Bill To Ban Open Carry AB 1934

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Patriot Act. LOL. we had just been attacked. Maybe we should have started prison/confinement camps again.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

lol! Google "the patriot act" and see what rights I lost that you are unaware of. I wasn't old enough to vote for him the first time, but I voted for him the second. America let tyranny prevail under bush, we sacrificed freedom for security. Again, I'm not saying our alternatives would have been better, no way to know that, Im really upset with the patriot act though.

imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:

Patriot Act. LOL. we had just been attacked. Maybe we should have started prison/confinement camps again.

Click to expand...

LOL

Everyone else: see, I secretly knew it. That's why I made that post, although in retrospect I shouldn't have.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

PincheOgro1 wrote:

Patriot Act. LOL. we had just been attacked. Maybe we should have started prison/confinement camps again.

Click to expand...

LOL

Everyone else: see, I secretly knew it. That's why I made that post, although in retrospect I shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

extreme circumstances require extreme responses. Past presidents have doneworse

imported post

Here's the video of Saldena talking about how open carry is a right: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702

Fast forward to 19:30

ETA: Her exact quote is, "In my district, I represent a coastal district, I have a new group, called the open carry group. Which is now openly carrying unloaded firearms on the beaches and boardwalks, going to shopping centers, going to car rallies, going to places where families are recreating, openly carrying weapons, because of their...right, to bear arms."

She also says, "We have tremendous freedom for people to carry weapons here in California and they are demonstrating that in my district and other areas in southern California on a near daily basis."

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Here's the video of Saldena talking about how open carry is a right: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702

Fast forward to 19:30

Click to expand...

we needed something goodto get us back on track. I'm on my iPhone and can't load the vid. What did she say?

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Here's the video of Saldena talking about how open carry is a right: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702

Fast forward to 19:30

ETA: Her exact quote is, "In my district, I represent a coastal district, I have a new group, called the open carry group. Which is now openly carrying unloaded firearms on the beaches and boardwalks, going to shopping centers, going to car rallies, going to places where families are recreating, openly carrying weapons, because of their...right, to bear arms."

She also says, "We have tremendous freedom for people to carry weapons here in California and they are demonstrating that in my district and other areas in southern California on a near daily basis."

Click to expand...

Sweet, thanks for posting this.

I'm nearly amazed at this. I can only hope this is going to make this bill look as bad as I think it will if it ever goes before a court.

Even if you believe her "tremendous freedom" rhetoric, her bill serves to proscribe essentially the only method of exercising that freedom for the vast majority of Californians (who do not have and likely cannot get concealed carry permits).

I don't see how it's consistent to support one bill necessary because of "tremendous freedoms" and "rights", and then later sponsor another bill designed to abrogate the last tatters of those rights.

imported post

i just watched about 5 mins of it starting at 19:00. can someone help me understand whats happening here?

is she talking about the bill she is introducing? she seems to be saying that she understand that carrying is a right, but her bill wants to rid californians of their right? does the nra really support her bill to ban carrying of firearms? im pretty confused here.

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

i just watched about 5 mins of it starting at 19:00. can someone help me understand whats happening here?

is she talking about the bill she is introducing? she seems to be saying that she understand that carrying is a right, but her bill wants to rid californians of their right? does the nra really support her bill to ban carrying of firearms? im pretty confused here.

Click to expand...

The bill they are discussing isn't Saldana's handgun OC ban, it's SB 41.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

i just watched about 5 mins of it starting at 19:00. can someone help me understand whats happening here?

is she talking about the bill she is introducing? she seems to be saying that she understand that carrying is a right, but her bill wants to rid californians of their right? does the nra really support her bill to ban carrying of firearms? im pretty confused here.

Click to expand...

The bill they are discussing isn't Saldana's handgun OC ban, it's SB 41.

Click to expand...

cool, thanks.

its still true though that she claims durring this video to understand and support the 2a, but she also has introduced a bill to effectivley rid us of the 2a?

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

its still true though that she claims durring this video to understand and support the 2a, but she also has introduced a bill to effectivley rid us of the 2a?

Click to expand...

That's essentially how I would summarize it.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Here's the video of Saldena talking about how open carry is a right: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702

Fast forward to 19:30

ETA: Her exact quote is, "In my district, I represent a coastal district, I have a new group, called the open carry group. Which is now openly carrying unloaded firearms on the beaches and boardwalks, going to shopping centers, going to car rallies, going to places where families are recreating, openly carrying weapons, because of their...right, to bear arms."

She also says, "We have tremendous freedom for people to carry weapons here in California and they are demonstrating that in my district and other areas in southern California on a near daily basis."

Click to expand...

That's the one I was referring to. Thanks BT for finding it and posting it.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

PincheOgro1 wrote:

Patriot Act. LOL. we had just been attacked. Maybe we should have started prison/confinement camps again.

Click to expand...

LOL

Everyone else: see, I secretly knew it. That's why I made that post, although in retrospect I shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

imported post

dirtykoala 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

lol! Google "the patriot act" and see what rights I lost that you are unaware of. I wasn't old enough to vote for him the first time, but I voted for him the second. America let tyranny prevail under bush, we sacrificed freedom for security. Again, I'm not saying our alternatives would have been better, no way to know that, Im really upset with the patriot act though.

Click to expand...

Why should "I" google anything to prove "YOUR" point. That is a waste of "MY" time. "YOU" want to prove "YOUR" point. Then "YOU" take the effort.

imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:

dirtykoala 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

lol! Google "the patriot act" and see what rights I lost that you are unaware of. I wasn't old enough to vote for him the first time, but I voted for him the second. America let tyranny prevail under bush, we sacrificed freedom for security. Again, I'm not saying our alternatives would have been better, no way to know that, Im really upset with the patriot act though.

Click to expand...

Why should "I" google anything to prove "YOUR" point. That is a waste of "MY" time. "YOU" want to prove "YOUR" point. Then "YOU" take the effort.

Click to expand...

fair enough. continue pretending you are safe and the constitution applies to you in full.

imported post

"Nobody is going to buy that for a split second." (Marshaul)


Context, Context, Context


I buy it, now back to the point of the pending legislation.

Some good stuff in this thread.

Folks---hope this is an ok word---keep up the important posts.

Peace

-p