Comments on: ‘Open carry’ ban advances to await floor vote

By: ‘Open carry’ ban bill’s author says it’s not dead - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:22:02 +0000

[...] Assembly passed the bill in May on a 46-29 vote, and opponents have been hard at work this summer trying to bring pressure to bear on individual Senators. The StopAB144 Twitter group tweeted [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:46:08 +0000

To MR W- You need to ask all the people groups throughout history that have been disarmed how that worked out for them. Aside from the few that may have enjoyed it the end result was the murder of millions of innocent citizens by their own governments- and that is historical fact. The
Reason and only reason the second amendment exists was to keep that from happening here. The. Founding fathers came from a gov tyranny and KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY WROTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
In the words of mr braveheart “FREEDOM!”

By: Senate may vote Monday on ‘open carry’ bill - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:24:11 +0000

[...] Assembly passed the bill in May on a 46-29 vote, and opponents have been hard at work this summer trying to bring pressure to bear on individual [...]

By: JR

JR — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:36:26 +0000

The status quo is corruption, institutionalized bribery to exercise fundamental human rights, and pro-criminal safety above the almighty dollar. Inherently in conflict with the Second Amendment. End of line.

By: John W

John W — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:12:48 +0000

Definitely won’t hold my breath on that one, Elwood. I strongly favor the status quo on CCW permitting. And, unless SCOTUS rules otherwise, the status quo is not in conflict with the Second Amendment.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:01:31 +0000

“Never felt the need to boost my self-esteem by wearing a Glock to high crime areas, such as Starbucks.”

You’re unclear on the concept, John W. These people are merely exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. And regardless of dimmiecrat demagogic laws that may be passed by the insane CA leg. they will continue to do so until the Constitution is amended. (And don’t hold your breath waiting for that.)

By: JR

JR — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:55:13 +0000

Emotional and/or victim disarmers’ arguments will get you nowhere. We’re done here.

By: John W

John W — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:08:18 +0000

Re #23 “JR Says

“Handguns are ineffective at causing mortal wounds?”

You betcha! Have you discussed the “available medical research” with the hundreds of law abiders killed each year in home handgun accidents? Or with Congresswoman Giffords? Oops, sorry, I forgot. She didn’t lose her life, just part of her brain. Of course, a federal judge and several others weren’t so lucky. Have we discussed this research with Presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley? Robert Kennedy? John Lennon? Almost died President Reagan and press aide Brady? All handgun mishaps, as I recall. Innocents killed in hand-gun cross-fire on the streets of Oakland, SF, SJ, Richmond etc? If only they had been armed? They no doubt would have been able to prevent their demise!

Guess Justice Scalia must be one of those false flag flier worshippers of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao. As he wrote that the Second Amendment rights are not absolute. Just guessing, but I’m pretty sure the good justice favors the rule that prevents even law-abiding people from bringing firearms to Supreme Court. arguments.

The only person I ever disarmed was myself, the day they discharged me from the Army 40 years ago this month. Never felt the need to boost my self-esteem by wearing a Glock to high crime areas, such as Starbucks.

By: JR

JR — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:59:11 +0000

“I should be able to carry any gun in any place at anytime”
That quote was invented by victim disarmer false flag fliers. Reality: Just where the the government cannot, and is not legally required to (based on reams of case law) protect anyone, or everyone, at all.

“guns don’t kill people”

Reality: Guns don’t have brains or free will. Even if innocents are disarmed and defenseless as too many in the .gov and anti-civil rights movement work towards, the vast majority of the time, handguns are ineffective at causing mortal wounds (see all the available medical research).

“my absolute right to carry firearms always trumps your right to safety”

More quotes from the victim disarmer false-flaggers. Reality: The pre-existing, inherent human right to self-defense (survival) applies to all innocents. This is the right to safety. Anything else is pro-criminal, period.

“we may have to resort to Second Amendment remedies” crowd.

Another quote in an inflammatory context used by victim disarmers. Reality: If any government tries to complete its ultimate goal of civilian disarmament which has ALWAYS preceded genocide throughout history, then yes, innocents have the right to not be marched off to the gas chamber, etc…, and use any means necessary (our inherent human right to stay alive).

So please stop parroting the worshippers of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, ultimate evil, etc…

By: John W

John W — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:15:48 +0000

I’m sure if another group similar to the Huey’s Panthers in 1967, or my hypothetical neo-Nazis were to again conduct an armed Second Amendment demonstration inside the state capitol, they would have the enthusiastic support of today’s open carry folks.