This is another blow to gun rights

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by TripleTap, May 4, 2012.

  1. TripleTap

    TripleTap New Member

    26
    0
    0
  2. GatorDude

    GatorDude New Member

    218
    0
    0
    I don't agree with carrying rifles and wearing pistols around in the open just make a political point or prove that you can. It wreaks of political intimidation in a civilized society. By all means, carry a firearm when you have a bona fide need. If you need to carry a rifle around in your neighborhood, it's probably time to get a realtor, put your house on the market, and get out of dodge. However, this ridiculous bill pretty much guts the second amendment. Isn't bearing arms carrying them around?
     

  3. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    My favorite part...


    "I'd always hoped that people would be reasonable," he said in a telephone interview after the bill was approved. "That's why we didn't tackle long guns last year, because handguns were the problem. I've always thought you don't do a bill without a problem to be solved."

    So, what "problem" needs to be "fixed" with this, and needed to be "fixed" with the previous one? Surely these are bills meant to reduce actual crime (wait, sorry, that was a brain fart, these bills were made to create more crime)...
     
  4. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    If one must have a "bona fide need" before one can carry a gun, then it's already too late as that person will be dead.

    Now, I agree with the "there's no real need to carry a rifle, only to make a point", but saying the same about handguns? I'm guessing you've never been in a situation where you needed one...
     
  5. TripleTap

    TripleTap New Member

    26
    0
    0
    Going into Starbucks to order a double frap no whip late grande with a Remington 700 at your side is not the smartest move for gun rights!
     
  6. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    So long as a single goblin exists that is just starting to turn his life around, so long as a single occu-commie exists, so long as a single race hustling bigot like sharpeton exists, so long as liberals hold sway there is a clear and present danger that merits bearing arms.

    Nothing in the constitution about need. Thats as inane as saying you dont get to vote unless there is a need for you to vote...
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  7. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    No, it's not. But, then again, a lot of what people do in the name of gun rights is stupid. All they accomplish is giving the enemy more fuel for the fire.
     
  8. mudpupp

    mudpupp New Member

    752
    0
    0
    This is actually a good thing in the long run. This will help the NRA to get California closer to a shall issue state.

    At least that's what Cam at NRA news is saying.
     
  9. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    Exactly... (wish I knew how to make an infinity symbol... )
     
  10. Mason609

    Mason609 New Member

    1,850
    0
    0
    Or, it could backfire. Which, with all the Libs CA has, that's more likely to happen.
     
  11. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Suggesting that things only be based on need is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. I just don't understand why some of you gun owners still don't get "shall not be infringed".

    Hell you don't need a 60 inch TV, you don't need air conditioning, you don't need more than one pair of shoes, you don't need a 300 hp car with power windows. We have all these things because we have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to keep and bear arms. If a man is comfy carrying his 870 12 gauge it's none of my business or anyone else's. If you want to carry a 22 that's your business. You guys should step back and listen to yourselves. According to some of you, people should only be allowed to do what you would do. "I carry a 9 mm so that's all anyone else should need." "Where does Joe get off carrying a bigger gun than me?" :confused:
     
  12. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    No matter what anyone does the anti-gunners/anti-rights asses will always look for something to cry about. I don't have the time left in this world to play nice with these pricks. No pro-gun owner should play nice to the social-ist anti-gunners any more. We played nice for How Many years and what did it get us? More gun control, and once we started playing dirty we started winning.
     
  13. Jim1611

    Jim1611 New Member

    700
    0
    0
    Isn't part of the reason the Founders saw fit to include gun ownership as a vital part of the country so as to insure we had a defense against tyranny? When Washington and his soldiers attacked the Hessians and defeated then they took their cannons and other things. Now these were just mere colonist, what need di they have for those wicked cannons. No doubt the British would not have wanted them to have them.

    The noose is being tightened my friends. It would not bother me in the least bit if we all had access to full auto weapons and grenade launchers. But wait many gun owners feel we need to be controlled and go along with the many laws we have that limit our access to such things. I've also read post on here and other places that poke fun at those that feel we as citizens should stand up against tyranny and that we would all perish. I can only say that's being a coward and I'm glad those dear patriots didn't share many of the mindsets we see today.
     
  14. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0

    Amen!!!!!!
     
  15. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member

    4,588
    88
    48
    One tiny little knot at a time.

    First you can't carry with one in the chamber
    Then you can't carry with the magazine loaded
    Then you can't carry a pistol
    Then you can't carry a rifle.
     
  16. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Year in and year out, news like this comes out of CA...

    Year in and year out, the people of CA put the same folks in office...

    WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT CALIFORNIA??????????
     
  17. levelcross

    levelcross New Member

    984
    0
    0
    AB1527, which makes it a misdemeanor for a person to carry an unloaded long gun in a public, passed the Assembly 42-28, with Republicans opposed. It includes a long list of exemptions for hunters, military personnel and others.

    Read more: http://www.kcra.com/politics/31002867/detail.html#ixzz1tujLhnZ4


    It's already illegal to carry a loaded weapon openly in California.

    Read more: http://www.kcra.com/politics/31002867/detail.html#ixzz1tujRUVNx

    Now just how/who does this Bill help??? If it was open carried it had to be unloaded anyway. Glad I am as far RIGHT of California as I can get.
     
  18. rebelcowboy

    rebelcowboy New Member

    103
    0
    0
    Hopefully we can get all 50 a shall issue and quit being a pita about our 2nd amendment and leave us alone
     
  19. rebelcowboy

    rebelcowboy New Member

    103
    0
    0
    You are so right why aren't we just carrying and fighting back the way it should be and telling the government like it is?
     
  20. Millwright

    Millwright New Member

    149
    0
    0
    OTOH, trudging up to a convenience store/gas station with your rifle after you've become lost/injured, or suffered a breakdown in transport would evoke the same response. Would you leave your high-end varmiter unsecured in your vehicle as you trudged to get gas or help ? >MW