• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Black Dragon

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
73
Location
Dublin, California, United States
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/commonwealth-club-radio-program/id113721208
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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? :rolleyes:
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:

Black Dragon

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
73
Location
Dublin, California, United States
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? :rolleyes:
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!
 

Devilinbp

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
145
Location
San Diego, California, United States
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:

Black Dragon

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
73
Location
Dublin, California, United States
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.
 

Black Dragon

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
73
Location
Dublin, California, United States
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.
 
Top