lobo9er
Member
^^ improperlyaged that is much better argument.
For those bashing California gun owners, they lead the nation in progun money raised
- Thread starter ol' scratch
- Start date
- Status
oneounceload
member
So when that happens and they have successfully eliminated law-abiding citizens' right to own guns, and then they do the same to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and many more states, just how long do you think it will take before your (BS-term) "Free States" fall as well?
Wasn't THAT long ago that some of the BEST gun owner states were CA, NY, MD, MA and so on
Wasn't THAT long ago that some of the BEST gun owner states were CA, NY, MD, MA and so on
improperlyaged
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 422
New York started implementing gun control laws as early as 1911. California began enacting them much earlier.
oneounceload
member
NYC did, NOT NY state; Pachmayr, Weatherby and many others were flourishing very well. Look at the NSCA website and you will see that those two states have more gun clubs than just about all of the rest of the country combined - and that is in the here and now
Librarian
Member
Quite the contrary. We expect all the large cities and counties, and the state government, will need to be dragged kicking and screaming (and spending piles of someone else's money on lawyers) into compliance with some future Federal opinions - if we get them.
All of those have the 'innocent' idea 'you could not possibly mean us, our favorite laws are clearly about public safety, not violating any rights ...'
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
tomrkba said:
That is indeed the case; but unfortunately a court challenge will be necessary for each and every little detail since Heller and McDonald only answer two questions and create a few new questions. On the plus side, California is fertile ground for court cases that will help expand the Second Amendment. The worse and more arbitrary the gun law is, the better it is for change through litigation - and California has no shortage of bad, arbitrary gun laws being challenged in court right now.
improperlyaged
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 422
I am sure the UK has quite a few as well. The number of gun clubs does not relate to the number of 2nd amendment advocates.
oneounceload
member
No, it does not, unfortunately as those who like to brag here are few and far between in the real world and do not have the time......................until their guns are taken
I left everything you just mentioned when I moved my family out of CA because we didn't want our kids raised with CA's screwed up values. It's a decision you make.
Doing nothing and whining "poor poor pitiful me" is a lot easier. Being a gun owner in CA is a losing proposition and will only get worse. It's not about gun control, it's about people control. The legislature keeps passing their stupid laws, because it will make it easier for them to control a disarmed populace, and the faster you realize that, the better off you will be.
Tom609
Member
Again, where is this whining self pity you hear?
oneounceload
member
And when we sub OR, WA, DC, NY, NJ, DE MD, IL, and on and on, where do we decide to stop and fight as opposed to just leaving marginal states to the wolves?
lobo9er
Member
HEX I'm sure it was difficult move I applaud you. And I would guess you didn't vote for many of your former states politicians. I wouldn't mind checking out another state either but it's not in the cards right now. But I wouldn't mock you for leaving your family and home state. As I wouldn't expect anyone here to mock others for not leaving their home. For some its a possibility to leave for others it is not. Its just not a reasonable argument to tell residents of Cali, you should have left a long time ago, you get what you deserve.
oneounceload said:
Do you live in Florida? It's a pretty good state for gun rights, isn't it?
Here's the thing - I've only lived in states with decent gun laws. You could argue that if I really wanted to take the fight to the antis and unravel what they've accomplished in NY or MA, I'd pack it up and move there and join the pro-gun voters there in doing that.
I have no plans to live in CA, NY, or MA.
I'm sure there are some great people who are getting screwed over in those states, but I can't save them. And maybe that is selfish. Maybe I should surrender my own freedom to go fight anti-gun laws somewhere else, but I'm not going to.
And anyone else who isn't saddling up to move to CA or NY tomorrow doesn't have any room to criticize someone who packed up and left to find more freedom.
But if you ever manage to get a million single-issue pro-gun voters mobilized and ready to move to NY for a few years to get the SAFE Act repealed, maybe I'll join you.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
An interesting question is "Why is California getting such poor results despite all that money?" It is certainly a different place than Texas but Texas had a majority Democrat legislature from Reconstruction through 2000. One of the reasons George W. bush got elected is that Ann whatshername vetoed the CHL bill as Governor.
When you look at those two states, they both have large urban areas that vote Dem. they have similar levels of pro-gun spending. The rural areas in both places are fairly conservative and both of them have had the state government dominated for decades by Dems in the past. Why is one saddled with gun laws that are so much worse?
When you look at those two states, they both have large urban areas that vote Dem. they have similar levels of pro-gun spending. The rural areas in both places are fairly conservative and both of them have had the state government dominated for decades by Dems in the past. Why is one saddled with gun laws that are so much worse?
danez71
Member
I'd say one of the biggest differences was the gang violence in the early-mid 80's in LA.
A lot of innocent bystanders and children where getting killed by crossfire and being at the wrong place/wrong time during drive by's.
The general public was getting sick of it.
It was also a time when "profiling" seemed to be synonymous with "racist".
The politicians and police didnt want to some across as "racist"... not with LA's history.
So they started "profiling" guns. They came up with a certain description of the evil guns rather than a description of what the typical evil bad guy looked like.
The general population could then put a "face" with the problem; a scary "assault weapon".
The general population mistakenly trusted and believed the politicians answers to the problem which was to target guns.
evan price
Member
A common thought is "We have to stop them in California, because if California does something, the rest of the nation will quickly follow!"
Well, last I checked, there's 49-state auto emissions, and California CARB emissions, since the 1980s or earlier.
Well, last I checked, there's 49-state auto emissions, and California CARB emissions, since the 1980s or earlier.
danez71
Member
..... and the auto industry make all their cars meet CA emissions standard; (Its really just the emissions related aftermarket that very hit and miss.)
In fact, the EPA raised theirs standards to closely reassemble CA emissions standard.
Essentially the rest of nation is following CA in a round about way.
AirForceShooter
Member
They're not getting their money's worth. That's for sure
AFS
AFS
Nite Ryder
Member
I don't have to read all the posts to know what is going on in California, I live next door. I can't drive into the state with my guns in the car unless they are locked in a box separate from the ammo. I have friends in Northern California ranches that I would like to visit and hunt on their property, it isn't worth the trouble. The politicians are in office because people elected them, and keep re-electing them. If voting at an election doesn't work, vote with your feet, just complaining about it doesn't help...
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,224
It's impossible to have a rational, honest discussion re this topic without stepping on some mod's toes, viz. frank political discourse.
California's problems are much, much deeper than guns.
larryh1108
Member
Quote:
As stated above, this isn't an easy answer. However, leaving politics aside, many here fail to realize that we (THR members) are more passionate about our guns than the average gun owner. Quite a few here see gun control as a #1 and only topic concerning their decisions on many fronts. Quite a few more know that gun rights are important but there are other important things in life such as quality of school systems, quality of surroundings, quality of the work field and options as well as a ton of other "qualities" that are as important or more important than their guns. This does not make them anti-gun as many state here, it just means that there is more to their life and their quality of life decisions than just their guns.
I wouldn't live in a large metro like Chicago or NYC but the rest of the state is pro-gun and beautiful. I don't think there are many more beautiful states than New York when you get to the rural areas, which make up 90% of the state. California is an incredibly beautiful state outside of the LA/SF metros. Believe it or not, there is more to life than being able to have your AK47 in your car as you run your errands. Having to make this decision is wrong in the first place but when forced to make a decision we have to weigh all the good and bad to make our own, personal choices. Just because one choice differs than your (in general) choice does not make either choice right or wrong. Everyone has their own priorities and where someone places their rights concerning their guns in their priority list is no business to the other guy.
As stated above, this isn't an easy answer. However, leaving politics aside, many here fail to realize that we (THR members) are more passionate about our guns than the average gun owner. Quite a few here see gun control as a #1 and only topic concerning their decisions on many fronts. Quite a few more know that gun rights are important but there are other important things in life such as quality of school systems, quality of surroundings, quality of the work field and options as well as a ton of other "qualities" that are as important or more important than their guns. This does not make them anti-gun as many state here, it just means that there is more to their life and their quality of life decisions than just their guns.
I wouldn't live in a large metro like Chicago or NYC but the rest of the state is pro-gun and beautiful. I don't think there are many more beautiful states than New York when you get to the rural areas, which make up 90% of the state. California is an incredibly beautiful state outside of the LA/SF metros. Believe it or not, there is more to life than being able to have your AK47 in your car as you run your errands. Having to make this decision is wrong in the first place but when forced to make a decision we have to weigh all the good and bad to make our own, personal choices. Just because one choice differs than your (in general) choice does not make either choice right or wrong. Everyone has their own priorities and where someone places their rights concerning their guns in their priority list is no business to the other guy.
danez71
Member
Apparently living next door to CA isn't enough for you to really know whats going on in CA.
If you took 10 seconds to google "how to drive in ca with gun in ca" the 1st, 3rd, and 4th link (and more down the page) would have told you that you're wrong about having to lock up your gun separate from your ammo while driving in CA.
Getting a hunting license and following the very simple instructions in the link I mentioned above is too difficult? Seriously?
Nice try trying to turn this around but I'm not complaining in this thread... YOU'RE complaining in this thread. Just look at your post; 'it's not worth the trouble to do a 10 second google search and get a hunting license.
It really shows how much you don't know about CA and your level of commitment.
Last edited:
History.Doc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Messages
- 131
Couple of things. First, only one state has more gun owners than California, and that is Texas. Second, geographically, most of California is conservative, but the population centers are all near the coast. See this recent article: http://www.geocurrents.info/geopoli...lley-and-californias-political-transformation
Bashing the state that gives lots of money to the cause, with the second most gun owners, an active association (Cal Guns) leading a strong legal fight, where most of the county governments are the fighting enforcement of unconstitutional laws seems counterproductive at the very least. Romney carried by county by over 58%. California is a big state. I assume most of the people who would argue that we somehow "deserve" our bad gun laws do so out of ignorance. They are also ignoring the fact that California is still part of the federal union and thus the U.S. constitution is still operative here. We have to defend the bill of rights in all 50 states, not just the ones we "like."
Bashing the state that gives lots of money to the cause, with the second most gun owners, an active association (Cal Guns) leading a strong legal fight, where most of the county governments are the fighting enforcement of unconstitutional laws seems counterproductive at the very least. Romney carried by county by over 58%. California is a big state. I assume most of the people who would argue that we somehow "deserve" our bad gun laws do so out of ignorance. They are also ignoring the fact that California is still part of the federal union and thus the U.S. constitution is still operative here. We have to defend the bill of rights in all 50 states, not just the ones we "like."
It's not so much a matter of not liking California. I feel bad for the residents of that state and I think were it not for the craziness that dominates California's government, it would be a damn fine state to live in. Beaches, warm climate, hot women - what's not to like?
But am I willing to send money to a fight that I can't win? No.
Now if the rural folks of California decide to secede and form a separate state or annex themselves to Nevada and they need money to help in the legal fight... I think that might be worth a donation.
But am I willing to send money to a fight that I can't win? No.
Now if the rural folks of California decide to secede and form a separate state or annex themselves to Nevada and they need money to help in the legal fight... I think that might be worth a donation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
