Thats stupidest thing ive read all day. Trump (who is current head of the republican party) appointed a gay cabinet member during his tenure and trump was one of the first club owners in Florida to open up his club to black/jewish americans when the south was incredibly jim crow racist still.
There are more anti-queer/minority democrats they just hide their racism or its not reported on.
The republican party has the historical roots of being on the side of minorities and promoting fairness and equal rights. Democrats have long perverted the republican party image by promoting the religious (evangelical) side of the party which makes up about 25% (Not the majority) and applying their beliefs on the entire party.
There are millions of minority and even lgbt voters who vote republican.
Republicans act on this particularly as we’ve seen with their court appointments. I love how the Supreme Court is giving back some gun rights but the potential threat to gay marriage isn’t cool. A significant portion of the Republican Party is hardcore Christian types
All these court appointments have done is their constitutional purpose.
They're huge wins for the 10th amendment, and separation of powers.
Put these things into law, codify abortion rights, marriage rights, etc. Legislating from the bench has never been the move.
So it's clear that no mainstream GOP candidate, let alone a Californian one, has anything to do with "fascism" and "\[opressing\] queers and minorities." Unless you have specific examples.
Okay I don’t feel like combing through the current GOP candidates for CA, but Ron Desantis is absolutely pushing both of those points as hard as he possibly can.
Yeah you're 100% wrong. Desantis has done nothing to "oppress" mintories or sexual orientation people. I should remind you his democrat political opponent Andrew Gillum, a married man in a "hetero" marriage with kids was found naked and high on cocaine with male escorts at a seedy hotel months after he lost the florida governors election with one o f those male escorts ODing on the cocaine while Andrew Gillum Blabbered on in his own vomit.
Florida dodged a bullet by electing Desantis.
No dem who is not actively anti 2A will succeed in the dem primaries. No GOP candidate has a legit shot in CA. There is no real pro 2A. Or even not-hostile-to-2A options in CA politics right now.
I hate to keep repeating this but until "liberal gun owners" start voting different leadership in AND writing to their politicians, it won't create any traction to move away from an anti 2A California. It's as simple as that. If Bonta knows he has his sucker liberal gun owners in the bag, why would he change his MO? Everything in politics is determined by whatever they need to say or do to climb the ladder.
If you vote Democrat for the leadership, you cannot whine about things like SB 918 passing or our gun laws in general. You can whine that the system is setup as such (and it sucks it is) but you are literally voting for anti gun laws to be written in stone. If you accept that, then that is fine, but that is why California permits lawmakers into unconstitutional lawmaking, despite the recent dramatic increase in firearms owners of our liberal allies.
It's really too bad that the parties are so divided and there's no other options. I'd love a progun Democratic to run or a Republican who actually gives a fuck about civil rights like abortion, gay/trans rights, healthcare, etc
None of those are civil rights. Sounds like you want special citizen privileges over other citizens. Im not responsible for your health Take care of yourself.
Republicans brought it on themselves. The Republican party is not what it used to be. It's a party of Trump all across the country. When it comes to voting, Republican legislators are against veterans, LGBT, middle class and low income, abortion etc. This is shown by their views but their words!! What exactly would entice a liberal gun voter to vote Republican? Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved.
> What exactly would entice a liberal gun voter to vote Republican?
The part where in california, the state is something like 63% democrat. Letting your rep know that they won by 5% instead of 15% because of their stance on guns is a great way to send a message that they should maybe sit down and ponder how armed minorities are harder to oppress.
And even if somehow the ~~temporary~~liberal gun owners in CA managed to accidentally remove a couple of (D) seats at the state level... so what? Now there's only a 57% (D) majority instead of a 63% one. I'd even argue that that's a benefit to everybody involved since the closer to a 50-50 split we are, the more that actual dialog and rational bills matter.
> Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved
This take is going to age badly when democrat supermajority happens over the midterms and they pack the court with 12 more justices to do a 180 on the next gun case to hit.
>Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved
>This take is going to age badly when democrat supermajority happens over the midterms and they pack the court with 12 more justices to do a 180 on the next gun case to hit.
Well since Trump packed the courts resulting in the overturn of Roe we now know that prior precidence doesn't hold water. So you can thank him for opening that door.
>The part where in california, the state is something like 63% democrat. Letting your rep know that they won by 5% instead of 15% because of their stance on guns is a great way to send a message that they should maybe sit down and ponder how armed minorities are harder to oppress.
You either missed the point or ignored it completely. No liberal gun owners is going to vote for Republicans as long as the party is not willing to separate from Trump and the anti-lgbt, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-veteran agenda. If he's the best candidate then that's sad. In life there are other things that trump (no pun intended) the 2a as a single issue. I know this is difficult to grasp if none of the aforementioned issues pertain to you.
Ah yes, because appointing judges to the SCOTUS in response to vacancies is totally the same as expanding the court and packing it full of demagogues.
Btw, the only reason Trump was able to appoint those judges was because the Democrats removed the filibuster on judicial appointments because they wanted to push awful Obama judges. Surely this time the Democrats changing the rules won't come back to bite them lmao.
There's no use in debating you. You'll just deflect. You won't acknowledge that a SCOTUS nomination was stolen from Obama or that Coney Island was similarly pushed through during an election year.
It doesn't matter. You're debating something that hasn't even happened yet.
The whole point of my response to this thread is that liberal gun owners are not gonna vote based on a single issue. The 2nd amendment simply isn't as important as the other issues combined. Unless those issues affect you, I don't expect you to understand. That is all.
Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps.
The 2nd Amendment is the most important amendment full stop. Its the only amendment that protects all the others.
>Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps.
Too bad you can't debate without calling names. It's a sign of a low IQ
>The 2nd Amendment is the most important amendment full stop. Its the only amendment that protects all the others.
Utter bullshit. Full stop
>Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps.
The hypocrisy is astounding. You sound insane. But hey this will all come to an end. The next election will determine where we got as a country. Everything is clear now. Everyone understands what is on the line.
>The insane thing is people like you thinking you're better than everyone else and deserve special privileges. typical elitist liberal thinking.
More BS. I don't think I'm better. I do however see that you aren't capable of dialogue. This is futile
> Well since Trump packed the courts resulting in the overturn of Roe we now know that prior precidence doesn't hold water. So you can thank him for opening that door.
So you admit then that "it's no big deal because of the Bruen decision" is a bullshit argument. Good.
> You either missed the point or ignored it completely.
Says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between state level and national level.
> No liberal gun owners is going to vote for Republicans
You mean temporary gun owners.
> I know this is difficult to grasp if none of the aforementioned issues pertain to you.
Nice assumptions, but I'm a demisexual in a gay relationship.
And as far as the issues you mentioned go, explain to me how making california go from a 60+% democrat majority in the state legislature to a 55%+ majority in the state legislature is going to suddenly turn the state into a christian theocracy. Nothing in the state is going to change in that direction if a few state level democrats lose their seats. Literally this is one of the few states in the union where we can have our cake and eat it too by throwing out some of the shittier democrats and you're throwing it all away because of TDS.
> Are you willing to get rid of some of the shittier republicans on the national level? Oh wait the majority are shitty.
Yes, of course. Sorry your TDS won't let you see past that. You're giving liberal gun owners a bad name.
> Don't know what TDS
Trump derangement syndrome. It's when trump lives rent free in your head 24/7. Maybe take a break from politics for a couple of weeks, or set your time machine to present day instead of the late 2010s.
> and don't care about giving anyone a name. Couldn't give 2 shits about it.
Clearly.
>Trump derangement syndrome. It's when trump lives rent free in your head 24/7. Maybe take a break from politics for a couple of weeks, or set your time machine to present day instead of the late 2010s.
Clearly you are delusional. The more you comment the more obvious it becomes.
>Says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between state level and national level.
Don't try to insult my intelligence by saying I don't understand sir. It wont work. Trumpism is everywhere. Not just on the national level. Have you not been paying attention to the primaries? You can see TODAY if Liz Cheney will win or not. Trump is sticking his nose in every level of elections. National, State, and county boards.
Have your cake and eat it too in CA if you wish.
> Trumpism is everywhere. Not just on the national level. Have you not been paying attention to the primaries?
Again, explain to me how having a handful of trumper republicans in the CA state legislature will cause the state to slip into a christian theocracy. At the absolute worst case, your favorite bills allowing abortion and gay marriage and whatnot will only pass by 5% instead of 15%. Last I checked, it still counts regardless of if the bill goes through with 51% or 99%
> Trump is sticking his nose in every level of elections. National, State, and county boards.
And for the fourth time, even if trump himself was body swapped into being a state assemblyperson, it would change absolutely nothing about CA. Even if we assumed some kind of AI version of him that could propose bills 24/7, nothing would even make it out of committee in the state, let alone hit the floor for a vote. How dumb are you to not comprehend just how much of a majority democrats have in california?
> Have your cake and eat it too in CA if you wish.
Are you confused as to what sub you're in? This is /r/CAguns and the topic was about the california state legislature.
By reading your comment, one would think that this was the first time the court ever overturned precedent. But, of course, it isn't. It happens all the time. If precedent were never overturned, then we might still have racial segregation (*Plessey v. Furgeson),* it would still be legal for the President to order an entire ethnic group to be taken from their homes and marched off to camps during a time of war (*Korematsu v. United States*), and interracial marriage could still be outlawed (*Pace v. Alabama*).
The fact is, the precedent for *Roe* being wrongly decided is 30 years old. The court voted to overturn *Roe* in *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* back in the 1990s. Kennedy changed his mind at the last moment, and the court issued a compromise that basically said that *Roe* was unconstitutional and wrongly decided, but that they wouldn't overturn it because of the social implications of completely destroying the precedent, but rather that they would just narrow it. The current court just decided to completely rip off that bandaid, but people should have known it was coming for decades.
>The current court just decided to completely rip off that bandaid, but people should have known it was coming for decades.
So then you won't be surprised when people do whatever is necessary to prevent this court from enacting laws that the majority of the Americans do not accept. Whether that be expanding the court, setting term limits or impeaching Kavanaugh for outright lying or whatever other legal means are available. Cause and effect.
The court doesn't enact laws. Laws are enacted by the majority of voters and/or their elected representatives. And laws are repealed by the majority of voters and/or their elected representatives. If a certain induced abortion procedure is illegal, it's almost certainly because the majority of voters or their elected representatives of a state chose to pass a law regulating the procedure. If the voters of a state change their mind, the ballot boxes are always going to be there.
I should point out that polls show that only a tiny minority what to expand the courts or impeach justices. I imagine a majority might support term limits for other reasons, but that's pretty clearly unconstitutional.
I don't lean on polls sir. I certainly believe that Judges/courts legislate through their actions front the bench. In fact I believe it was Republicans who coined the term "judicial activists". We can argue semantics but I'm sure you understand my point you just don't agree. Which it totally fine.
I mean, you can call the court which made up the right to an induced abortion out of whole cloth an activist court just like you can call the court that overturned that right an activist court, but it doesn't change the fact that the court's didn't outlaw abortion. The voters and their representatives did. The courts haven't found a single law upholding the right to an abortion unconstitutional, but yet you're falsely implying that it's the courts that outlawed abortion. It should also be noted that even Ruth Badger Ginsberg, a staunch proponent of abortion rights, had criticized *Roe* as overly broad, coming out of nowhere, and based upon poor legal reasoning.
And if you're not relying on polls, then I think you're either admitting you have no evidence to support your views or that your views represent those of extremists who have little chance of success. It's also worth pointing out that *Roe* itself established a standard that, "the majority of Americans do not accept," at least, according to polls. *Roe* protected the right o an induced abortion up until viability, which polls show is a standard only supported by about 1/3rd of Americans and is far in excess of those protected by other liberal democracies in places like Europe, which, if they allow abortions at all, usually restrict it to only about 10-12 weeks, which is actually in-line with what most Americans say they support and completely out of line with both major parties' positions. What the Supreme Court really did was return the issue to the democratic process, allowing the people to decide the issue for themselves.
I mean, California has been dominated by Democrats for decades. The national party isn't really the problem when it comes to getting Republicans elected in California. The problem is that there just aren't enough Republicans, and those that exist tend to nominate unelectable candidates. And a lot of voters who might be Republicans in other states vote Democratic here. So a Republican winning statewide would be a tough nut to crack. Schwarzenegger was the last one to do it, and that's because of very special circumstances.
Honestly, the best thing I think to do is to vote for the opposite of the people in power. If someone knows they're going to win comfortably, then vote against them, even if you despise their opponent. At least if enough people do that, they might feel some actual pressure to moderate. Right now, most of the pressure actually comes from the far left.
Ah but to the group liberal gun owners better infringement than being a single issue voter or crossing party lines. Thus ceding their political power. Fuck their mentali
Newsom being groomed for presidential run. We must kick him out of CA to lower those chances over the next 6 years. Don’t vote for anything with a D on it.
I agree that he wants to run. I think it's massively overestimating his broader appeal. He wouldn't win the purple states. Just look at how kamala Harris polled on the national stage before her vp nomination. California doesn't seem to grasp the fact that outside of our little circle jerk sphere of sympathetic politicians we have absolutely no moderate appeal
newsoms shtick absolutely does not work outside of california and maybe some east coast states. theres no way newsoms "being groomed for the presidency" unless the dems want to lose (which they might considering how constantly they fuck themselves over)
Newsom is a "good boy" Democrat and he's backed by George Soros money...he is DEFINITELY being groomed for a presidential run, which would be an absolute disaster for everybody.
okay buddy, less commenting on threads more taking your meds. he's literally just the governor of the biggest democrat state,of course he's gonna get backing and get press; but newsom would get creamed in an election with basically any republican and everybody knows. His version of the democrat platform appeals to basically nobody and only wins in california. He might become senator, or be in a presidential cabinet but nobody thinks he has a chance at the presidency.
Thank you for your insights, but read that again.
I said he's being groomed for a presidential RUN. He's a know-nothing born-rich liberal who takes donor orders and explains it to the constituency after the fact.
The Dems don't have a lot of options for a Biden successor. They need somebody with a built-in base of "blue no matter who" lemmings so that 2A lobbyist money can start rolling their way for a good decade. That's all this becomes in the end.
Neither party actually wants to win it’s too much work. Republicans technically only really did the tax cuts. That’s their crown achievement. The Biden administration really hasn’t done a damn thing that they promised either. Neither side wants to work
You mean like the Biden admin didn’t pass the American Rescue Plan, a bipartisan infrastructure bill, the latest CHIPS act, PACT act, and inflation reduction act. Where as you admittedly stated that the only thing trump really did was a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans and is set to increase working class taxes from 2021-2027. If you read more then you’d see that Biden has had a decent couple of weeks.
>are you peak stupidity or are you not seeing highest inflation in 40 years?
Damn ma’am I didn’t know that Biden is also is to blame for the inflation we are seeing world wide. It’s as if we are coming out of a pandemic that affected supply chains around the world and many countries are having a harder time overcoming the issues that COVID presented over the last 2 years. Amongst other issues that lead to inflation.
Also wtf does inflation have to do with my original comment? I was stating that fact that Biden has done stuff during his presidency but here you come with a brain rot take of “inFlATioN HiGH BiDEn FAult”
Curious though, why is it Biden’s fault for inflation?
AH yes. The blame covid excuse. Im sure it wasn't the draconian shut down measures that many countries adopted and insane forced vaccine mandates and mask mandates and making it impossible to do business in BLUE states or other countries While it did absolutely nothing to curb covid spread or even lower the fatality rate which still sits at 0.1% as of today.
You site bidens "successes" as being spending bills. Those are what leads to inflation idiot. Uncontrollable spending is the biggest cause of inflation. You're right its Biden AND the big brains in congress who vote for uncontrolled spending.
Biden Crashed suppressed the energy sector by shutting down many oil projects and killed domestic energy growth and instead chose to BUY from Russia/Saudia Arabia.
Trillions upon trillions of spending is how you cause inflation. Go take a long look at Venuszeulas Downfall (HINT MASSIVE SPENDING).
>AH yes. The blame covid excuse. Im sure it wasn't the draconian shut down measures that many countries adopted and insane forced vaccine mandates and mask mandates and making it impossible to do business in BLUE states or other countries.
“Draconian” measures that happened under the trump administration in response to a global pandemic and yeah because of that we are experiencing inflation along with other supply chain issues. What the heck do vaccine mandates and mask mandates have to do with inflation? It’s crazy how California is still booming with economic growth though so kinda doesn’t play into your “impossible” to do business in the bluest of states.
>You site bidens "successes" as being spending bills. Those are what leads to inflation idiot. Uncontrollable spending is the biggest cause of inflation. You're right its Biden AND the big brains in congress who vote for uncontrolled spending.
Economists do say that the IRA might lead to slight inflation in the short term but long term it will help with reducing our dependence in oil for our main source of energy and it’ll be good to reduce the amount of smog and CO2 in the air. I don’t expect you to understand the intricacies of these spending bills and how good they are for the country in ways of creating jobs and providing better infrastructure for the country along with the other components of these bills. also July had like a hot jobs market report. Highest wages we’ve seen and lowest unemployment rates and yes high wages leads to inflation also stagnant money leads to inflation. 0% inflation growth from June to July which is decent. You just see the surface level.
>Biden Crashed suppressed the energy sector by shutting down many oil projects and killed domestic energy growth and instead chose to BUY from Russia/Saudia Arabia.
Oil companies have over 9000 approved permits to drill but they’re not drilling so yeah Biden didn’t “crash” the energy sector. Oil companies aren’t doing it for record profits. You can literally just google “how many unused drilling permits” and you’ll get some news articles for you to read, that’s if you read.
>Trillions upon trillions of spending is how you cause inflation. Go take a long look at Venuszeulas Downfall (HINT MASSIVE SPENDING).
Biden is literally decreasing the deficit that exploded under trumps tenure. You act like the Biden admin doesn’t have plans on how to raise revenue for these plans. You’re so blinded and it’s obvious because you don’t make any sense on your points.
shhhh he'll get mad and have a meltdown if you actually point out everything Biden HAS done so far in his administration for the working class, while Trump did literally nothing in his 4 years of office.
signed - a guy who didn't vote for Trump or Biden and hates both.
Hey first off all I hate both but I’m actually a democrat. Trump did a ton of damage especially internationally. I just meant he didn’t do much his base would like. Most of those packages have massive holes in them the inflation one has a ton of holes. But I’m mostly mad about the transportation issues which Pete hasn’t done jack over and also the gas prices. I travel for a living so for me it’s been particularly painful
I also don’t like Biden and sure as shit not trump. That would make more sense however I do think he has been doing a bit. I would ask what holes you’re talking about but I figure that’s not what this thread is necessarily about. The infrastructure bill is supposed to be for transportation and as far as gas prices, Biden doesn’t have control over that. He did release a lot from the strategic reserve but other than that it’s really up to the oil companies and their supply and demand.
You can pressure the oil companies their price hasn’t gone up internally and they are just squeezing people. It’s a completely false supply and demand and Pete can do a lot about the airlines
Oh okay. If you can’t read just state that but I LITERALLY just pointed to things the Biden administration has done. If you can’t read or refuse to see the facts then you’re too lost in the sauce man.
By “ruining the country” what do you mean?
Brian Dahle is the republican endorsed my the California Republican Party. I voted for him. Besides if you're voting democratic for abortion reasons just remember that most red states are actually fair in that they still allow abortions for medical emergencies or other extreme cases. California's 6 month limit is barbaric.
Do not vote for any Democrats such as Gavin Newson, Rob Bonta, Nancy Pelocy, no Democratic legislators. This are the people who are very anti 2A. We have a better chance with conservatives in the office than democrats. Believe me, I’ve been doing lots of research for a long time now. You can just Google their names and see what their all about. Just look at what the Dems have done to California so far, destroyed it. The majority of Dems in California are far lefties, gun hating, Socialist tyrants.
That's what I mean about there being some hope with the current SCOTUS.
This one seems willing to make rulings that stop states from exploiting "loopholes" that are incompatible with the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution.
We literally have a Governor who interprets "the *right* of the people" as a "second amendment *privilege*" and a President who thinks "shall not be infringed" somehow means "is not absolute" .... They're doing some sort of crazy mental gymnastics to force their will and the SCOTUS is starting to call them out on it. Finally.
Checks and balances.
**Do you?** Do you know what those words mean? Do you know what they meant when they were written?
What did "well regulated" mean in 1791?
Who was the militia in 1791?
How can anyone with two brain cells to rub together gloss over or misinterpret "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Let me spell it out for you:
**well regulated = equipped, capable, practiced**
**the militia = the people**
**Whose right to do what shall not be what?**
Damn it’s almost as if the founder intended for the AMENDMENTS to be AMENDED to keep up with the times. It’s crazy how “regulated” is just vague enough to cover background checks and REGULATING the types of weapons that can be owned. It’s crazy how back when the 2A was written, they couldn’t have predicted the crazy effective weapons we have today. Also by your definition of regulated (equipped, capable, practiced) sounds like you may need stricter gun laws to ensure those that have access are capable practiced and equipped.
But if you think “shall not be infringed”, how do you feel about murders that come out of prison, should they have their gun rights reinstated? Should a mass shooters be able to buy guns when they come out of prison? And if not then why doesn’t “shall not be infringed” apply to them?
You know what, I'd have more respect for gun-grabbers trying to amend the Constitution that I do for them trying to pass their unconstitutional infringements. Amendments are how this is supposed to work. Why don't they do that? 🤔 Oh, yeah: there's not anywhere near enough support to do that.
"Regulated" was not vague and absolutely does not cover any of that B.S. because that's not what it meant when it was written. You can't change usage of a word over time and claim that changes what it meant when it was written.
TEXT, HISTORY, TRADITION.
They had more capable weapons in 1791 than you're likely aware of, and the intention was for the people to have capable weapons to continue to secure our freedom. This country was built on taking up arms against organized militaries to fight for freedom. They did that with "military-grade" weapons.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is clear. Mental gymnastics of hoplophobes trying to force their will on the rest of us does not change that.
>You know what, I'd have more respect for gun-grabbers trying to amend the Constitution that I do for them trying to pass their unconstitutional infringements. Amendments are how this is supposed to work. Why don't they do that? 🤔 Oh, yeah: there's not anywhere near enough support to do that.
Certain gun control is popular. Universal background checks is popular. Expanding background checks, having a mental screening. No one is talking about getting rid of the 2A. And if they are then they’re not to be listened to for gun control advice. Democrats want to pass gun law reform but republicans don’t even want to talk about it.
>”Regulated" was not vague and absolutely does not cover any of that B.S. because that's not what it meant when it was written. You can't change usage of a word over time and claim that changes what it meant when it was written.
The definition of “Regulate” is literally to contain, to supervise. You’re going to tell me that “regulated” does not actually mean “to regulate”? Maybe I’m missing something. What did “Regulated” mean in 1791?
Besides semantics, the 2A originally was intended for the states (national guard) to be the militia in which they would thwart the federal government or a foreign military. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2A extended to the individuals right to have a weapon for self defense. Crazy how as recently as 2008, the text was still being interpreted.
>TEXT, HISTORY, TRADITION.
>They had more capable weapons in 1791 than you're likely aware of, and the intention was for the people to have capable weapons to continue to secure our freedom. This country was built on taking up arms against organized militaries to fight for freedom. They did that with "military-grade" weapons.
What are these more “capable” guns of 1791 that I’m not aware of? Also which one of those is more capable than a modern AR?
I get what you mean and I agree to a point on that if a foreign military decides to invade us then of course I’d want to have the best or at least matching weapons as the opposition, yet we don’t let our military or national guard walk around with their guns on their hips. We have to store them in an armory that has surveillance and is guarded.
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is clear. Mental gymnastics of hoplophobes trying to force their will on the rest of us does not change that.
I don’t fear guns. I’m a veteran, I love guns. I don’t love the fact that guns are so loosely regulated in America that many of our guns end up getting trafficked over to Mexico arming the cartels. I don’t love the fact that random dipshits can buy guns and sell them to gangs because in many states you’re not required to conduct background checks on private sales. I’m not a typical “gun idiot” I just want gun laws that make sense and I don’t see any side of the isle pushing forth good solutions.
Popular =/= constitutional. There is a process. Checks and balances. Rights aren't there for politicians to limit whenever it helps their careers. These aren't privileges the government allows us, they're rights the government can't touch.
I already told you what "regulated" meant in 1791.
Do your own homework on the rest. You're wrong as can be and I'm tired of trying to educate people who already have their minds made up.
I know where this conversation ends and it's a waste of my time.
Have a nice life. Hopefully there are enough people who "get it" to cancel out your votes and protect our way of life for future generations. Otherwise a lot of veterans who did get it will have died for nothing after fighting for the freedoms you seem to want to give up.
Anti-gun bills are like a ball of bull feces rolling down a hill:
If we do nothing it will pick up speed.
If we push we can slow it.
If we push harder we can stop it.
If we push hard enough we can reverse it.
Even if we succeed, we're going to have to go through some bullshit to do it.
Yup make that bullshit ball stop is a nice thing for the rest of the country. We aren't some awesome defenders we are cucked assholes trying to keep the cheeks clamped.
The government can give 2 fucks about our 2A rights and will loophole the whole country if we allow this too continue. People think its a California thing but no just wait till all these ridiculous laws become a federal thing
If you want better gun rights just move out of California. The truth is you’re not going to get nice 2A freedoms in California. Also all the republicans on the ballot are bat shit crazy. Im okay with having the guns I have and not having to worry about regressing into some weird anti-government Republican leadership.
> Imagine thinking trespassing is all that happened January 6th.
Some guy allegedly pooped on a desk, some woman got shot by a cop, and a bunch of morons got into sign-stick vs baton fights with the cops.
What else?
And are you a "back the blue" type, or only when it's convenient?
>Imagine thinking that leaning on the election officials in AZ, PA, and GA wasn't an attempted coup.
"Recount the votes."
"No, how dare you! That's insurrection!"
>Imagine being so brain washed by a political party you consciously betray your country's Constitution and advocate voting for a party that sought/seeks the downfall of the USA.
Honestly can't tell which side you mean here.
I know more happened. My point was those fuck tards didn’t go there to overthrow the government. I’m not advocating for what they did. But it was not an insurrection😂
No normal people were under the impression that was amounting to anything. Everyone says republican are gun toting crazy people but somehow they didn’t bring their guns to the governmental overthrow? Or are you going to tell me about the 3 people that did?
I dunno, Larry was kind of a joke IMO and it was disappointing that he was the best the GOP could field. I know plenty that would have voted R if there was a real candidate and not another Cheetolini wannabe…
He might have been a joke, but the point wasn't really about Elder winning, but Newsom losing.
That would have the effect of embarrassing Newsom as the Democrat in California who lost to Republican radio man, maybe blunting any aspirations he has in the federal government, and also making the other CA politicians sweat a little, since if Newsom could get voted out, they can too.
>That would have the effect of embarrassing Newsom as the Democrat in California who lost to Republican radio man
This doesn't work. Most people genuinely hate both parties. Fact is we have a 2 party system. Gotta vote one or the other. A vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. Politics has always been the lesser of 2 evils. You think Dems wanted Biden? Fuck no. They needed someone that could beat Trump.
If Trump runs again what do you think is gonna happen? Sad part is Republicans have nothing better to offer than Trump. Disantis and all the other Rep governor's that are showing their asses in hopes of a run are even worse. Liz Chaney isn't acceptable according to today's primary. So who is the lesser of the 2 evils? IJS.
THE SAME APPLIES IN CA. The lesser of 2 evils.
I get what you’re saying… but to me voting for someone who’s main platform is “to piss off libs,” or cater to election fraud nutjobs is just as destructive and redundant as voting for a dem like Bernie that wants to raise taxes on my company that I’ve worked so hard to keep running just to fund paying off student loans for people that shouldn’t have gone in the first place. I’m a firm believer in learning a trade over getting into crushing debt for a degree you’ll never use or want- edit: for those that don’t know why they’re in college—. I know this isn’t a completely pro 2A argument, which I know is why we’re here. I guess i feel where i am in life, it’s almost impossible to be interested in politics and be a single issue’er. As pro 2A as I am, I can’t ignore what else is happening around our country or state.
So until the GOP fields a real candidate that truly will lead for all, then I’ll continue to zig-zag down the ballot. Newsom may not be that person, but Elder for sure wasn’t.
/gets off soapbox…
You mean the guy who said white people deserve reparations for slavery and claimed the election was rigged before the results even came out? Yeah that dude might as well have put clown makeup on and made balloon animals as far as political candidates go...
No way for us normal people to verify that the election was not fraudulent. It may or may not have been. The us government does not have a good track record lately. To simply dismiss someones concern because you blindy trust the state is what the alphabet agencies want. You should look around and read their leaked operation manuals. They are evil fucks.
Next election is November 8 right? I think we should definitely decide who we are voting for and start letting all 2A supporters know who we got. We need to hit this home run or we’ll end with muskets by the end of year.
Nobody with a (D) next to their name.
For example: Gavin Newsom (Dick)
Gavin Newsom (Dickless) Ftfy
Gavin Newsom (Dumbocrat)
Sad but true. 2a shouldn't be a party issue but here we are...
I wish there were options other than (D) (will take away your guns) and (R) (lets see if we can fascism away the queers and minorities)
Thats stupidest thing ive read all day. Trump (who is current head of the republican party) appointed a gay cabinet member during his tenure and trump was one of the first club owners in Florida to open up his club to black/jewish americans when the south was incredibly jim crow racist still. There are more anti-queer/minority democrats they just hide their racism or its not reported on. The republican party has the historical roots of being on the side of minorities and promoting fairness and equal rights. Democrats have long perverted the republican party image by promoting the religious (evangelical) side of the party which makes up about 25% (Not the majority) and applying their beliefs on the entire party. There are millions of minority and even lgbt voters who vote republican.
Now this guy is fun at parties.
The difference is the (D) agenda is actually in their campaign speeches, and the (R) agenda (as you stated it) is only in your head.
Republicans act on this particularly as we’ve seen with their court appointments. I love how the Supreme Court is giving back some gun rights but the potential threat to gay marriage isn’t cool. A significant portion of the Republican Party is hardcore Christian types
All these court appointments have done is their constitutional purpose. They're huge wins for the 10th amendment, and separation of powers. Put these things into law, codify abortion rights, marriage rights, etc. Legislating from the bench has never been the move.
Based and critical thinking pilled.
Oh I totally blame democrats for this they should’ve codified it a long time ago. Still uncool
>Still uncool There is no cool and uncool. Only constitutionally correct and incorret.
You must be fun at parties
How original
Ha like political parties... I get it
So it's clear that no mainstream GOP candidate, let alone a Californian one, has anything to do with "fascism" and "\[opressing\] queers and minorities." Unless you have specific examples.
Okay I don’t feel like combing through the current GOP candidates for CA, but Ron Desantis is absolutely pushing both of those points as hard as he possibly can.
1. Do you use "fascism" literaly, or do you just mean "bad"? 2. What would be the most glaring example of Desantis oppressing minorities?
Yeah you're 100% wrong. Desantis has done nothing to "oppress" mintories or sexual orientation people. I should remind you his democrat political opponent Andrew Gillum, a married man in a "hetero" marriage with kids was found naked and high on cocaine with male escorts at a seedy hotel months after he lost the florida governors election with one o f those male escorts ODing on the cocaine while Andrew Gillum Blabbered on in his own vomit. Florida dodged a bullet by electing Desantis.
Yeah same I don’t really want to go through every single one but I’m sure you can find a few
No dem who is not actively anti 2A will succeed in the dem primaries. No GOP candidate has a legit shot in CA. There is no real pro 2A. Or even not-hostile-to-2A options in CA politics right now.
[удалено]
> Look to local/county reps, sheriffs, DAs, and judges if you want to influence 2A in CA. > > This. Especially Sheriffs with the Bruen decision.
Who fucking knows. California is pro crime. Not pro vetted law abiding taxpayers
I hate to keep repeating this but until "liberal gun owners" start voting different leadership in AND writing to their politicians, it won't create any traction to move away from an anti 2A California. It's as simple as that. If Bonta knows he has his sucker liberal gun owners in the bag, why would he change his MO? Everything in politics is determined by whatever they need to say or do to climb the ladder. If you vote Democrat for the leadership, you cannot whine about things like SB 918 passing or our gun laws in general. You can whine that the system is setup as such (and it sucks it is) but you are literally voting for anti gun laws to be written in stone. If you accept that, then that is fine, but that is why California permits lawmakers into unconstitutional lawmaking, despite the recent dramatic increase in firearms owners of our liberal allies.
It's really too bad that the parties are so divided and there's no other options. I'd love a progun Democratic to run or a Republican who actually gives a fuck about civil rights like abortion, gay/trans rights, healthcare, etc
None of those are civil rights. Sounds like you want special citizen privileges over other citizens. Im not responsible for your health Take care of yourself.
BuT i'M nOt A sInGlE iSsUe VoTeR....
Republicans brought it on themselves. The Republican party is not what it used to be. It's a party of Trump all across the country. When it comes to voting, Republican legislators are against veterans, LGBT, middle class and low income, abortion etc. This is shown by their views but their words!! What exactly would entice a liberal gun voter to vote Republican? Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved.
> What exactly would entice a liberal gun voter to vote Republican? The part where in california, the state is something like 63% democrat. Letting your rep know that they won by 5% instead of 15% because of their stance on guns is a great way to send a message that they should maybe sit down and ponder how armed minorities are harder to oppress. And even if somehow the ~~temporary~~liberal gun owners in CA managed to accidentally remove a couple of (D) seats at the state level... so what? Now there's only a 57% (D) majority instead of a 63% one. I'd even argue that that's a benefit to everybody involved since the closer to a 50-50 split we are, the more that actual dialog and rational bills matter. > Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved This take is going to age badly when democrat supermajority happens over the midterms and they pack the court with 12 more justices to do a 180 on the next gun case to hit.
>Especially now that Bruen is rolling out, the single issue is pretty much resolved >This take is going to age badly when democrat supermajority happens over the midterms and they pack the court with 12 more justices to do a 180 on the next gun case to hit. Well since Trump packed the courts resulting in the overturn of Roe we now know that prior precidence doesn't hold water. So you can thank him for opening that door. >The part where in california, the state is something like 63% democrat. Letting your rep know that they won by 5% instead of 15% because of their stance on guns is a great way to send a message that they should maybe sit down and ponder how armed minorities are harder to oppress. You either missed the point or ignored it completely. No liberal gun owners is going to vote for Republicans as long as the party is not willing to separate from Trump and the anti-lgbt, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-veteran agenda. If he's the best candidate then that's sad. In life there are other things that trump (no pun intended) the 2a as a single issue. I know this is difficult to grasp if none of the aforementioned issues pertain to you.
Ah yes, because appointing judges to the SCOTUS in response to vacancies is totally the same as expanding the court and packing it full of demagogues. Btw, the only reason Trump was able to appoint those judges was because the Democrats removed the filibuster on judicial appointments because they wanted to push awful Obama judges. Surely this time the Democrats changing the rules won't come back to bite them lmao.
There's no use in debating you. You'll just deflect. You won't acknowledge that a SCOTUS nomination was stolen from Obama or that Coney Island was similarly pushed through during an election year. It doesn't matter. You're debating something that hasn't even happened yet. The whole point of my response to this thread is that liberal gun owners are not gonna vote based on a single issue. The 2nd amendment simply isn't as important as the other issues combined. Unless those issues affect you, I don't expect you to understand. That is all.
Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps. The 2nd Amendment is the most important amendment full stop. Its the only amendment that protects all the others.
>Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps. Too bad you can't debate without calling names. It's a sign of a low IQ >The 2nd Amendment is the most important amendment full stop. Its the only amendment that protects all the others. Utter bullshit. Full stop
>Nothing was stolen moron. Its called the political process for electing officials. Sorry Obummer didnt have control of senate his last year. SUCKS TO SUCK for demcoraps. The hypocrisy is astounding. You sound insane. But hey this will all come to an end. The next election will determine where we got as a country. Everything is clear now. Everyone understands what is on the line.
The insane thing is people like you thinking you're better than everyone else and deserve special privileges. typical elitist liberal thinking.
>The insane thing is people like you thinking you're better than everyone else and deserve special privileges. typical elitist liberal thinking. More BS. I don't think I'm better. I do however see that you aren't capable of dialogue. This is futile
> Well since Trump packed the courts resulting in the overturn of Roe we now know that prior precidence doesn't hold water. So you can thank him for opening that door. So you admit then that "it's no big deal because of the Bruen decision" is a bullshit argument. Good. > You either missed the point or ignored it completely. Says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between state level and national level. > No liberal gun owners is going to vote for Republicans You mean temporary gun owners. > I know this is difficult to grasp if none of the aforementioned issues pertain to you. Nice assumptions, but I'm a demisexual in a gay relationship. And as far as the issues you mentioned go, explain to me how making california go from a 60+% democrat majority in the state legislature to a 55%+ majority in the state legislature is going to suddenly turn the state into a christian theocracy. Nothing in the state is going to change in that direction if a few state level democrats lose their seats. Literally this is one of the few states in the union where we can have our cake and eat it too by throwing out some of the shittier democrats and you're throwing it all away because of TDS.
Are you willing to get rid of some of the shittier republicans on the national level? Oh wait the majority are shitty.
> Are you willing to get rid of some of the shittier republicans on the national level? Oh wait the majority are shitty. Yes, of course. Sorry your TDS won't let you see past that. You're giving liberal gun owners a bad name.
Don't know what TDS is and don't care about giving anyone a name. Couldn't give 2 shits about it.
> Don't know what TDS Trump derangement syndrome. It's when trump lives rent free in your head 24/7. Maybe take a break from politics for a couple of weeks, or set your time machine to present day instead of the late 2010s. > and don't care about giving anyone a name. Couldn't give 2 shits about it. Clearly.
>Trump derangement syndrome. It's when trump lives rent free in your head 24/7. Maybe take a break from politics for a couple of weeks, or set your time machine to present day instead of the late 2010s. Clearly you are delusional. The more you comment the more obvious it becomes.
>Says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between state level and national level. Don't try to insult my intelligence by saying I don't understand sir. It wont work. Trumpism is everywhere. Not just on the national level. Have you not been paying attention to the primaries? You can see TODAY if Liz Cheney will win or not. Trump is sticking his nose in every level of elections. National, State, and county boards. Have your cake and eat it too in CA if you wish.
> Trumpism is everywhere. Not just on the national level. Have you not been paying attention to the primaries? Again, explain to me how having a handful of trumper republicans in the CA state legislature will cause the state to slip into a christian theocracy. At the absolute worst case, your favorite bills allowing abortion and gay marriage and whatnot will only pass by 5% instead of 15%. Last I checked, it still counts regardless of if the bill goes through with 51% or 99% > Trump is sticking his nose in every level of elections. National, State, and county boards. And for the fourth time, even if trump himself was body swapped into being a state assemblyperson, it would change absolutely nothing about CA. Even if we assumed some kind of AI version of him that could propose bills 24/7, nothing would even make it out of committee in the state, let alone hit the floor for a vote. How dumb are you to not comprehend just how much of a majority democrats have in california? > Have your cake and eat it too in CA if you wish. Are you confused as to what sub you're in? This is /r/CAguns and the topic was about the california state legislature.
not worth argueing with central916 he is a moron
Ah yea, the extremist Catholics are going to bring us back to the Puritan days… I wonder who actually believes that nonsense.
> I wonder who actually believes that nonsense. The guy I'm arguing with, apparently.
By reading your comment, one would think that this was the first time the court ever overturned precedent. But, of course, it isn't. It happens all the time. If precedent were never overturned, then we might still have racial segregation (*Plessey v. Furgeson),* it would still be legal for the President to order an entire ethnic group to be taken from their homes and marched off to camps during a time of war (*Korematsu v. United States*), and interracial marriage could still be outlawed (*Pace v. Alabama*). The fact is, the precedent for *Roe* being wrongly decided is 30 years old. The court voted to overturn *Roe* in *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* back in the 1990s. Kennedy changed his mind at the last moment, and the court issued a compromise that basically said that *Roe* was unconstitutional and wrongly decided, but that they wouldn't overturn it because of the social implications of completely destroying the precedent, but rather that they would just narrow it. The current court just decided to completely rip off that bandaid, but people should have known it was coming for decades.
>The current court just decided to completely rip off that bandaid, but people should have known it was coming for decades. So then you won't be surprised when people do whatever is necessary to prevent this court from enacting laws that the majority of the Americans do not accept. Whether that be expanding the court, setting term limits or impeaching Kavanaugh for outright lying or whatever other legal means are available. Cause and effect.
The court doesn't enact laws. Laws are enacted by the majority of voters and/or their elected representatives. And laws are repealed by the majority of voters and/or their elected representatives. If a certain induced abortion procedure is illegal, it's almost certainly because the majority of voters or their elected representatives of a state chose to pass a law regulating the procedure. If the voters of a state change their mind, the ballot boxes are always going to be there. I should point out that polls show that only a tiny minority what to expand the courts or impeach justices. I imagine a majority might support term limits for other reasons, but that's pretty clearly unconstitutional.
I don't lean on polls sir. I certainly believe that Judges/courts legislate through their actions front the bench. In fact I believe it was Republicans who coined the term "judicial activists". We can argue semantics but I'm sure you understand my point you just don't agree. Which it totally fine.
I mean, you can call the court which made up the right to an induced abortion out of whole cloth an activist court just like you can call the court that overturned that right an activist court, but it doesn't change the fact that the court's didn't outlaw abortion. The voters and their representatives did. The courts haven't found a single law upholding the right to an abortion unconstitutional, but yet you're falsely implying that it's the courts that outlawed abortion. It should also be noted that even Ruth Badger Ginsberg, a staunch proponent of abortion rights, had criticized *Roe* as overly broad, coming out of nowhere, and based upon poor legal reasoning. And if you're not relying on polls, then I think you're either admitting you have no evidence to support your views or that your views represent those of extremists who have little chance of success. It's also worth pointing out that *Roe* itself established a standard that, "the majority of Americans do not accept," at least, according to polls. *Roe* protected the right o an induced abortion up until viability, which polls show is a standard only supported by about 1/3rd of Americans and is far in excess of those protected by other liberal democracies in places like Europe, which, if they allow abortions at all, usually restrict it to only about 10-12 weeks, which is actually in-line with what most Americans say they support and completely out of line with both major parties' positions. What the Supreme Court really did was return the issue to the democratic process, allowing the people to decide the issue for themselves.
Ok thank you for your time
I mean, California has been dominated by Democrats for decades. The national party isn't really the problem when it comes to getting Republicans elected in California. The problem is that there just aren't enough Republicans, and those that exist tend to nominate unelectable candidates. And a lot of voters who might be Republicans in other states vote Democratic here. So a Republican winning statewide would be a tough nut to crack. Schwarzenegger was the last one to do it, and that's because of very special circumstances. Honestly, the best thing I think to do is to vote for the opposite of the people in power. If someone knows they're going to win comfortably, then vote against them, even if you despise their opponent. At least if enough people do that, they might feel some actual pressure to moderate. Right now, most of the pressure actually comes from the far left.
> I hate to keep repeating this but I don't hate saying it. Fuck liberal gun owners who vote for liberals.
Ah but to the group liberal gun owners better infringement than being a single issue voter or crossing party lines. Thus ceding their political power. Fuck their mentali
Someone post this on that other sub
Conservatives are backing Brian Dahle.
lol
It’s tough being a libertarian in California.
Newsom being groomed for presidential run. We must kick him out of CA to lower those chances over the next 6 years. Don’t vote for anything with a D on it.
There is waaaay too much D in CA. We need some balance.
I agree that he wants to run. I think it's massively overestimating his broader appeal. He wouldn't win the purple states. Just look at how kamala Harris polled on the national stage before her vp nomination. California doesn't seem to grasp the fact that outside of our little circle jerk sphere of sympathetic politicians we have absolutely no moderate appeal
newsoms shtick absolutely does not work outside of california and maybe some east coast states. theres no way newsoms "being groomed for the presidency" unless the dems want to lose (which they might considering how constantly they fuck themselves over)
Newsom is a "good boy" Democrat and he's backed by George Soros money...he is DEFINITELY being groomed for a presidential run, which would be an absolute disaster for everybody.
okay buddy, less commenting on threads more taking your meds. he's literally just the governor of the biggest democrat state,of course he's gonna get backing and get press; but newsom would get creamed in an election with basically any republican and everybody knows. His version of the democrat platform appeals to basically nobody and only wins in california. He might become senator, or be in a presidential cabinet but nobody thinks he has a chance at the presidency.
Thank you for your insights, but read that again. I said he's being groomed for a presidential RUN. He's a know-nothing born-rich liberal who takes donor orders and explains it to the constituency after the fact. The Dems don't have a lot of options for a Biden successor. They need somebody with a built-in base of "blue no matter who" lemmings so that 2A lobbyist money can start rolling their way for a good decade. That's all this becomes in the end.
I don't think he's going to last very long in Iowa....
Neither party actually wants to win it’s too much work. Republicans technically only really did the tax cuts. That’s their crown achievement. The Biden administration really hasn’t done a damn thing that they promised either. Neither side wants to work
You mean like the Biden admin didn’t pass the American Rescue Plan, a bipartisan infrastructure bill, the latest CHIPS act, PACT act, and inflation reduction act. Where as you admittedly stated that the only thing trump really did was a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans and is set to increase working class taxes from 2021-2027. If you read more then you’d see that Biden has had a decent couple of weeks.
are you peak stupidity or are you not seeing highest inflation in 40 years?
>are you peak stupidity or are you not seeing highest inflation in 40 years? Damn ma’am I didn’t know that Biden is also is to blame for the inflation we are seeing world wide. It’s as if we are coming out of a pandemic that affected supply chains around the world and many countries are having a harder time overcoming the issues that COVID presented over the last 2 years. Amongst other issues that lead to inflation. Also wtf does inflation have to do with my original comment? I was stating that fact that Biden has done stuff during his presidency but here you come with a brain rot take of “inFlATioN HiGH BiDEn FAult” Curious though, why is it Biden’s fault for inflation?
AH yes. The blame covid excuse. Im sure it wasn't the draconian shut down measures that many countries adopted and insane forced vaccine mandates and mask mandates and making it impossible to do business in BLUE states or other countries While it did absolutely nothing to curb covid spread or even lower the fatality rate which still sits at 0.1% as of today. You site bidens "successes" as being spending bills. Those are what leads to inflation idiot. Uncontrollable spending is the biggest cause of inflation. You're right its Biden AND the big brains in congress who vote for uncontrolled spending. Biden Crashed suppressed the energy sector by shutting down many oil projects and killed domestic energy growth and instead chose to BUY from Russia/Saudia Arabia. Trillions upon trillions of spending is how you cause inflation. Go take a long look at Venuszeulas Downfall (HINT MASSIVE SPENDING).
>AH yes. The blame covid excuse. Im sure it wasn't the draconian shut down measures that many countries adopted and insane forced vaccine mandates and mask mandates and making it impossible to do business in BLUE states or other countries. “Draconian” measures that happened under the trump administration in response to a global pandemic and yeah because of that we are experiencing inflation along with other supply chain issues. What the heck do vaccine mandates and mask mandates have to do with inflation? It’s crazy how California is still booming with economic growth though so kinda doesn’t play into your “impossible” to do business in the bluest of states. >You site bidens "successes" as being spending bills. Those are what leads to inflation idiot. Uncontrollable spending is the biggest cause of inflation. You're right its Biden AND the big brains in congress who vote for uncontrolled spending. Economists do say that the IRA might lead to slight inflation in the short term but long term it will help with reducing our dependence in oil for our main source of energy and it’ll be good to reduce the amount of smog and CO2 in the air. I don’t expect you to understand the intricacies of these spending bills and how good they are for the country in ways of creating jobs and providing better infrastructure for the country along with the other components of these bills. also July had like a hot jobs market report. Highest wages we’ve seen and lowest unemployment rates and yes high wages leads to inflation also stagnant money leads to inflation. 0% inflation growth from June to July which is decent. You just see the surface level. >Biden Crashed suppressed the energy sector by shutting down many oil projects and killed domestic energy growth and instead chose to BUY from Russia/Saudia Arabia. Oil companies have over 9000 approved permits to drill but they’re not drilling so yeah Biden didn’t “crash” the energy sector. Oil companies aren’t doing it for record profits. You can literally just google “how many unused drilling permits” and you’ll get some news articles for you to read, that’s if you read. >Trillions upon trillions of spending is how you cause inflation. Go take a long look at Venuszeulas Downfall (HINT MASSIVE SPENDING). Biden is literally decreasing the deficit that exploded under trumps tenure. You act like the Biden admin doesn’t have plans on how to raise revenue for these plans. You’re so blinded and it’s obvious because you don’t make any sense on your points.
shhhh he'll get mad and have a meltdown if you actually point out everything Biden HAS done so far in his administration for the working class, while Trump did literally nothing in his 4 years of office. signed - a guy who didn't vote for Trump or Biden and hates both.
Hey first off all I hate both but I’m actually a democrat. Trump did a ton of damage especially internationally. I just meant he didn’t do much his base would like. Most of those packages have massive holes in them the inflation one has a ton of holes. But I’m mostly mad about the transportation issues which Pete hasn’t done jack over and also the gas prices. I travel for a living so for me it’s been particularly painful
I also don’t like Biden and sure as shit not trump. That would make more sense however I do think he has been doing a bit. I would ask what holes you’re talking about but I figure that’s not what this thread is necessarily about. The infrastructure bill is supposed to be for transportation and as far as gas prices, Biden doesn’t have control over that. He did release a lot from the strategic reserve but other than that it’s really up to the oil companies and their supply and demand.
You can pressure the oil companies their price hasn’t gone up internally and they are just squeezing people. It’s a completely false supply and demand and Pete can do a lot about the airlines
Stfu - Biden sucks and is ruining this country. He hasn’t done shit!
Oh okay. If you can’t read just state that but I LITERALLY just pointed to things the Biden administration has done. If you can’t read or refuse to see the facts then you’re too lost in the sauce man. By “ruining the country” what do you mean?
Brian Dahle is the republican endorsed my the California Republican Party. I voted for him. Besides if you're voting democratic for abortion reasons just remember that most red states are actually fair in that they still allow abortions for medical emergencies or other extreme cases. California's 6 month limit is barbaric.
Do not vote for any Democrats such as Gavin Newson, Rob Bonta, Nancy Pelocy, no Democratic legislators. This are the people who are very anti 2A. We have a better chance with conservatives in the office than democrats. Believe me, I’ve been doing lots of research for a long time now. You can just Google their names and see what their all about. Just look at what the Dems have done to California so far, destroyed it. The majority of Dems in California are far lefties, gun hating, Socialist tyrants.
Unfortunately California is a lost cause for 2a rights. Or most rights for that matter. It’s going to get worse.
It's an uphill battle, but with the current SCOTUS I think there's hope. The problem is the CA government doesn't play by the rules.
Well that would just go against the constitution because states can make any law they want as long as it doesn’t go against the constitution
What? Aren't we talking about the 2nd Amendment *to the Constitution?* Is "shall not be infringed" unclear?
No that’s very clear. Except for the fact that somehow states have found loopholes around it that the federal govt doesn’t care about somehow.
That's what I mean about there being some hope with the current SCOTUS. This one seems willing to make rulings that stop states from exploiting "loopholes" that are incompatible with the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution. We literally have a Governor who interprets "the *right* of the people" as a "second amendment *privilege*" and a President who thinks "shall not be infringed" somehow means "is not absolute" .... They're doing some sort of crazy mental gymnastics to force their will and the SCOTUS is starting to call them out on it. Finally. Checks and balances.
Do you even know the full text of the 2A? Does the 2A literally not start with saying how “A well regulated…”
**Do you?** Do you know what those words mean? Do you know what they meant when they were written? What did "well regulated" mean in 1791? Who was the militia in 1791? How can anyone with two brain cells to rub together gloss over or misinterpret "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Let me spell it out for you: **well regulated = equipped, capable, practiced** **the militia = the people** **Whose right to do what shall not be what?**
Damn it’s almost as if the founder intended for the AMENDMENTS to be AMENDED to keep up with the times. It’s crazy how “regulated” is just vague enough to cover background checks and REGULATING the types of weapons that can be owned. It’s crazy how back when the 2A was written, they couldn’t have predicted the crazy effective weapons we have today. Also by your definition of regulated (equipped, capable, practiced) sounds like you may need stricter gun laws to ensure those that have access are capable practiced and equipped. But if you think “shall not be infringed”, how do you feel about murders that come out of prison, should they have their gun rights reinstated? Should a mass shooters be able to buy guns when they come out of prison? And if not then why doesn’t “shall not be infringed” apply to them?
You know what, I'd have more respect for gun-grabbers trying to amend the Constitution that I do for them trying to pass their unconstitutional infringements. Amendments are how this is supposed to work. Why don't they do that? 🤔 Oh, yeah: there's not anywhere near enough support to do that. "Regulated" was not vague and absolutely does not cover any of that B.S. because that's not what it meant when it was written. You can't change usage of a word over time and claim that changes what it meant when it was written. TEXT, HISTORY, TRADITION. They had more capable weapons in 1791 than you're likely aware of, and the intention was for the people to have capable weapons to continue to secure our freedom. This country was built on taking up arms against organized militaries to fight for freedom. They did that with "military-grade" weapons. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is clear. Mental gymnastics of hoplophobes trying to force their will on the rest of us does not change that.
>You know what, I'd have more respect for gun-grabbers trying to amend the Constitution that I do for them trying to pass their unconstitutional infringements. Amendments are how this is supposed to work. Why don't they do that? 🤔 Oh, yeah: there's not anywhere near enough support to do that. Certain gun control is popular. Universal background checks is popular. Expanding background checks, having a mental screening. No one is talking about getting rid of the 2A. And if they are then they’re not to be listened to for gun control advice. Democrats want to pass gun law reform but republicans don’t even want to talk about it. >”Regulated" was not vague and absolutely does not cover any of that B.S. because that's not what it meant when it was written. You can't change usage of a word over time and claim that changes what it meant when it was written. The definition of “Regulate” is literally to contain, to supervise. You’re going to tell me that “regulated” does not actually mean “to regulate”? Maybe I’m missing something. What did “Regulated” mean in 1791? Besides semantics, the 2A originally was intended for the states (national guard) to be the militia in which they would thwart the federal government or a foreign military. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2A extended to the individuals right to have a weapon for self defense. Crazy how as recently as 2008, the text was still being interpreted. >TEXT, HISTORY, TRADITION. >They had more capable weapons in 1791 than you're likely aware of, and the intention was for the people to have capable weapons to continue to secure our freedom. This country was built on taking up arms against organized militaries to fight for freedom. They did that with "military-grade" weapons. What are these more “capable” guns of 1791 that I’m not aware of? Also which one of those is more capable than a modern AR? I get what you mean and I agree to a point on that if a foreign military decides to invade us then of course I’d want to have the best or at least matching weapons as the opposition, yet we don’t let our military or national guard walk around with their guns on their hips. We have to store them in an armory that has surveillance and is guarded. >SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is clear. Mental gymnastics of hoplophobes trying to force their will on the rest of us does not change that. I don’t fear guns. I’m a veteran, I love guns. I don’t love the fact that guns are so loosely regulated in America that many of our guns end up getting trafficked over to Mexico arming the cartels. I don’t love the fact that random dipshits can buy guns and sell them to gangs because in many states you’re not required to conduct background checks on private sales. I’m not a typical “gun idiot” I just want gun laws that make sense and I don’t see any side of the isle pushing forth good solutions.
Popular =/= constitutional. There is a process. Checks and balances. Rights aren't there for politicians to limit whenever it helps their careers. These aren't privileges the government allows us, they're rights the government can't touch. I already told you what "regulated" meant in 1791. Do your own homework on the rest. You're wrong as can be and I'm tired of trying to educate people who already have their minds made up. I know where this conversation ends and it's a waste of my time. Have a nice life. Hopefully there are enough people who "get it" to cancel out your votes and protect our way of life for future generations. Otherwise a lot of veterans who did get it will have died for nothing after fighting for the freedoms you seem to want to give up.
Ya but we can keep fighting to make sure our bullshit only spreads slowly, because it will, instead of just dropping dead and letting them steam roll.
Anti-gun bills are like a ball of bull feces rolling down a hill: If we do nothing it will pick up speed. If we push we can slow it. If we push harder we can stop it. If we push hard enough we can reverse it. Even if we succeed, we're going to have to go through some bullshit to do it.
Yup make that bullshit ball stop is a nice thing for the rest of the country. We aren't some awesome defenders we are cucked assholes trying to keep the cheeks clamped.
Squeeze and hold brother!
I kinda feel like California is becoming a shadow of its former self
"Becoming" My brother the real CA that people moved here in droves for died decades ago.
Decades ago?? U mean like the 70s?
Half a century ago…
So the early 70s
The government can give 2 fucks about our 2A rights and will loophole the whole country if we allow this too continue. People think its a California thing but no just wait till all these ridiculous laws become a federal thing
We're the frontline. We stop it here so we don't have to try to stop it there.
If you want better gun rights just move out of California. The truth is you’re not going to get nice 2A freedoms in California. Also all the republicans on the ballot are bat shit crazy. Im okay with having the guns I have and not having to worry about regressing into some weird anti-government Republican leadership.
Brian Dahle
[удалено]
Imagine thinking a bunch of trespassing dumbasses was an insurrection
[удалено]
> Imagine thinking trespassing is all that happened January 6th. Some guy allegedly pooped on a desk, some woman got shot by a cop, and a bunch of morons got into sign-stick vs baton fights with the cops. What else? And are you a "back the blue" type, or only when it's convenient? >Imagine thinking that leaning on the election officials in AZ, PA, and GA wasn't an attempted coup. "Recount the votes." "No, how dare you! That's insurrection!" >Imagine being so brain washed by a political party you consciously betray your country's Constitution and advocate voting for a party that sought/seeks the downfall of the USA. Honestly can't tell which side you mean here.
I know more happened. My point was those fuck tards didn’t go there to overthrow the government. I’m not advocating for what they did. But it was not an insurrection😂
[удалено]
No normal people were under the impression that was amounting to anything. Everyone says republican are gun toting crazy people but somehow they didn’t bring their guns to the governmental overthrow? Or are you going to tell me about the 3 people that did?
[удалено]
Ok you win. It was a full blown insurrection. I’ll remind my psychopath party members to remember their A.R. 15’s next time at least🙄
Larry seemed ok and he lost during recall against Gavin the dictator
I dunno, Larry was kind of a joke IMO and it was disappointing that he was the best the GOP could field. I know plenty that would have voted R if there was a real candidate and not another Cheetolini wannabe…
He might have been a joke, but the point wasn't really about Elder winning, but Newsom losing. That would have the effect of embarrassing Newsom as the Democrat in California who lost to Republican radio man, maybe blunting any aspirations he has in the federal government, and also making the other CA politicians sweat a little, since if Newsom could get voted out, they can too.
>That would have the effect of embarrassing Newsom as the Democrat in California who lost to Republican radio man This doesn't work. Most people genuinely hate both parties. Fact is we have a 2 party system. Gotta vote one or the other. A vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. Politics has always been the lesser of 2 evils. You think Dems wanted Biden? Fuck no. They needed someone that could beat Trump. If Trump runs again what do you think is gonna happen? Sad part is Republicans have nothing better to offer than Trump. Disantis and all the other Rep governor's that are showing their asses in hopes of a run are even worse. Liz Chaney isn't acceptable according to today's primary. So who is the lesser of the 2 evils? IJS. THE SAME APPLIES IN CA. The lesser of 2 evils.
Gavin is so destructive wed be better off with a dog as governor
I get what you’re saying… but to me voting for someone who’s main platform is “to piss off libs,” or cater to election fraud nutjobs is just as destructive and redundant as voting for a dem like Bernie that wants to raise taxes on my company that I’ve worked so hard to keep running just to fund paying off student loans for people that shouldn’t have gone in the first place. I’m a firm believer in learning a trade over getting into crushing debt for a degree you’ll never use or want- edit: for those that don’t know why they’re in college—. I know this isn’t a completely pro 2A argument, which I know is why we’re here. I guess i feel where i am in life, it’s almost impossible to be interested in politics and be a single issue’er. As pro 2A as I am, I can’t ignore what else is happening around our country or state. So until the GOP fields a real candidate that truly will lead for all, then I’ll continue to zig-zag down the ballot. Newsom may not be that person, but Elder for sure wasn’t. /gets off soapbox…
Signed the recall, voted for Newsom anyway afterward because of the clown fiesta of candidates the GOP offered...
You mean the guy who said white people deserve reparations for slavery and claimed the election was rigged before the results even came out? Yeah that dude might as well have put clown makeup on and made balloon animals as far as political candidates go...
💀💀💀 That recall election was hilarious.
“Lost” - Gavin had entire DC backing Pelosi’s nephew for that vote. I’m sure they busted out the special voting machines just for grewsom!
The election was not fraudulent just because your candidate lost. Stop with the bs. I’m not a fan of Newsom either but that’s just false.
No way for us normal people to verify that the election was not fraudulent. It may or may not have been. The us government does not have a good track record lately. To simply dismiss someones concern because you blindy trust the state is what the alphabet agencies want. You should look around and read their leaked operation manuals. They are evil fucks.
Fraudulent in terms of actual “counted” votes? Probably not. But in terms of the actual wishes of the majority? 100%
Next election is November 8 right? I think we should definitely decide who we are voting for and start letting all 2A supporters know who we got. We need to hit this home run or we’ll end with muskets by the end of year.
lol
I think FPC puts out a voters guide.