Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Lafayette Open Carry Debate with Lori Saldana Now Available Free on iTunes

  1. #1
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73

    Lafayette Open Carry Debate with Lori Saldana Now Available Free on iTunes

    The Lafayette Open Carry Debate featuring Responsible Citizens of California Press Secretary, Yih-Chau Chang, Responsible Citizens of California Executive Vice President, Adnan Shahab, San Diego Assemblywoman, Lori Saldana, and the Brady Campaign's Karen Arntzen is finally up on the Commonwealth Club of California's iT...unes page. Click on the first title to play the entire debate directly from the web page.

    http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/comm...am/id113721208

  2. #2
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73

    Factual Documentation For All Evidence I Presented During the Debate

    Here is the factual documentation for all of the evidence I presented during the debate:

    http://www.responsiblecitizensofcali...or-all-factual

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Dragon View Post
    Here is the factual documentation for all of the evidence I presented during the debate:

    http://www.responsiblecitizensofcali...or-all-factual
    I'm sure Saldana will be along shortly to give her link to her factual documentation. Right? Right?

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Things I would have said if I was debating:

    1. Where exactly does the second amendment say "bear in your dwelling"? I don't recall seeing the word "house" or "home" in the second (it is in the third though).
    2. If you need a house or home to carry, do homeless people have fewer rights than property owners? Doesn't that violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
    3. If you're worried about gang members open carrying, why not make a law preventing that?
    4. I'll start addressing you as assemblywoman the second you stop violating your oath you took to defend the constitution.
    5. So if tough gun regulations are so good at preventing gun crime, then if AB 1934 becomes law then we'll all experience the peace and calm of Chicago, right?
    6. It's great that you think people should be forced to produce identification for police officers. I seem to recall some radical party in a European country doing something along those lines last century...can you help me out with what I'm thinking of Fraulein Saldana?

    The debate overall was good. I'd like to see more discussion about how our rights are being violated and less on how more guns in the hands of the law abiding equal a safer populace. I personally don't care if that is true (although it obviously is), our rights are our rights, and cannot be violated.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 07-10-2010 at 01:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I'm sure Saldana will be along shortly to give her link to her factual documentation. Right? Right?
    I, too, am waiting with breathless anticipation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Things I would have said if I was debating:

    1. Where exactly does the second amendment say "bear in your dwelling"? I don't recall seeing the word "house" or "home" in the second (it is in the third though).
    2. If you need a house or home to carry, do homeless people have fewer rights than property owners? Doesn't that violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
    3. If you're worried about gang members open carrying, why not make a law preventing that?
    4. I'll start addressing you as assemblywoman the second you stop violating your oath you took to defend the constitution.
    5. So if tough gun regulations are so good at preventing gun crime, then if AB 1934 becomes law then we'll all experience the peace and calm of Chicago, right?
    6. It's great that you think people should be forced to produce identification for police officers. I seem to recall some radical party in a European country doing something along those lines last century...can you help me out with what I'm thinking of Fraulein Saldana?

    The debate overall was good. I'd like to see more discussion about how our rights are being violated and less on how more guns in the hands of the law abiding equal a safer populace. I personally don't care if that is true (although it obviously is), our rights are our rights, and cannot be violated.
    Thank you for your excellent points. Adnan and I will definitely keep them in mind for the next debate. Thanks for your support!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    A few more items that could be used:

    1: If you were so concerned that LEO's couldn't verify that a person was carrying legally or not.....why not work on addressing that instead of violating the Bill of Rights with an outright ban? Do cops pull over every driver to see if they are driving legally or not? I am pretty sure vehicles kill far more people than guns in any given period of time.
    2: How is there no accountability for open carriers since there are multiple laws already addressing what they can and cannot do with a firearm; examples include: brandishing, robbery, homicide(except in self defense), mugging.
    3: Please cite for us any example where disarming the law-abiding populace had positive results.
    4: (something to consider) Have we tried to get any LEO organizations to come out publicly in opposition to this?
    5: I recall at the press conference that the Rep. from the Police Chiefs said this was their number one priority...yet when i went to their website....i could find not one mention of it on their agenda.
    6: Oh, and remind us why in the 1960's did the legislature change the law from loaded carry to unloaded carry again? Instead of addressing issues with a Militant African-American Organization who they were intimidated by because they could and did legally open carry loaded weapons as per their Rights.............they took the right away from everyone.
    Last edited by Devilinbp; 07-10-2010 at 09:31 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Control not guns

    All the talk about "making a political point" by ms. Saldana, shows that AB1934 is really about control, and not about guns.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilinbp View Post
    A few more items that could be used:

    1: If you were so concerned that LEO's couldn't verify that a person was carrying legally or not.....why not work on addressing that instead of violating the Bill of Rights with an outright ban? Do cops pull over every driver to see if they are driving legally or not? I am pretty sure vehicles kill far more people than guns in any given period of time.
    2: How is there no accountability for open carriers since there are multiple laws already addressing what they can and cannot do with a firearm; examples include: brandishing, robbery, homicide(except in self defense), mugging.
    3: Please cite for us any example where disarming the law-abiding populace had positive results.
    4: (something to consider) Have we tried to get any LEO organizations to come out publicly in opposition to this?
    5: I recall at the press conference that the Rep. from the Police Chiefs said this was their number one priority...yet when i went to their website....i could find not one mention of it on their agenda.
    6: Oh, and remind us why in the 1960's did the legislature change the law from loaded carry to unloaded carry again? Instead of addressing issues with a Militant African-American Organization who they were intimidated by because they could and did legally open carry loaded weapons as per their Rights.............they took the right away from everyone.
    I could not agree more, Devilinbp.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Black Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, California, United States
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by 2009_gunner View Post
    All the talk about "making a political point" by ms. Saldana, shows that AB1934 is really about control, and not about guns.
    Exactly. And this point is how AB 1934 will likely be struck down. Making a political point is a form of free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. So AB 1934 not only violates the 2nd Amendment but also the First. The mounting political opposition to this bill is reverberating in the halls of the CA State Legislature. This First Amendment violation is already being presented to the CA State Senators as an additional violation of our Constitutional rights.

Posting Permissions

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