Can this be used to get reverse some CA Laws?


PDA






4ME&MYHOUSE
January 23, 2006, 07:43 PM
This planted a seed, I know there are some very brilliant minds out there.

If this happens, how can this be used to to reverse other State decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment? I know it's not a direct correlation, but I have a feeling there may be something there.

It has to do with banning abortion on the state level. :rolleyes:

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45410

If you enjoyed reading about "Can this be used to get reverse some CA Laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jnojr
January 23, 2006, 08:06 PM
If you want to reverse things in California, don't depend on something that's going to be tied up in court for years. Go to http://www.reformcagunlaws.com/ and get invovled with the RKBA initiative.

MrTuffPaws
January 23, 2006, 08:10 PM
I think you will find that this is nothing but pandering for votes.

As for using it to overturn CA gun laws, how does it even apply? The legislators would have to submit a legislation revoking portions of the CA law, then it would have to get passed in committee, then a vote of both houses, and land on the desk of the governor just like this one.

CAnnoneer
January 23, 2006, 08:25 PM
I have always used the abortion issue as a way to explain to antis why gungrabbing is fundamentally oppressive.

The problem is that many antis are leftists, and many leftists are intellectually dishonest, so they simply refuse to admit the obvious analogy.

MrTuffPaws
January 23, 2006, 08:36 PM
I have always used the abortion issue as a way to explain to antis why gungrabbing is fundamentally oppressive.

The problem is that many antis are leftists, and many leftists are intellectually dishonest, so they simply refuse to admit the obvious analogy.

??? Without getting into the debate about right or wrong, can you enlighten me as to how the abortion issue relates to gun grabbing?

CAnnoneer
January 23, 2006, 10:14 PM
??? Without getting into the debate about right or wrong, can you enlighten me as to how the abortion issue relates to gun grabbing?

I view both as fundamental rights of the individual vs the choices of society:

1) Abortion - AFAIK, the fetus cannot biologically survive without the mother until maybe the 7th month. Therefore, up to the 7th month, there is only one person to talk about, and that is the mother. Society deciding that the mother should do this or that with her own body is fundamentally oppressive, because it denies her her individual freedom in favor of their views.

2) Guns - a gun is a tool that is possessed by an individual. To possess or not possess it is the choice and freedom of the individual. Gungrabbers just like anti-abortionists believe they know better than the individual what he should do with his property, and thus deny him his individual freedom in favor of their views.

Both are about personal choice and the rights of the individual versus societal control, no matter if we are talking about one's holster or one's genitals.

Since many antis are pro-choice, I absolutely relish telling them: "If you like gun control so much, why don't you like genital control equally well." In the end, it is all about control.

Incidentally, the same logic can be applied to the issue of gay marriage, among others.

Standing Wolf
January 23, 2006, 11:09 PM
The problem is that many antis are leftists, and many leftists are intellectually dishonest, so they simply refuse to admit the obvious analogy.

Why, how very surprising!

Political change for the better in the People's Republic of California isn't going to come from the government, which has been reorganized from within as an all but automatically self-perpetuating socialist paradise. The only possibility of political change for the better is for the people to rise up in righteous wrath, throw out the government, and start fresh. Throwing out Red Davis was a popularity contest. It doesn't count.

billwiese
January 23, 2006, 11:21 PM
??? Without getting into the debate about right or wrong, can you enlighten me as to how the abortion issue relates to gun grabbing?

From sheer political numbers....

CA centrist and leftist voters - swing, 'moderate Republicans', etc. - as well as varying flavors of Democrats generally list "choice" as a #1 or #2 item of concern. So only a small fraction of the CA electorate are antiabortion or "don't care", with the rest of the voter base having at least some 'pro-choice' feeling.

By contrast, "gun control" usually runs at around #7 or #8 on list of concerns, on average - even for leftists & centrists.

What this shows is that because of the political mix in CA, no 'pro-life', "anti-choice", etc. - or Christian conservative - can ever hold general office. We saw how Dan Lungren, for example, got his arse handed to him a couple of years ago.

It also says that gun rights beliefs are not electoral killers for any party. A pro-gun politician will not have this progun attribute used too much against him if he's prochoice or at least very quiet or neutral on choice - and that any fallout he has from progun issues will be more than made up for by some segment of prochoice support.

CA Republicans keep fielding lots of Christian conservatives in the primaries that simply will never make it into a CA general election. And now that educational 'intelligent design' issues (creationism idiocy) are coming to the fore, this scares lotsa people in various walks even more - likely leading to a further trouncing of so-called "Christian conservatives" in an upcoming general election.

Because of this self-immolation - although many so-called CA Christian conservatives actually do self label themselves as gun-rights supporters - we must conclude, simply by end results, that Christian conservatives in CA are de-facto antigun since they continually hold a losing position and let Democrats win.

Bottom line: the Bible thumpers are so blind they are rigging themselves for continuous electoral defeat in statewide elections, and giving these offices to Democrats - resulting in more gun control.

When I see a fish line drawing bumper sticker or logo in CA today, I now equate that with an HCI/BradyBunch sticker. That may not be their feeling, but it's the end result that counts.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CAnnoneer
January 23, 2006, 11:56 PM
And now that educational 'intelligent design' issues (creationism idiocy) are coming to the fore, this scares lotsa people in various walks even more - likely leading to a further trouncing of so-called "Christian conservatives" in an upcoming general election.

+1


Bottom line: the Bible thumpers are so blind they are rigging themselves for continuous electoral defeat in statewide elections, and giving these offices to Democrats - resulting in more gun control.


+1

Gun rights would be MUCH MUCH safer if they divorced the religious right. It is that association that greatly discredits gunownership in many influential circles and seriously antagonizes people that can't stand things like "intelligent design" or the thinning of the wall between the two G's.

MrTuffPaws
January 24, 2006, 12:00 AM
I view both as fundamental rights of the individual vs the choices of society:

1) Abortion - AFAIK, the fetus cannot biologically survive without the mother until maybe the 7th month. Therefore, up to the 7th month, there is only one person to talk about, and that is the mother. Society deciding that the mother should do this or that with her own body is fundamentally oppressive, because it denies her her individual freedom in favor of their views.

2) Guns - a gun is a tool that is possessed by an individual. To possess or not possess it is the choice and freedom of the individual. Gungrabbers just like anti-abortionists believe they know better than the individual what he should do with his property, and thus deny him his individual freedom in favor of their views.

Both are about personal choice and the rights of the individual versus societal control, no matter if we are talking about one's holster or one's genitals.

Since many antis are pro-choice, I absolutely relish telling them: "If you like gun control so much, why don't you like genital control equally well." In the end, it is all about control.

Incidentally, the same logic can be applied to the issue of gay marriage, among others.


Thank you. It is a loss of general rights.

The-Fly
January 24, 2006, 12:31 AM
I view both as fundamental rights of the individual vs the choices of society:

1) Abortion - AFAIK, the fetus cannot biologically survive without the mother until maybe the 7th month. Therefore, up to the 7th month, there is only one person to talk about, and that is the mother. Society deciding that the mother should do this or that with her own body is fundamentally oppressive, because it denies her her individual freedom in favor of their views.

2) Guns - a gun is a tool that is possessed by an individual. To possess or not possess it is the choice and freedom of the individual. Gungrabbers just like anti-abortionists believe they know better than the individual what he should do with his property, and thus deny him his individual freedom in favor of their views.

Both are about personal choice and the rights of the individual versus societal control, no matter if we are talking about one's holster or one's genitals.

Since many antis are pro-choice, I absolutely relish telling them: "If you like gun control so much, why don't you like genital control equally well." In the end, it is all about control.

Incidentally, the same logic can be applied to the issue of gay marriage, among others.


if you ever run for office, you got my vote.

Basura Blanca
January 24, 2006, 12:51 AM
From sheer political numbers....

CA centrist and leftist voters - swing, 'moderate Republicans', etc. - as well as varying flavors of Democrats generally list "choice" as a #1 or #2 item of concern. So only a small fraction of the CA electorate are antiabortion or "don't care", with the rest of the voter base having at least some 'pro-choice' feeling.

By contrast, "gun control" usually runs at around #7 or #8 on list of concerns, on average - even for leftists & centrists.

Uhhh, the source from which this comes is where exactly?

CA Republicans keep fielding lots of Christian conservatives in the primaries that simply will never make it into a CA general election.

Uhhh, Bill Simon ring a bell? (pssst... he was a pro-life, UltraCon., Catholic)

Sorry, your "facts" aren't lining up too well with reality here, BW.

Basura Blanca
January 24, 2006, 12:58 AM
....isn't going to come from the government, which has been reorganized from within as an all but automatically self-perpetuating socialist paradise.

California, the fifth largest economy worldwide, is a "socialist paradise". :rolleyes:
It seems that the silly cliches and rhetoric perpetually run at about knee-height or so when California is discussed; the depth of the ignornance often immeasurable.

tube_ee
January 24, 2006, 01:26 AM
I've got to disagree with the previous poster.

Bill Simon got his butt handed to him, by a not-particularly-popular governor who was succesfully recalled a year later. Gray Davis was so certain that he could beat Simon that his campaign comittee funded pro-Simon ads during the Republican primary. Simon's primary opponent was former LA mayor Richard Riordan, who would have likely beat Davis. Riordan would be a Democrat in the South. Here, he's a moderate Republican. For those in other states, read that as: Liberal on social issues, but very pro-business and especiallt pro-land-developer.

The CA Republican party has been, for the most part, taken over by mega-church Evangelicals, at least in the southern part of the state (where most of the people are.) This has resulted in a string of radical right-wing religious activists winning primaries for state-wide offices, notably Governor and the two Senate seats. Boxer and Feinstein have been on the CA (and national, too) Republican party's hit list virtually since they were elected. Every time, primary voters choose the Christian-right candidate, who then goes on to get the stuffing beaten out of them in the general.

California isn't, and never will be, a bible-belt state. And the other premise, that CA voters aren't so much anti-gun as don't-care-about-guns is right on the money. Our rabidly anti-gun legislators are not, for the most part, campaigning on gun control. They'd not waste the money, they know quite well that their constituents don't care about "guns." They may care about "crime," and be sufficiently misinformed to believe that gun access equates to crime rates, if that's what they're told, but they are not, by and large, anti-gun voters, at least not in the sense that many here are pro-gun voters.

Changing our state's whacko gun laws is important to me. I'm involved in a grass-roots campaign to do just that. But I'm not willing to vote for candidates whose positions on almost everything else I violently oppose, just because they're on my side on guns. When faced with a publically anti-gun Democrat and a publically Christian-right Republican on the same ballot, let me tell you, it's tough. Not voting isn't an option for me. I vote. Every time. It's just what I do.

--Shannon

Basura Blanca
January 24, 2006, 01:39 AM
I've got to disagree with the previous poster.

That's alright, but I'm not sure why you say this.

If you follow the thread, BW made the claim that "CA Republicans keep fielding lots of Christian conservatives in the primaries that simply will never make it into a CA general election."

The key point in my reply was to address the fact that Simon won the specific primary and did indeed make it into the general election in '02 -the same thing you yourself are talking about. Further, Simon fit the Christian conservative label that BW described including and especially, his pro-life position on abortion.

OTOH, Riordan (who didn't win the primary, right?) was pro-choice, yet again countering BWs claim.

4ME&MYHOUSE
January 24, 2006, 03:24 PM
If you want to reverse things in California, don't depend on something that's going to be tied up in court for years. Go to http://www.reformcagunlaws.com/ and get invovled with the RKBA initiative.


Oh yes my friend... i just got my starter kit yesterday and will be setting up my local gun businesses with forms today!


calirkba@yahoo.com

tube_ee
January 24, 2006, 11:19 PM
That's alright, but I'm not sure why you say this.



Because of this exchange:

Quote:
CA Republicans keep fielding lots of Christian conservatives in the primaries that simply will never make it into a CA general election.


Uhhh, Bill Simon ring a bell? (pssst... he was a pro-life, UltraCon., Catholic)

Sorry, your "facts" aren't lining up too well with reality here, BW.

I think (but do not know) that BW mistyped, and meant to say that CA Republicans keep running Christian conservatives who can never win the general election. I know that that's what I thought I read. That's also the proposition I thought the other person was disagreeing with, and then I disagreed with that. Clear now? Yeah, me too...

--Shannon

If you enjoyed reading about "Can this be used to get reverse some CA Laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!