The Complete Idiot - No Wonder CA Is Such A Mess!

[2506]

 

[3MTA3]

Lies and bullcrap is what we are fighting. They get worse every year.

Exactly - instead of fighting with each other.

 

[ThePhonMan]

Wow. Really? OK. I'll play along.

As a former Californian I'm going to choose to call them uninformed, misinformed, ill informed or ignorant (of the facts, not just in general).

I know plenty of brilliant folks with staggering IQs that are pig ignorant on most issues outside of their field of expertise, course of study, industry, etc. Almost all of them are open to becoming educated about anything they lack a deep knowledge of and appreciative of any new knowledge they can gain.

On the other hand, I know lots of "allegedly high IQ" people who willingly (and repeatedly on this forum for example) refuse to see the intent of a speaker or writer's words and choose to nit pick the use of specific vocabulary. How the hell is that helpful (other than making yourself feel superior)?

Meanwhile, back at the actual topic.... This video is yet another shining example of why "leadership" should be stripped from any reference to the political process or politicians. He's a leader in his own mind and ignorantly (or arrogantly devoid of caring about the truth) carrying the charge forward full steam ahead.

I will say it again, California is a great state to be FROM and it will be a cold day in hell before I go back.

 

[simon99]

Well, let me re-quote you, so that no words are added to anything.



So, what does this exactly mean ? What is that group of people with low IQ being misinformed ?

There are many that are part of the low IQ masses....from all walks of life and every socio-economic background.

So, what's your question? Is there a connection between firearms familiarity and level of IQ? No.

 

[fd15k]

There are many that are part of the low IQ masses....from all walks of life and every socio-economic background.

So, what's your question? Is there a connection between firearms familiarity and level of IQ? No.

Now we're getting somewhere Who do you think that press conference was for, who do you think De Leon represents
and who is that legislation intended for ?

 

[simon99]

Now we're getting somewhere Who do you think that press conference was for, who do you think De Leon represents
and who is that legislation intended for ?

Anytime you have a politician who stands in front of the news media and claims that snipers in Afghanistan are using 80% lowers or that you can legally build a fully automatic weapon from an 80%er is misleading the public. Fear mongering and saber rattling only have an impact on the uneducated. Being that his constituents are from California, a state that has opposed the Bill of Rights, I can only assume that he is speaking to those whom he represents. Unfortunately, anti-Constitutional politicians such as Burdick, Feinstein, and all the other treasonous clowns follow this stuff and think its a great idea. So its a symbiotic relationship between these tyrants and the uniformed masses, wherever they may be. That's how we see politicians in Colorado claiming that 30 round magazines are useless after they use up all the bullets.....

 

[fd15k]

I can only assume that he is speaking to those whom he represents.

Exactly. And his constituents don't care about guns. As long as he advances the interests of the people he represents,
he is doing what a representative is supposed to do. On a second thought somebody may say "well, but he also
is supposed to uphold the Constitution". Well, SCOTUS is my guideline on that, and they haven't struck down
the AW laws in California yet.

California, a state that has opposed the Bill of Rights

I was under impression Bill of Rights was created way before California became a state. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I take it all people on this site are with high IQ ?

This is Jammer six's alternative stealth speaking from a cave in Pakistan!!!!

 

[gallogiro]

First time I've heard the term "ghost gun". Is that the new assault rifle?

 

[308]

That SBR looked pretty nice. The F/A sniper rifle didn't look menacing until he dropped that bipod....I almost shat myself out of fear!

 

[simon99]

Exactly. And his constituents don't care about guns. As long as he advances the interests of the people he represents,
he is doing what a representative is supposed to do. On a second thought somebody may say "well, but he also
is supposed to uphold the Constitution". Well, SCOTUS is my guideline on that, and they haven't struck down
the AW laws in California yet.


I was under impression Bill of Rights was created way before California became a state. Perhaps you could clarify.

So, I'm going to flip your own fuzzy logic on you. By your argument, you are saying that "everyone" in his constituency wants guns banned??????.....that's the same thing Oregon's totalitarian wannabes want to do. Guess what? Their views don't reflect everyone's....sorry.

I think you need to read and re-read the Bill of Rights and gain some comprehension. If you actually think that California is upholding the BOR or that the SCOTUS defines our rights.....then I think we're done with this conversation. You're too far off the reservation.

 

[jluck]

Exactly. And his constituents don't care about guns. As long as he advances the interests of the people he represents,
he is doing what a representative is supposed to do. On a second thought somebody may say "well, but he also
is supposed to uphold the Constitution". Well, SCOTUS is my guideline on that, and they haven't struck down
the AW laws in California yet.



I was under impression Bill of Rights was created way before California became a state. Perhaps you could clarify.

He is pushing a senate bill to limit hinder 2A rights, You caught on to that part right?

 

[simon99]

DemocraticUnderground.com is missing someone today....

 

[fd15k]

So, I'm going to flip your own fuzzy logic on you. By your argument, you are saying that "everyone" in his constituency wants guns banned??????.....that's the same thing Oregon's totalitarian wannabes want to do. Guess what? Their views don't reflect everyone's....sorry.

Well, it's hard phrase it very accurately, but I will try: majority of people who vote for him are okay with the work he is doing, otherwise he wouldn't be elected/reelected. That
includes both people who don't care about guns at all, and people for whom guns aren't the highest priority.

I think you need to read and re-read the Bill of Rights and gain some comprehension. If you actually think that California is upholding the BOR or that the SCOTUS defines our rights.....then I think we're done with this conversation. You're too far off the reservation.

Yes, we've been over this, and we always reach the same conclusion: I am living in the world that exists for 211 years (since Marbury v. Madison), and you exist in some other world.

 

[simon99]

Well, it's hard phrase it very accurately, but I will try: majority of people who vote for him are okay with the work he is doing, otherwise he wouldn't be elected/reelected. That
includes both people who don't care about guns at all, and people for whom guns aren't the highest priority.



Yes, we've been over this, and we always reach the same conclusion: I am living in the world that exists for 211 years (since Marbury v. Madison), and you exist in some other world.

Yeah....no doubt. Mine is called "reality world".

 

[fd15k]

He is pushing a senate bill to limit hinder 2A rights, You caught on to that part right?

It is an interesting concept in its own. What exactly are the 2A rights ? Well, legally speaking we don't know. We only know
what the limits on such rights could be, and we know what specific things are part of such rights.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

So from a legal standpoint, we don't even know if what they're trying to do there is part of 2A I hope it is, but we won't know for sure
until there is a SCOTUS ruling on it. Luckily there is already a challenge :

<broken link removed>

 

[jluck]

It is an interesting concept in its own. What exactly are the 2A rights ? Well, legally speaking we don't know. We only know
what the limits on such rights could be, and we know what specific things are part of such rights.



So from a legal standpoint, we don't even know if what they're trying to do there is part of 2A I hope it is, but we won't know for sure
until there is a SCOTUS ruling on it. Luckily there is already a challenge :

<broken link removed>

I know my rights. Don't touch, mess with or in one single way modify my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That includes anytime, anywhere anyway and anyhow I WANT. This includes fully automatic, Home built or any other arms I desire to bear, Anything less is infringement.

I don't expect you to understand pro 2A from what I have seen, But what the heck fire off some response for us.

Here's a shovel for 'ya. Start digging.

 

[fd15k]

Yeah....no doubt. Mine is called "reality world".

Do you accept scientific method as proof ? I have nothing else to offer but two centuries of
legal precedents, one building on top of another. Some going back as far as into the times
of the founding fathers. That's basically the America ever existed.

 

[bnsaibum]

This is Jammer six's alternative stealth speaking from a cave in Pakistan!!!!

Is that in Pedant Province?

 

[simon99]

Do you accept scientific method as proof ? I have nothing else to offer but two centuries of
legal precedents, one building on top of another. Some going back as far as into the times
of the founding fathers. That's basically the America ever existed.

Level with me.....is this Ginny Burdick incognito? I mean seriously. Your concept of reality is so cliché and skewed that it almost borders on SNL comedy .

A sheep in wolfs clothing.