2nd Amendment pretty much dead in Cali

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,738
3,667
113
#2
We're happy here in Gulagfornia, don't rock our farm :p
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,047
3,325
113
#3

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
#4

Of course if Hillary wins, and the Republicans lose the majority the rest of the nation will be able to enjoy this same privilege.
I hope we kindly refuse to comply.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
#5
Zombie Tactics explained this about a month ago. He's based out of Sacramento. Very scary.

[video=youtube;rhGrL_sM3LY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhGrL_sM3LY[/video]
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,738
3,667
113
#6
Zombie Tactics explained this about a month ago. He's based out of Sacramento. Very scary.

[video=youtube;rhGrL_sM3LY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhGrL_sM3LY[/video]
A Start...

[h=2]Amendment II[/h]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.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#7
A Start...

Amendment II

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.
The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Since the Amendments are the supreme law of the land, Article V establishes the method by which the Constitution can be amended. Seems ironic that all those who claim their Constitutional right to bear arms have no problem with laws that prohibit other individuals from the same right they claim for themselves.

So if the right of individual to bear arms shall not be infringed then until the Constitution is amended then each and every citizen of the United States would be entitled under the Constitution to bear arms. Yet has the U.S. Constitution been amended? No, but all citizens are not allowed to bear firearms.

Since Congress has enacted legislation by the powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 to prohibit certain citizens from owning firearms then regardless of the intent of the legislation, it should be of little consequence to those who claim that the Constitution guarantees the right of gun ownership to the individual unless they can show where the Constitution has been amended in accordance with Article V to prevent certain individuals from owning firearms?

Then if you can't, then if you affirm that certain citizens are not entitled to the Constitution right of gun ownership then it should be of little consequence that if one person can be denied the right then all people can be denied the right by the same legislative process.

 
Last edited:

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,738
3,667
113
#8
A Start...

Amendment II

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.
The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Whaaa?​....
 
Last edited:

peacenik

Senior Member
May 11, 2016
3,071
26
38
#9
When Republican Reagan was governor in California he signed the Mulford Act which restricted gun possession. Right wingers had no problem with that back then.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,738
3,667
113
#10
When Republican Reagan was governor in California he signed the Mulford Act which restricted gun possession. Right wingers had no problem with that back then.
Do you have documentation that there was no protest by the right?
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
6,047
3,325
113
#11
Do you have documentation that there was no protest by the right?

The Mulford Act (1967) which repealed the right to open carry firearms in CA (I had to look it up) Was sponsored in the CA Legislature by a Republican, signed by a Republican (Reagan), and supported by the NRA.

It wasn't until the late 70's that the NRA began to oppose the majority of legislation that restricted gun rights.
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,299
15
0
#12
Guys, you're not thanking our soldiers for our gun freedumbs in California! Switzerland has more relaxed gun laws than most states in America and they aren't killing a ton of innocent civilians in foreign lands to do so.

We're just not voting hard enough. VOTE HARDER!
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,463
6,680
113
#13
Do you have documentation that there was no protest by the right?


The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther party conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while conducting what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
Republicans in California supported increased gun control. California Governor Ronald Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” [SUP][3][/SUP]

The bill was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
J

jennymae

Guest
#15
I think it is safe to say that the political landscape has changed since Reagan was in office. My granddad once told me that guns weren't much of an issue back in the 40s and 50s, and like somebody said above, apparently not in the 80s either. Now, I don't know how it was in the cities because I haver never lived in an American city, but in the backwoods, everybody owned guns. Not for breaking bad on the gravel roads, but for hunting, self defence etc.

As of today many people are using guns for going on killing sprees, dealing with drugs or committing other kind of crimes. By doing this, they are mocking the 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens. Unfortunately they are allowed to stay in their wicked ways without nobody stopping them.

My grandma always said that society went downhill from that moment on people didn't believe in God no more. Maybe she was right. I would like to add, though, that the demolition of the nuclear family is what I think is one of the major reasons why society has has become what it is. I don't know what it is like to be a boy, but I do firmly believe, that a boy needs a dad in the home for guidance. Without a dad, he will easily be led astray by people that isn't good for him. Theres plenty of examples where boys that didn't have no dad more often than not got themselves into trouble.

Also the lack of moral amongst too many. They are having babies outside wedlock, babies growing up without a dad (too often without a mama as well), the boys are raised to crime and the girls are raised to be walking the streets of the ramshackled parts of town. Before they're 21 they've been picking up indictments and convictions by the dozen, and most of them have been to prison. They aint got nothing at home, no boundaries, no parents who loves them...nothing...it is so sad...why do people, voluntarily be choosing lifestyles like this? Did their upbringing leave them with no choice? Well...rant over...for now...
 
Last edited:

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
#17

peacenik

Senior Member
May 11, 2016
3,071
26
38
#18
This article is a decent supplement.

The Right has had its changes in priorities like any other political movement. Improvise, adapt, and overcome.




That writer is entitled to her opinion but she needs to get her facts straight. I was a member of the NRA in 1968 and readily recall that it defended the right of gun ownership as a means of restricting government intrusionism upon people's lives. True, that was one year after Mulford but that organization did not change its principles years later as she alleges.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,738
3,667
113
#19
When Republican Reagan was governor in California he signed the Mulford Act which restricted gun possession. Right wingers had no problem with that back then.
I suppose I can argue to the extent one suppresses gun rights, to that extent they slip to the left and cease being 'right wingers'.:)
 

peacenik

Senior Member
May 11, 2016
3,071
26
38
#20
I suppose I can argue to the extent one suppresses gun rights, to that extent they slip to the left and cease being 'right wingers'.:)




There have been several occasions when people here blame Obama or Democrats for certain things that take place in society. Then when I point out that Reagan or the two Bush's did the same thing, suddenly, the right wingers claim that those three Republicans were not conservatives.

Funny ain't it?