Reform CA gun laws!

[jnojr]

An initiative to amend the California Constitution to add an explicit, individual right to keep and bear arms and to protect that right from meddling by requiring all gun laws to meet the "strict scrutiny" legal standard has been introduced.

For more info, see http://www.reformcagunlaws.com/

[exilio]

Personally, the argument for a civilian needing a weapon isn't clear to me.

The 2nd Amendement is over 214 years old...that is a long time ago and a different age. The right to bear arms was to be able to defend ones life and property as there was not enough lawmen to cover areas of the US. It was natural for a man to own a firearm in the 18th century...not so today in the 21st.

Some traditions should fade away in favor of potentially safer communities.

If I don't fully understand your position, please feel free to clarify.

[jnojr]

Personally, the argument for a civilian needing a weapon isn't clear to me.

The 2nd Amendement is over 214 years old...that is a long time ago and a different age. The right to bear arms was to be able to defend ones life and property as there was not enough lawmen to cover areas of the US. It was natural for a man to own a firearm in the 18th century...not so today in the 21st.

Some traditions should fade away in favor of potentially safer communities.

If I don't fully understand your position, please feel free to clarify.

Well, first, you are aware, I hope, that the Supreme Court has held that police have no duty to individual citizens, right? If someone is being mugged or raped, the police are at best a reactive response... they can take a report and search for the perpetrator, but that's of small consolation to a dead or maimed victim or their family.

Next, you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the Bill of Rights and the times. The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense... anyone who suggested that such rights needed some kind of "protection" would have been sent to that eras version of the paper doll academy. We were, basically, "rebels", even "traitors"... we formed our country by throwing off the shackles of a government that did not truly represent us or our interests. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the right of the people to overthrow a government that became tyrannical.

Lastly, since when are our communities "safer"? In the times of the Founding Fathers, we didn't have carjackings, drug wars, crack heads, or a welfare society. A man would have been much safer in an Eighteenth Century big city than any of todays big cities.

Lastly... there's the basic idea that we are supposed to be free people. Why should I not have a weapon, or a dozen weapons? Why should I not be free to carry a concealed handgun, or Mace, or a baton, or whatever? I could go through my entire life carrying a gun, and you are never going to be harmed by that. Someone who is already intent on commiting crimes is going to go ahead and illegally obtain a weapon and then carry it illegally... how is a law that prevents me, the law-abiding citizen, from being armed ever going to affect a criminal?

[pkagel]

I guess we'll throw out the 1st also, it is as old and they never thought about computers, phones or FOX News back then....... Read the Constitution and then read the debates on the Constitution and then get back to us when you have educated yourself about why we have a Constitution in the 1st place. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

edit: I just read your age, now I understand it, they stopped teaching history by the time you went to school.

Personally, the argument for a civilian needing a weapon isn't clear to me.

The 2nd Amendement is over 214 years old...that is a long time ago and a different age. The right to bear arms was to be able to defend ones life and property as there was not enough lawmen to cover areas of the US. It was natural for a man to own a firearm in the 18th century...not so today in the 21st.

Some traditions should fade away in favor of potentially safer communities.

If I don't fully understand your position, please feel free to clarify.

[Ryans67]

Wow, its a stupid argument to get into, no one is going to change anyones opinion on the issue. That website you linked me too looks like a joke, and its going to take alot more then that website to get anyone to vote for that amendment in CA. Does anyone honestly believe CA would make it easier to bear arms? Does that coincide with history or the political views of the state? Check into Florida though, they have some kickass laws. (Namely the latest kill anyone you want law)

And why are we arguing about the US constitution, in regards to the CA constitution, focus guys. And finally why is that when people discuss the right to bear arms, we bring up overthrowing a government that oppresses the people. We are talking about small arms, machine guns and .50 cals at best. The United States has the most advanced military in the world. Do you really think that we would make any formidable enemy for the United States Military? I can just see all the hill-billys from up north and laughing stock of a militia attacking a tank. Seriously guys, for every argument for guns, their is one against it. -Ryan

[exilio]

I guess we'll throw out the 1st also, it is as old and they never thought about computers, phones or FOX News back then....... Read the Constitution and then read the debates on the Constitution and then get back to us when you have educated yourself about why we have a Constitution in the 1st place. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

edit: I just read your age, now I understand it, they stopped teaching history by the time you went to school.

What does my age have to do with common sense?

I am sure Jefferson, Paine and Adams were all younger than the men that crafted the laws they were guided by. I, of course, am not claiming to be on par with those men, but you think because you are older you have a lock on what is right and true? On what is just and fairminded? If anything, your age would bias you towards keeping things as they are because it is what you know, it is what you are comfortable with. But it doesn't mean it is right for the next 200 plus years.

So before you continue with your ad hominem argument maybe you should consult your history books a little further and see that often times change is met with blind opposition. You would rather attack me than attack the issue...if that is your way, then you have already lost credibility.

Then you say 'why not throw out free speech'? Well there is a far greater argument to keep it then to lose it. People are not directly killed by free speech, but they are killed by arms. You should appreciate that salient fact.

And to Ryan, I respectfully disagree.

Issues need to be discussed in order to get to the truth and to work on them. Just because people don't agree on a point, doesn't mean the discussion should be tabled.

Someone raised the question, and I gave my opinion...no harm, no foul. This country was founded on great debates.

EDIT: And FYI, the age in my profile is not my real age. Not that it matters.

[pkagel]

Speech can't kill, hmm, wonder why we have laws then against certain types of speech if it can't kill. BTW, why is it that England's homicide rate keeps going as does Australia's even though they have banned guns.

Let me ask you this one simple question. You and your wife, mother, sister, whatever are walking down a street and a few young thugs decides they are going to rape the person you are with and maybe worse. What would you rather have with you, a pistol or a cell phone to call the police with?

If you don't want to carry a pistol, that is your business, I can't force you to defend yourself but to not allow others the freedom to defend themselves and to force your lack of self preservation on others is just wrong.

I am not against change, I am against the bastardization of our Constitution. It says what it says, don't read into it. In fact, I'm for great change, that being getting rid of all the laws that violate our constitution.

[pkagel]

Most all initiatives start small so give this one time to grow.

The CA legislature will never go for this but the citizens can overpower them.
Crazier things have happened, with the right backing, sure, why not.

Yes it does coincide with the history of the state, we got rid of Davis, overthrew a bad property tax system, prop 187, ect, ect.


That website you linked me too looks like a joke, and its going to take alot more then that website to get anyone to vote for that amendment in CA.

Does anyone honestly believe CA would make it easier to bear arms?

Does that coincide with history or the political views of the state?

[Ryans67]

A governor is hardly a powerful figure in the history of a country. Just look how unhappy the state is with our current governor. We always are displeased with what we have, wanting more....One thing that makes America great. And to point out my interpretation of the Constitution.....Their is no such thing as bastardizing the document. Its a living document, fully open to interpretation during current times. Anything we do to it follows a rigorous process and is often agreed with by the masses. The right to bear arms is unbelievable debatable...What are arms? Look at the spirit of the law and the times...they were talking about black powder muskets, they had no idea of the weapons we would conceive. Do you think they envisioned the right of the individual to possess nuclear weapons? The constitution is incredible, but realisticly its outdated and we as a country are forced to change it as we continue our growth. -Ryan

[pkagel]

A gov is quite powerful when it comes to the state, you asked about CA, I responded about CA.

I guess we see where our thoughts differ. The Constitution is the foundation of this country and is not elastic, nor does it bend with the wishes of the people. It is living in that if enough people agree, it can be amended, ala the 14th amendment.

What our Constitution never invisioned was lawyers so sick, so depraved, that they would twist the words and yes, bastardize, the Constitution.

The Constitution didn't have to foresee full auto weapons, the internet, Marlyn Manson, air travel, telephones, ect. It didn't have to, what is needed to be covered is covered with how it works. It is a document limiting the power of the gov't.

Go read the document, read it twice if you don't get it. You have to read it carefully though. Some people like to read silly things into it, esp the 1st and 2nd.

[jnojr]

That website you linked me too looks like a joke, and its going to take alot more then that website to get anyone to vote for that amendment in CA.

You're kidding me. You would refuse to support something because "the website looks like a joke"?

It's there to present information, not to wow you with "Look at what a cool web developer I am" Whatever money is involved is going to be spent on printing, gun shows, etc. Not pretty web sites.

Does anyone honestly believe CA would make it easier to bear arms?

Err, no.. hence the effort to fix things ourselves.

Does that coincide with history or the political views of the state? Check into Florida though, they have some kickass laws. (Namely the latest kill anyone you want law)

And why are we arguing about the US constitution, in regards to the CA constitution, focus guys. And finally why is that when people discuss the right to bear arms, we bring up overthrowing a government that oppresses the people. We are talking about small arms, machine guns and .50 cals at best. The United States has the most advanced military in the world. Do you really think that we would make any formidable enemy for the United States Military? I can just see all the hill-billys from up north and laughing stock of a militia attacking a tank. Seriously guys, for every argument for guns, their is one against it. -Ryan

Ahh, I see now... you're an idiot. Too bad. Please forget this thread exists... with "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

[pkagel]

At least the argument went a little better over at CABasicPolice.

[Ryans67]

Im an idiot? First thing you learn in politics is the first guy to take a shot personally has already lost the argument. Argue the issue, but your not making any points. Face reality. We live in a world that is controlled by money. The recall was initiated because of money, and political campaigns are won with money. If you start an initiative, you need to present it in a way that is professional and appealing to people. When joe blow sees some website that looks like a 13yd old kid put up, no one takes it serious. The game is not won by the guy that claims to spend the money towards the issue, but the one that sells the issue most effectively.

If we went with a strict enforcement of the constitution word for word, we would not be half the country we are today. Yes at times we suffer, but as a whole we have gained through the Supreme Courts interpretation's. You say the right to bear arms, plain and simple. Its not that simple. You press an amendment that explicitly states right to bear arms for everyone BUT.... Is that not interpretating the constitution? Why not let everyone have guns; felons, kids, the constitution says so right? You can not have it both ways, it must be interpreted. With the first, should libel and slander be protected speech? -Ryan

[pkagel]

I'm not going to debate the 2nd amendment with you any more until you read the debates on the Constitution so that you may interpet what they meant by what they wrote. It is just not worth my energy.

I will tell you that the recall started on the John & Ken show and was by no means the professional packaged presentation you eventually saw on TV. These initiatives have to start somewhere and this one is starting with a small web site and some word of mouth. If the good people are able to get it on the TV and radio then it will grow. Will it pass the 1st time out, maybe, probably not if the PRK folks have their way but it is certainly worth the effort.

[Ryans67]

In one post you say not to read into the constitution, and then the next your saying I need to read what they were thinking to understand their intention when writing. Which is it? -Ryan

[pkagel]

What I'm saying is that what is clear to me is obviously not clear to you so maybe you need to read the debates to understand what they were thinking. To be fair, a lot of federal judges need to do the same thing because they are so far out in left field it is insane.

[willowdared]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

People always forget that first little bit. :)

[jnojr]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

People always forget that first little bit. :)

Go look up the definition of "militia", both at the time the BOR was written and as codified by Federal law.

Besides, parsing the Second Amendment according to the rules of the proper usage of the English language, we see that it does not say "There is a right for a militia to own firearms"... it says "Because a militia is necessary, the people have a right to keep and bear arms". "The people" in the Second Amendment is the same "people" as in all the other amendments.

[pkagel]

Exactly!

All able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.

[willowdared]

Go look up the definition of "militia", both at the time the BOR was written and as codified by Federal law.

Besides, parsing the Second Amendment according to the rules of the proper usage of the English language, we see that it does not say "There is a right for a militia to own firearms"... it says "Because a militia is necessary, the people have a right to keep and bear arms". "The people" in the Second Amendment is the same "people" as in all the other amendments.


Hmmm, not sure why you needed to jump on me for that? Just including the entire statement as it applies to the "right to bear arms"

[pkagel]

I think he was jumping on you because you took it out of contex. The 1st part explains why the 2nd part is necessary. It doesn't limit the 2nd part in any way. During the debates most found that the 2nd was unecessary due to it being so obvious that they didn't figure anyone would think otherwise. Thank God their was a few cynics with some forethought.

[willowdared]

I think he was jumping on you because you took it out of contex. The 1st part explains why the 2nd part is necessary. It doesn't limit the 2nd part in any way. During the debates most found that the 2nd was unecessary due to it being so obvious that they didn't figure anyone would think otherwise. Thank God their was a few cynics with some forethought.


Hmmmmmm - m'okay?

I guess I thought just saying "the right to bear arms" is taking it out of context.

I think many people today assume that it is an outdated amendment, as we have a standing army. After the chaos of Hurricane Katrina, it seems a timely reminder to all - that as citizens we play a role in our security.

I am a firm believer in the right to own guns - I just wonder who will be ready to muster when the town bell rings?

[pkagel]

I think the riots showed us that the Korean business owners are more than willing to stand their ground as to the rest of SoCal, we'll see.


I am a firm believer in the right to own guns - I just wonder who will be ready to muster when the town bell rings?

[DOAcop38]

[QUOTE=\

Next, you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the Bill of Rights \
Lastly, since when are our communities "safer"? In the times of the Founding Fathers, we didn't have carjackings, drug wars, crack heads, or a welfare society. A man would have been much safer in an Eighteenth Century big city than any of todays big cities.

Lastly... there's the basic idea that we are supposed to be free people.

..Actually ,you need only look at the history of policing in this country to know that you are WRONG on that statement that a man would have been safer in cities during the early part of this countries' founding- hence the reason for modern policing(even here in California it got soo bad that in the 19th century San Franscisco had a larger # of ARMED vigilence society members than it did actual military based near the city,Los angeles City Marshal,later police ,were allowed to "shoot first" rather than escort arrestees into custody, and San Diego was so violent, L.A. based posse groups had to ride down and lynch local bad men,killers, and thieves just to keep people from moving out of the city and closing it down.There is a section on officer.com discussion groups about guns/CCW issues/weapons ownership,so rehashing this subject seems a waste- I don't really like the idea of CCWs in the heavily populated areas of california ( far too many idiots and overly scared people who would abuse it) but CCW in the more rural areas of California has always been sensible to me.As far as the stupidity of the city co. of san francisco passing a "NYC style sullivan" law? I think THAT violates the 2nd amendment, as any lawful citizen should have a revolver or pistol or rifle/shotgun in his/her home. I remember various blk/Korean/Hisp shop owners in Central and so.Central L.A. being able to run off looters and protect their properties by show of arms ,when LAPD was literally allowing gangs of looters take what ever they wanted-ONLY Long Beach PD,LASD, culver City,Inglewood, and other assisting So.Calif PDs tried to stop the looting and shooting.what a citz has in his /her home is NOT the Gov'ts BUSINESS unless it is a clear and obvious danger to the entire community- Granpas under/over shotgun in a gun safe ,or a single moms .38 cal snubby in a locked dresser drawer DOESN'T count as a threat to community safety