way CGF is going to tie-up in court and win; it will never take effect ).

    None of the R candidates are strong on RKBA (some hostile)and none will win. And in CA I'm a single issue voter for now. I want RKBA and I want my wife and children safe when I'm not around!

    Cato, I've read your arguments for a "stand down" and I respect your opinion. I've never seen you post disparaging comments about UOCers, so don't take my remarks as being a criticism of your actions. You've been respectful and stated your position reasonably.

    This is not the case with many of the others at Calguns including Board Members. I don't have an issue with them making a "stand down" argument. I DO have an issue with people that attack those of us that are will to take the risks and exercise our rights.

    ...and supporting Jerry Brown shows very poor judgement in my opinion.
    Unless Jerry Brown is a snake in the grass that would turn his opinion on gun rightswhen he is elected, I don't believe he is ahorrible choice. He is pretty much going to win, with or without our vote. I, just may also have to vote for aDem as well for the first time.

    The problem with your last statement "I DO have an issue with people that attack those of us that are will to take the risks and exercise our rights." is that it swings both ways. Your risks ARE their risks.. our risks. We are all in the same boat here. Being incorporated in CA is the best thing that can happen right now. When you say risk, I know you mean being arrested... though you are not looking at the big picture risk, the risk of your OC arrest creating so much public havoc it would onlyset back OC even more in CA before the 2nd amendment is incorporated. With out that right, OC can easily be stripped from us.

    Now to let you know I am not apart of CalGuns, I have an account with 4 posts I think. I don't like some of the ignorant trash talking I have seen by users there. The users here seem to be far friendlier as a whole group. My first post there I started getting blasted by some guy because I asked a legal question. His posts were eventually caught and removed and 2-3 moderaters then put him on blast but I still felt it was an all too aggressive experience to go back. So I stick here with you kind folk

    Though also understand, no one is demanding you stand down, just a request with a very sensible argument behind it.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    JB will win with or without us. But I want him to know some gunnys voted for him for doing the right thingwith McDonald, CA DOJ and to encourage more of the same. We need all the help in CA we can get and a likely NON hostile Governor (based on past practice)would be good.We'll see.....



    The CGF board is diverse. Oaklander and Bwiese can be abrasive. But I know them personally and have all the man love for them a happily married father can. Gene is with us and his voice is very persuasive over there. But when some keep demanding to UOC come hell or high water, we loose our voice and influence. There are other RKBA interests that are more popular so it doesn't just help to be "right".

    OC can and will do a lot to change CA and it will be effective post incorp. The potential down side right now is well...hell and high water. There is a coalition formed and a RKBA civil rights strategy and I want our voice to be part of it.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Jerry Brown, acting as Attorney General for California, filed a brief in support of 2A Incorporation. Meanwhile, the California Republican candidates for governor are anti-gun vs more anti-gun. The only pro-gun vote is for Jerry Brown (aside of course from some third party that stand no chance in hell).


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    Well it's good to know that not everybody over there is entirely hostile. Maybe the Board members should start being a little more diplomatic. If their comments turned me off, I'm sure they're driving others away as well.

    I still disagree with supporting Jerry Brown. Does anyone else remember his anti-gun campaign ads supporting the 50BMG ban?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Lets all be honest here...

    You are all giving Jerry Brown too much credit! So, he supports McDonald. Well that's a common sense position to take, and I can respect that.Holding a pro-McDonald position isby far better than Republican Meg Whitman saying she believes tough gun laws like assault weapon bans and handgun control are appropriate for California.

    Tom Campbellgets campaign contributions from anti-gun groups, so we know special interests would weigh heavy on his mind whenconsideringthe topic of gun rights for Californians.

    Poizner donated thousands of dollars to Al Gore back in 2000, so I can only assume he's weak on the 2nd just like Gore.

    I can't believe that Diane Feinstein would even register one single vote on Calguns with all of the anti-gun positions thatenemy of liberty has held in the past, and still holds today. She would without a doubt be the worst choice for Governor.

    Chelene Nightingale is by far the most pro-gun/pro-rights candidate in the running. It is good to see her competingwith thedeep-pocket front-runners in the race from the two major Parties. I bet she supports McDonald too! Some say she has no chance at actually winning, but that's only because most people want to vote for the candidate who they believe will be the winner, or at least who the main stream media tells themhas a chance of winning.

    We the People need to start voting for the person that shows their positions' to be inaccordancewith the document that theysweartosupport & defend.Vote your conscience people! Chelene Nightingale is not a career politician. Brown is!

    You can best bet that as Governor she would never sign a bill such as AB962!I'm not sure where Brown stands on that particular piece of legislation.

    Does anyone believe that the Democratic majority in the state legislature won't put pressure on Brown to sign their anti-gun bills if he were elected as Governor.Lets not forget, Attorney General is a non-partisan position.


    Regarding Calguns: Theyseem more interested in suppressing my right to open carry than anything else, andto me that'snearly the sameaction as trying to take away my right to keep and bear arms. That's why I don't contribute there! Calling UOC'ers "nuts" is a big turn off to me and discourages those who might be willing to participate. That stance does not helppublic awareness and serves to make open carry look likeit's out of the ordinary when people actually do it.Sometimes I wonder if we're all on the same team by some of the comments from the Calgun leadership!


    Forget "standing down"... it's time to stand up forour rights'.


  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    ...attack those of us that are willing to take the risks and exercise our rights.

    The opposition to UOC is not necessarily an opposition to OC. Most oppose the possible "blow-back" which comes from an activity which can't, in the current judicial climate, change law. Allthe while, those involved in UOC facegreatlegal and monetary risk with little reward for a "non" enforceableRight (at thistime).

    To some it smacks of pride, ego,and self righteousness. I realize that is not the case. Some of us just want to be doing something we feel can change the situation. And it can but under an improved legal climate where carrying is a Right.

    All the states where OC is "working" to change LEO / Public responses is where they have the general protections of a Court protected State Constitutional RKBA. We don't have that until incorp. at least and more stronglyafter Sykes/Palmer (carry cases).

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    onedavetoomany wrote:
    ...attack those of us that are willing to take the risks and exercise our rights.

    The opposition to UOC is not necessarily an opposition to OC. Most oppose the possible "blow-back" which comes from an activity which can't, in the current judicial climate, change law. Allthe while, those involved in UOC facegreatlegal and monetary risk with little reward for a "non" enforceableRight (at thistime).

    To some it smacks of pride, ego,and self righteousness. I realize that is not the case. Some of us just want to be doing something we feel can change the situation. And it can but under an improved legal climate where carrying is a Right.

    All the states where OC is "working" to change LEO / Public responses is where they have the general protections of a Court protected State Constitutional RKBA. We don't have that until incorp. at least and more stronglyafter Sykes/Palmer (carry cases).
    I think the big issue for many of us is that UOC allows us to carry our guns right now. Of course, we all wish we could carry loaded, and I understand your general strategy; however, I still would like to defend myself over the next 6 months if I feel that it's necessary.

    It seems the biggest concern is that the legislature will react to our UOC meetups and pass a ban on UOC. Explain to me how this puts us in a worse situation than we would be in if we voluntarily stop open carrying? Either way, I am not open carrying. We all know that McDonald has the potential to substantially improve our legal situation. Let's assume that the Court gives a very favorable ruling that forces each state to allow law abiding citizens a method of carrying a weapon. That would set a precedent that would still force the legislature to either go shall-issue on CCWs or allow OC; therfore, wether we're UOC now or later the ruling would cause the same result.

    Assuming a favorable McDonald ruling, I see one of these happening:

    Situation 1: We stand down. McDonald gets a favorable ruling. Calguns drops the stand down request. The legislature STILL passes a ban on UOC. Calguns sues and the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

    Situation 2: We keep open carrying. The Legislature possibly bans UOC. Mcdonald gets a favorable ruling. A lawsuit is filed and the UOC ban is still struck down as unconstitutional.




  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    Assuming a favorable McDonald ruling, I see one of these happening:

    Situation 1: We stand down. McDonald gets a favorable ruling. Calguns drops the stand down request. The legislature STILL passes a ban on UOC. Calguns sues and the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

    Situation 2: We keep open carrying. The Legislature possibly bans UOC. Mcdonald gets a favorable ruling. A lawsuit is filed and the UOC ban is still struck down as unconstitutional.
    Or Situation 3: We keep open carrying. The Legislature bans UOC. McDonald gets a favorable ruling which says states have to allow some form of carry. The state passes shall issue CCW. A lawsuit is filed and the OC ban remains because we have concealed carry.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    cato wrote:
    So which WINNING pro gun candidate are you voting for.¬* JB has done a lot (rather kept DOJ from doing a lot against us) on gun issues.¬* You should research the reasons many cal gunnys will be voting for him.¬*

    I will be biting my tongue and voting Dem. for the first time (hopefully the last) in my life.¬*

    I did the same for the Repubs and the Taxinator and that really¬*sucked (thanks for AB962 :X¬*- which by the way CGF is going to tie-up in court and win; ¬*it will never take effect ).

    None of the R candidates are strong on RKBA (some hostile)¬*and none will win.¬* And in CA I'm a single issue voter for now.¬* I want RKBA and I want my wife and children safe when I'm not around!

    Cato, I've read your arguments for a "stand down" and I respect your opinion. I've never seen you post disparaging comments about UOCers, so don't take my remarks as being a criticism of your actions. You've been respectful and stated your position reasonably.

    This is not the case with many of the others at Calguns including Board Members. I don't have an issue with them making a "stand down" argument. I DO have an issue with people that attack those of us that are will to take the risks and exercise our rights.

    ¬*...and supporting Jerry Brown shows very poor judgement in my opinion.
    I am now going to copy and paste what I posted in another thread.

    OK, I am just going to put my size 12 down right about here.

    I think that is a gross misrepresentation of facts to say that CGF has alienated the OC community. Sure, quite a members on CGN (NOT CGF) are adamantly opposed to both UOC as well as LOC for various reasons (a few are geldings, a few are sheep, some have decent arguments, some are ignoramus cops, etc) but as a whole, CGF HAS NOT ALIENATED OCers! All that CGF has requested is that the OC community POP A GIANT ZOLOFT for now so that some very important groundwork (WHICH NO ONE IN THE OC COMMUNITY CAN FRONT OR PAY FOR AT THE MOMENT) can be laid. Once that is done, then the real fun can begin because then we REALLY have the LAW on our side and we will no longer have to half-ass the fight.

    Without going too far into detail, there are several behind-the-scenes tricks going on with CGF and OC, that I can assure you all of. Most visible is CGF extending help to Mike Hunt with his bullcrap arrest. If THAT level of consideration and outreach is considered treating a group as "outcast" then there must be issues with my sociological perceptions.

    Gaagh, I need to go to bed.

    CARRY ON!

    -N8

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Freedom_Is_Popular wrote:
    Lets all be honest here...
    Chelene Nightingale is by far the most pro-gun/pro-rights candidate in the running. It is good to see her competingwith thedeep-pocket front-runners in the race from the two major Parties. I bet she supports McDonald too! Some say she has no chance at actually winning, but that's only because most people want to vote for the candidate who they believe will be the winner, or at least who the main stream media tells themhas a chance of winning.

    We the People need to start voting for the person that shows their positions' to be inaccordancewith the document that theysweartosupport & defend.Vote your conscience people! Chelene Nightingale is not a career politician. Brown is!

    Can you honestly say nightingale has a history of pro gun/ pro rights? I've heard her say many things, but I've come to know that it matters not what someone says. You say nightingale is not a career politician; I would say she acts and does just what any of them do.

  15. #15
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    and the votes for DF have to be from trolls...:P



    art work by oleg volk:

  16. #16
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    onedavetoomany wrote:
    I can't believe what I'm seeing....

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=256017

    Jerry Brown is getting 50% of the Calguns vote? What a joke!

    The justification appears to be because he supports Mcdonald. Talk about voting on a single issue! The 8 votes for Dianne Feinstein are almost as disturbing

    For me, this explains alot. After reading the endless name calling and immature attacks directed towards UOCers in other threads, I will no longer be supporting that organization. From their comments, it would seem that they're more opposed to UOC than the average anti-gun bay area resident!

    So far, the message seems to be: Stand down, Give up your rights, Vote Jerry Brown...

    I'm not impressed!
    As you shouldn't be. The reasoning of the political leanings on CGN is absolutely absurd and is a microcosmic look into the problemsin this state. Everyone on CGN is doing Pavlovian back-flips, licking their chops, and wagging their tales because Charlie Brownheld out a bone. Meanwhile, Tom Campbell is getting thrown under the bus because he said he would have signed AB962 like our girly man governor, to which I could care less...because he didn't and our GMG did. That boat has already sailed.
    Here's how I see it...this state is in the biggest financial mess its ever been in, not to mention the complete lack representation on other important issues, and has been in complete controlof the democratic partyall the while. The last thing this state needs right now is another democrat. Our legislature needs balance, it needs enough loons on both sides of the aisle so we at least have a glimmer of hope that the compromises made will be somewhat middle ground. Any more dems and you get the same, or worse. Too many republicans isn't any better. But right now there is no compromise, no reasonable solutions because its so lopsided.

    Further, just about everyone agrees that our 2A rights rest in the hands of the courts. We need the judicialbranch to step up to the plate because the legislative branch has screwed us too much,too many times, for too long. So this being the case, at least as far as 2A is concerned, I don't see much influence coming from the next Gov on this issue. Because ifCGF has it our way, there's gonna be a flurry of positive 2A court outcomes. Which if true, then we'll need abalanced legislature/executive more than ever before.

    Regarding the biting of one's tongue and voting for Brown, I may have to bite my tongue and vote for Campbell. Having said that, more than ever before we need folks in office who everyone thought never had a prayer...so on that note I'll be seriouslyconsideringNightingale (I'm a teaparty supporter, and it seems she is too). More than ever before we need representatives who believe what we believe in...the Constitution and the concept of We the People.

    We don't need any more bone throwers, any more rhetoric, and we certainly don't need any more promises. We need a governor that will either return us back to a more constitutionally centered form of government or we need a governor that will stop on the non-constitutionally centered enemies from within.

    That's how I see it...for what it's worth.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    California DOJ under Brown did not join the Anti's brief duing Heller. That was HUGE.

    and

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

    His stance has angered a number of gun control proponents.

    Julie Leftwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, said this isn't simply about Brown defending the Second Amendment - it also marks a dramatic turnabout from the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Lockyer, a staunch gun control advocate.

    "Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

    Brown's pro-gun stand has also left some San Francisco officials scratching their heads. They're awaiting a ruling in the Chicago case to see how it might affect two local gun-rights lawsuits.


  18. #18
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    California DOJ under Brown did not join the Antis brief duing Heller. That was HUGE.
    Considering the number of briefs SCOTUS has received on this issue, I don't think its that big of a deal. One out of 36 (or whatever the final number was) isn't that big of a deal.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  19. #19
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    California, The California!,not jointing The Brady Bunch in the biggest Gun Rights Show Down in Historywas not a big deal:what::shock:

    Politically it was HUGE and did not go unnoticed nationally. It was a very brave "non step" at the time for JB considering he wants to return to the Governorship. I'm sure that he did not know then thathis Democratic Primary run would be unopposed.

    I heard him speak at the Oakland Officers memorial last year. He can give a good speach. And it was the only manly one given by any politician that day.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    California, The California!,not jointing The Brady Bunch in the biggest Gun Rights Show Down in Historywas not a big deal:what::shock:

    Politically it was HUGE and did not go unnoticed nationally. It was a very brave "non step" at the time for JB considering he wants to return to the Governorship. I'm sure that he did not know then thathis Democratic Primary run would be unopposed.

    I heard him speak at the Oakland Officers memorial last year. He can give a good speach. And it was the only manly one given by any politician that day.
    No one has commented on Brown's support of the 50BMG ban.......

  21. #21
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    California, The California!,not jointing The Brady Bunch in the biggest Gun Rights Show Down in Historywas not a big deal:what::shock:

    Politically it was HUGE and did not go unnoticed nationally. It was a very brave "non step" at the time for JB considering he wants to return to the Governorship. I'm sure that he did not know then thathis Democratic Primary run would be unopposed.

    I heard him speak at the Oakland Officers memorial last year. He can give a good speach. And it was the only manly one given by any politician that day.
    Nope. Not a big deal...in light of all the other amicus briefs submitted. Yes, it was a surprise that CA submitted a Pro-2A position...but it wasn't CA's brief, it was Brown's. So yes he stood up. Good for him. So what?! You're supposed to stand up in the face of tyranny!!!

    Politically in this state...yes,that is huge. But onthe national stage its no big deal at all...whatsoever. Besides if SCOTUS does what they're supposed to, the briefs should only have minor impact in their decision making...as we all know their decision issupposed to be strict Constitutional intrepretation and historical foundation (not that that is reality, just what its supposed to be).


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •