Kalifornians: This is not a Drill, ..more Anti Gun Bills!

They do, it's called live somewhere else. I love how the fella from Ohio gets in such a tiff about what goes on in Cali. Makes me glad I live in fly over country.

 

as long as CA is a state, shouldn't it have the same BOR recognized as the rest of us?... besides, folks that have deep roots there can't just pick up and leave, ..and what, sell there house for a big loss?... and what state these days is rolling out the welcome mat for kalifornians anyways?...

always better to take the fight behind enemy lines, or it'll end up right in your backyard ...

 

Pretty sure if there was something amiss that could be legally challenged then it would have been. CA has the same law making as any other state. The public voted in their law makers. If the majority doesn't like what they ended up with then vote them out and change the law.

 

this is a republic, ...not a democracy... california is "supposedly" a republic... i believe many of their gun laws are unconstitutional, ...especially given heller and mcdonald... it takes time, and money, to work through the judicial system though...

i've got a hunch, you wouldn't be too happy if the tables were turned and you had to forfeit just because simple majorities of elected numbnuts happen to have antipathy for your right...

 

I'm a unionized blue dog democrat. Or what you would probably call a pinko commie living in Kansas. I know a thing or two about being in the minority when it comes to my choice of lawmakers. But that's life and I don't let it consume me.

 

the bill of rights, constitution, is paramount to simple majority rule... an amendment cannot be repealed w/out a gargantuan effort on the part of both houses of congress, and ratification by 3/4 of states... what you have in CA is a violation of 2nd amendment... the 2nd amendment was "incorporated" amongst the states via the mcdonald SCOTUS decision... so, that is "law of the land"... some things are subject to statutory law, ...but a select others have constitutional protection... "keep and bear" has constitutional protection, incorporated to the states, as has been the 1st amendment...

 

Yep, not disagreeing with that. That was also back when both the people and the government both shared the same weapons technology. That's clearly not the case anymore and hasn't been in a long while. Things won't ever be that way again until I can walk into a shop and purchase an F-35 with all the trimmings and a tank that still has it's firing pin installed.

 

...i didn't realize to "bear" applied to things one can't possibly "bear", ...like tanks and aircraft, ...so your point is a non-sequitur, right off the bat...

 

You know what I really want? A mother fucking bazooka. Oh god damnit, those dang California laws say I can't. But my constitutional rights...!

 

i must have missed the section where a bazooka had anything to do w/ this thread topic...

 

Unfortunately California often sets a tone for the rest of the country. All I see here is Wiley trying to be proactive in keeping CAs insanity out of his state and maybe helping out some of the freedom loving gun toting brethren stuck behind enemy lines there in the OC.

See avatar and user title.

 

No it's not. Just because I can't physically "bear" a B-1B loaded with nuclear tipped bombs doesn't mean I can't "keep" one. My point is perfectly valid. The fact that you choose to ignore it or sluff it off as a rediculous comparison doesn't mean you're correct. Look, I'm not anti gun. I have 3 in the truck alone as we speak. 2 of which would be considered against the law in California. I live in a state that has some of the most gun friendly laws you can imagine, and I'm perfectly fine with that. My point is, the 2nd amendment was infringed upon the second military arms and civilian arms got such classifications. This fight you're waging over wether or not your 10-22 holds 10 rounds or 50 doesn't really matter now does it? Because if there ever is a point when a tyrannical US government needs overthrown your extended magazine isn't going to do jack squat to that GPS guided cruise missile is it?

 

Also on a further note, and this is just a personal thing. I'd find it nothing short of insulting to have an outsider call my state anything other than it's proper name especially when trying to have a serious policy conversation. The fact that you feel the need to call it Kalifornia does nothing but alienate moderate people that MIGHT listen to what you have to say. It's childish at best and kept me from reading whatever it was that got this thread started in the first place.

 

thief

 

Canadian I'd like to meet..

 

" A fanatic is a person that can't change his mind and won't change the subject "

- Winston Churchill

 

"I pooped a little" - Bobcat Goldthwait

 

Did Churchill write that about Mr. Wiley?

 

This^

Once you pass through san francisco going north, you can drink beer on the beaches and shoot whatever gun you want at the whales, and nobody says shit.

 

I have to disagree with this for the simple fact that history proves otherwise. Both past history and present day. Disparity of weapons is of little consequence in the outcome of war. Just ask the Russians how Afganistan worked out for them. Or, ask the U.S.

To argue that you shouldn't have a weapons because somebody elses is better is not a good argument. If that were the case then we should just disarm all of the U.S law enforcement since criminals are better able to arm themselves with weapons L.E doesn't carry.

Aside from that, carry on, I'm pro gun