Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Bill To Ban Open Carry AB 1934

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...ed_asm_v98.pdf PDF

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...d_asm_v98.html Text

    Just incase it wasn't posted here.

    And now a few hours to sit down and deconstruct this bill.

  2. #2
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    So far it looks like a ton of exemptions thrown in for a new codified section (PC §12037), changing the reference of "pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" to "handgun", removal of (f) from PC § 12025 "Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section".

    And then... PC § 12037. Misdemeanor/Felony possession of an unloaded handgun in public:

    Code:
    12037. (a) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
    CA Legislature, hard at work to keep you safe.
    FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Incorporation ~2 months away.

    No LOC.
    No UOC.
    May-issue CCW.

    None of the above would withstand constitutional challenge with an incorporated 2A.

    Could it quite possibly be, that the legislature wanted to give us the whole package through 2A challenge post-incorporation?

    :what:
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    +1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    +1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
    That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.

  7. #7
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    obeygiant wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    +1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
    That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.
    Agreed.

    Bear in mind, because this forum is monitored, we may expect the final language to include the aforementioned long guns. Ironically, the more restrictions they place on transportation and carry, the more likely this claptrap is to fail. - I'm definately not saying we should instigate Saldana to that end, but I think there is benefit for our cause if the anti's ban it all.


    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    obeygiant wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    +1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
    That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.

    OPEN CARRY WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

    This bill is as good as passed by our anti-liberty legislature. Our only hope is for it to be vetoed by our she-male governor. Go ahead and make all the calls you want, it won't make any difference.

    As I understand it, this should all be moot if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd to the States, and then if the 9th re-affirms their original decision on Nordyke to apply the 2nd to the States. But hey, what do I know.

    At some point, liberty loving gun owners in this state are going to have to willfully violate these unconstitutional laws and fight them on every front. As long as this state's legislature is overwhelmingly one-sided, the gun control laws will increase regardless of SCOTUS' and the 9th's decisions on the issue.

    And if it comes to it, I willabsolutely open carry an AR-15. Then finalize my moving plans to a free state.


    ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.




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

  9. #9
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    obeygiant wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

    All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
    +1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
    That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.

    OPEN CARRY WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

    This bill is as good as passed by our anti-liberty legislature. Our only hope is for it to be vetoed by our she-male governor. Go ahead and make all the calls you want, it won't make any difference.

    As I understand it, this should all be moot if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd to the States, and then if the 9th re-affirms their original decision on Nordyke to apply the 2nd to the States. But hey, what do I know.

    At some point, liberty loving gun owners in this state are going to have to willfully violate these unconstitutional laws and fight them on every front. As long as this state's legislature is overwhelmingly one-sided, the gun control laws will increase regardless of SCOTUS' and the 9th's decisions on the issue.

    And if it comes to it, I willabsolutely open carry an AR-15. Then finalize my moving plans to a free state.


    ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.



    I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    It all seems like a bad joke.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    our she-male governor.
    Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
    I'm super-impressed. :quirky

    What about a libertarian? Have you ever voted for one of them?

    The mainstream "alternative" to the Democratic Party is hardly "pro-gun" or anything else positive.

  13. #13
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    our she-male governor.
    Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.
    Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you? And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

    "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." --Charlton Heston
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    our she-male governor.
    Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.
    Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you?* And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

    "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."* --Charelton Heston
    Girly-man is fine with me. But it's by no means a variant of "she-male". Nobody is going to buy that for a split second. :quirky Completely different meanings.

    A "girly-man" is an androgynous male. A "she-male" is transvestite or a person who has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

    Political correctness is completely, entirely irrelevant. This is not the sphere of public discourse, this is private property.

    And the rules on this private property are very, very clear. And you are in violation of them:

    5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).
    It's been made clear that extends to sexual orientations as well. What you've just done is disrespect anyone who might wish to join this forum who doesn't fall within your norm of gender identity. The site is Pink Pistols-friendly, and your remark was not.

    So, if you don't "knock it off" because you refuse to get off your ludicrous "anti-PC" high horse, then I'll report you to the admins for violating the forum rules. We'll talk about "politically" correct, then. :quirky

    If someone comes on my property and spouts religion, they will be leaving so fast it makes their head spin. And this has nothing to do with "political" correctness or incorrectness, because what a person does with their own property has nothing to do with "political" anything (unless folks try to use the power of government to abrogate property rights).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
    Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.

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

    Post imported post

    CA_fr_KS wrote:
    ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
    Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
    Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet. I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online). I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.


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

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    CA_fr_KS wrote:
    ETA:* If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted to*open carry as our "right."* She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did.* So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights."* Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
    Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
    Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet.* I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online).* I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.
    Wow, I didn't catch this.

    Surely, a bill's sponsor admitting the bill abrogates a right, and that bill having been very obviously pushed through at the last minute before that Federally-recognized right is enforced upon the states, calls into question the bill's intent to respect that right, and thus the validity of the bill itself.

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

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    our she-male governor.
    Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.
    Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you? And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

    "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." --Charelton Heston
    Girly-man is fine with me. But it's by no means a variant of "she-male". Nobody is going to buy that for a split second. :quirky Completely different meanings.

    A "girly-man" is an androgynous male. A "she-male" is transvestite or a person who has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

    Political correctness is completely, entirely irrelevant. This is not the sphere of public discourse, this is private property.

    And the rules on this private property are very, very clear. And you are in violation of them:

    5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).
    It's been made clear that extends to sexual orientations as well. What you've just done is disrespect anyone who might wish to join this forum who doesn't fall within your norm of gender identity. The site is Pink Pistols-friendly, and your remark was not.

    So, if you don't "knock it off" because you refuse to get off your ludicrous "anti-PC" high horse, then I'll report you to the admins for violating the forum rules. We'll talk about "politically" correct, then. :quirky

    If someone comes on my property and spouts religion, they will be leaving so fast it makes their head spin. And this has nothing to do with "political" correctness or incorrectness, because what a person does with their own property has nothing to do with "political" anything (unless folks try to use the power of government to abrogate property rights).
    Many terms have multiple meanings, which regardless of frequency of usage are still valid meanings. Clearly I meant a variant of "girly-man" not transvestite or transgendered person. Believe me or not, I really don't care. If youchoose to be offended that's yourchoice.

    According to wikipedia (take it for what its worth) "The term she-male has been used since the mid-19th century, when it was a humorous colloquialism for female, especially an aggressive woman." Clearly our governor has "softened" his views on the issue of guns and his willingness to stand up to the anti-liberty, PC legislature.

    With regard to this forum being private property, the admins may do whatever they wish, allowing or disallowing whomever they like. You are free to report me if you want, I really don't care one iota about your idle threats.

    I am now taking my PC high-horse on to the high road and won't comment on this any more.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    CA_fr_KS wrote:
    ETA:* If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted to*open carry as our "right."* She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did.* So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights."* Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
    Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
    Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet.* I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online).* I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.

    *
    I extracted the audio. I will post later.

  20. #20
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
    I'm super-impressed. :quirky

    What about a libertarian? Have you ever voted for one of them?

    The mainstream "alternative" to the Democratic Party is hardly "pro-gun" or anything else positive.
    Sir/Mam,

    If you equate a libertarian to a democrat, then I will not vote for one of them either.

    This is not a political forum, but we have a better chance of keeping our rights with a REPUBLICAN than a democrat. I would possibly vote for a libertarian, IF..., I agreed with their platform. I get emails from the "Liberator Online, Advocates for Self-Government", which IS a Libertarian forum. so I am not unfamiliar with them. OK ?:celebrate

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    Pinche, you don't see how many of our right were taken by bush do you? I'm not saying I would have been happier with gore or kerry, but being a republican clearly has nothing to do with preserving rights, nor does being a democrat.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
    I'm super-impressed. :quirky

    What about a libertarian? Have you ever voted for one of them?

    The mainstream "alternative" to the Democratic Party is hardly "pro-gun" or anything else positive.
    Sir/Mam,

    If you equate a libertarian to a democrat, then I will not vote for one of them either.

    This is not a political forum, but we have a better chance of keeping our rights with a REPUBLICAN than a democrat. I would possibly vote for a libertarian, IF..., I agreed with their platform. I get emails from the "Liberator Online, Advocates for Self-Government", which IS a Libertarian forum. so I am not unfamiliar with them. OK ?:celebrate
    No, I don't equate "libertarian" with democrat. I merely see far too many ostensibly pro-liberty Americans who make a huge deal out of their never having voted for a democrat, and then turn around and routinely vote for the equally-repellent GOP.

    I shouldn't have made that post, though. It was off-topic and pointless.

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    ccording to wikipedia (take it for what its worth)* "The term she-male has been used since the mid-19th century, when it was a humorous colloquialism for female, especially an aggressive woman."* Clearly our governor has "softened" his views on the issue of guns and his willingness to stand up to the anti-liberty, PC legislature.
    In the mid-19th century "wimpgot" also referred to a piece of kindling used for firewood. Do you expect that one will get away with coming on this forum and using the term "wimpgot" as an insult by claiming he simply meant "firewood"? (See? The forum owners have even censored the archaic term for a piece of kindling.)

    The problem obscure, archaic definitions is that people will immediately assume the modern one. In fact, while I may accept that you mean "girly-man" I still consider the word choice inappropriate due to how it will certainly be interpreted by 99% of readers.

    Clearly our governor has no backbone; I agree.

    I really don't care one iota about your idle threats.
    I don't expect you to care. I do expect you to care about the wishes of John and Mike, and I hope you care about the perception of the gun-rights community.

    Anyway, it's not an "idle threat". I have no reason to report you, as this is a self-policed forum and I have already brought it to your attention. But if you go around continuing to use the phrase "she-male" in a derogatory fashion, except to have posts deleted (John and Mike have not taken kindly in the past to anti-gay remarks, and this is little different). Nobody will need to "threaten" to achieve that end.

    So, consider yourself reasonably warned as to certain inevitabilities, but not threatened.

  23. #23
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    Pinche, you don't see how many of our right were taken by bush do you? I'm not saying I would have been happier with gore or kerry, but being a republican clearly has nothing to do with preserving rights, nor does being a democrat.
    Sir,

    I don't know what RIGHTS you lost, but I dont think I lost anything. I voted for Bush twice. I was very displeased with his "compassionate conservatism", in the end he was more of a democrat, throwing money at everything expecting that to fix things. I think we need to get back to what the constitution EXPLICITLY states, not how it CAN BE INTERPRETED. We need a true conservative.

  24. #24
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    dirtykoala wrote:
    Pinche, you don't see how many of our right were taken by bush do you? I'm not saying I would have been happier with gore or kerry, but being a republican clearly has nothing to do with preserving rights, nor does being a democrat.
    Sir,

    I don't know what RIGHTS you lost, but I dont think I lost anything. I voted for Bush twice. I was very displeased with his "compassionate conservatism", in the end he was more of a democrat, throwing money at everything expecting that to fix things. I think we need to get back to what the constitution EXPLICITLY states, not how it CAN BE INTERPRETED. We need a true conservative.
    Bush enacted the greatest abrogation of the constitution in the history of the Unites State - The Patriot Act.

    There is very little that I didn't like about Bush as a President, I voted for him 2x too, but the Patriot Act alone is incredibly heinous!

  25. #25
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    PincheOgro1 wrote:
    dirtykoala wrote:
    Pinche, you don't see how many of our right were taken by bush do you? I'm not saying I would have been happier with gore or kerry, but being a republican clearly has nothing to do with preserving rights, nor does being a democrat.
    Sir,

    I don't know what RIGHTS you lost, but I dont think I lost anything. I voted for Bush twice. I was very displeased with his "compassionate conservatism", in the end he was more of a democrat, throwing money at everything expecting that to fix things. I think we need to get back to what the constitution EXPLICITLY states, not how it CAN BE INTERPRETED. We need a true conservative.
    Bush enacted the greatest abrogation of the constitution in the history of the Unites State - The Patriot Act.

    There is very little that I didn't like about Bush as a President, I voted for him 2x too, but the Patriot Act alone is incredibly heinous!
    Patriot Act. LOL. we had just been attacked. Maybe we should have started prison/confinement camps again.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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