We need to help our bother in California

[The B]

I changed NOTHING. You are in fact contextualizing a right. You don't have to like it, but that is exactly what is happening.

Now it I profanity that can be used in front of children, when prior it was a description of sexual exploits that was protected. Now who's changing things.

And yes, I am familiar with the liberal practice of stating that you are simply too smart and above the debate you created.

Oh boy. What a flippin' waste of time this is going to be. I'll take it piece by piece, because I'm not going to be misrepresented. I'm totally cool with rational debate, even hot debate. But I will not be misrepresented.

I changed NOTHING.

Yes you did. I wrote:

It's also a constitutionally-protected God-given right to talk about your sexual exploits in front of my young children- but if you do, you're going to cause a problem.

To which you misrepresented as:

Your point invalidates itself. You don't get to contextualize an inalienable right because of people's irrational and non-existent "Right To Not Be Afraid".

As far a "fine picking" an "offensive use of the first amendment", it was your example of a sexual conversation with a child that I used. Y'know, the one you "plugged in".

Which are two totally different things, and is you trying to redirect the conversation away from my point.


Moving on....

Now it I profanity that can be used in front of children, when prior it was a description of sexual exploits that was protected. Now who's changing things.

You didn't accept my premise, therefore we couldn't argue my point, so I offered you a different premise, and made it perfectly clear that's what I was doing.

You're just arguing to argue. Freaken-A.

 

[unklekippy]

You're right. You won't be misrepresented and you will waste your time.

You said it was Constitutionally protected to describe your sexual exploits to a child. No, it is not.

Then you accused me of "fine picking" an "offensive use of the first amendment". The offensive use was the one you provided and it is not protected. They are exactly the same thing and I am not trying to direct anything elsewhere.

As far as my "Right To Not Be Afraid" comment, that was directed toward the contextualization you brought up. Because people are brainwashed into fearing inanimate objects, it does not have any reflection on my individual rights, plain and simple.

You also attempted to change that you apparently believe a description of sexual exploits given to a child is Constitutionally protected. You changed that to "cursing in front of a child". Those are two different things.

Again, good try. Anyone able to read can see how this exchange went down.

 

[The B]

You're right. You won't be misrepresented and you will waste your time.

You said it was Constitutionally protected to describe your sexual exploits to a child. No, it is not.

No I didn't.

Then you accused me of "fine picking" an "offensive use of the first amendment". The offensive use was the one you provided and it is not protected. They are exactly the same thing and I am not trying to direct anything elsewhere.

No I didn't. I said "Fine- pick any other offensive use of the first amendment and plug it in." I was SUGGESTING that you do this, NOT ACCUSING you of doing it.

As far as my "Right To Not Be Afraid" comment, that was directed toward the contextualization you brought up. Because people are brainwashed into fearing inanimate objects, it does not have any reflection on my individual rights, plain and simple.

I've never said it had anything to do with rights. In fact, I've fought really hard to pull this whole topic away from the rights angle, because it's not about rights, it's about appropriateness.

You also attempted to change that you apparently believe a description of sexual exploits given to a child is Constitutionally protected. You changed that to "cursing in front of a child". Those are two different things.

Again, good try. Anyone able to read can see how this exchange went down.

I'm obviously going to have to spell it out to you rrrreeeaaaalllllyyyyy slowly, since you don't seem to be able to read and understand this language very well.


1. I said said describing sexual exploits in front of my small children would be constitutionally protected use of the first amendment that would be inappropriate. YOU changed that to me describing sexual details TO A CHILD, which is totally different than what I actually said.

"Yo, bro... I bubblegumed the bubblegum out of that chick last night. Gave it to her good." - Description of sexual exploits one might say, within the hearing of small children.

NOT

"C'mere, Timmy. I'm gonna tell you how I bubblegumed the bubblegum out of this chick last night. You see, first I took off her clothes, then I...."

Do you not see the big difference between these two things? I gave the first as a short-hand example of a use of the first amendment- the right to free speech- that would NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

2. You misconstrued what I'd said, and refused to accept my premise and debate it, instead babbling on about how this was child abuse and bla bla bla, in what seems to me to be likely you simply having nothing better to say/do/think about.

3. Because you didn't accept my premise, and because I didn't want to waste time arguing about it with you, I said, "Fine- pick any other offensive use of the first amendment and plug it in." MEANING, "Fine. I accept that you're not accepting my premise. So pick a different one, and we'll start over." I did not say you were "fine picking" any thing.

4. Because the first example I gave was nothing more than an example I pulled off the top of my head, and you rejected it, thereby making it something we COULD NOT USE, I pulled another one off the top of my head. The premise itself really does NOT matter, when arguing my point that some activities which are legal are not necessarily appropriate (that IS my entire argument)... I gave the example of using PROFANITY (which is all I was going for originally anyway), to which you are now claiming is me CHANGING things.

Following now?

 

[The B]

In other words, it seems to me that at least 50% of our current disagreement is nothing more than miscommunication.

 

[PrDubi]

Here's an email I just sent to Governor Brown thru his own website. Feel free to copy and paste and send your own email to him if your so ticked off you can't think straight!

Dear Honorable Governor Brown,
I urge you as a responsible law-abiding citizen of California and the United States of America, NOT TO SIGN ANY PENDING BILLS that would further restrict the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding GUN OWNERS. These bills that are being sent to you ONLY PENALIZE THE LAW ABIDING, and the true criminals remain unaffected. These criminal OUTLAWS will continue to acquire any weapons they wish on the black market, unaffected by these draconian bills that are a political KNEE JERK REACTION to tragic events that have been perpetrated by criminals and the insane, who are ALREADY PROHIBITED from owning any guns. The public safety is NOT SERVED with these bills, instead these bills are vehicles used by local politicians to GRANDSTAND and take advantage of public emotion, at the expense of law-abiding gun owners. They seek to use law-abiding gun owners as "whipping boys" on which to fix blame for larger social problems. Please do not deprive our RIGHTS under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America! PLEASE VETO THE FOLLOWING DRACONIAN POLITICAL KNEE-JERK BILLS:

SB374 Please VETO
AB48 Please VETO
AB169 Please VETO
AB231 Please VETO
SB299 Please VETO
SB475 Please VETO
AB180 Please VETO
SB567 Please VETO
SB683 Please VETO
SB755 Please VETO

Respectfully,
Your California Law-Abiding Gun Owner Constituency.

Here's the link to email the Governor:
<broken link removed>

Now go to it!&#65532;


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Grunwald]

I think that NoCal has a better chance of creating a separate state than they do getting Feinstein off of their gun rights. Just say'n...

You do know that Feinstein and Boxer are US Senator and have nothing to do with state laws?
Same deal with Nancy Pelosi - a member of the US House of Representatives. Again, she has nothing to do with state laws.

 

[orygun]

I hope it rains here forever.. that's the only thing that keeps the freaktards down there.

Apparently you've never been to Portland...

 

[Certaindeaf]

3rd generation. can't rain enough.. otherwise it'd be CA

 

[PrDubi]

Not asking much, just a simple email

So all intents and purposes, this can help us by keeping Cali gun owners in CALI.

just click it and copy and past. End of story.

No harm.

 

[Misterbill]

California was a lost cause DECADES go. Thanks, I'll stick to writing to my state legislators who actually CARE about my vote.

 

[oknow]

So according to some people on this forum think we have more than enough people pushing for gun rights that we can afford to just discard pro gun folks. As much as I dislike ca. There are people there still fighting for gun rights.
Some of you sound like those rifle people saying there is no need for pistols or the shotguners If they take the ar's they will leave me and my shotgun alone.
I guess because of the consentration of anti's in sea. Or pdx that we should toss those states out as a loss because they keep murry and canwel or the jerks in Or. In office
It's time to take your head out of the sand and fight as one, not as this state but not that state.

 

[unklekippy]

So according to some people on this forum think we have more than enough people pushing for gun rights that we can afford to just discard pro gun folks. As much as I dislike ca. There are people there still fighting for gun rights.
Some of you sound like those rifle people saying there is no need for pistols or the shotguners If they take the ar's they will leave me and my shotgun alone.
I guess because of the consentration of anti's in sea. Or pdx that we should toss those states out as a loss because they keep murry and canwel or the jerks in Or. In office
It's time to take your head out of the sand and fight as one, not as this state but not that state.

Uh, in California, they allow these infringement's to happen. We do not allow them to happen in OR and WA. That's nice that you want to stand together, now that CA has OVERWHELMINGLY voted for the people and the las that have put them where they are, we are to stop with our own fight and battle FOR CA? Isn't that the problem with our "brothers" to the south? They want to do everything the PC way(and no, that does not include EVERY citizen, only a majority so overwhelming that it is in fact futile.), then, when they have tired of showing how "tolerant" they are "for the children", it's time for everyone to stop fighting their fight and fight for CA. No thanks. CA did nothing for OR, besides stealing our water and crippling OR farmers.

Nah, I had been convinced to write the letter, now I'm considering writing one in support of Feinstein, Boxer and any other CA trash. We really are on our own. CA had no problem telling us for years that their gun problems are because of neighboring states allowed "horrible" guns to kill their children. Now they want help.

 

[unklekippy]

You do know that Feinstein and Boxer are US Senator and have nothing to do with state laws?
Same deal with Nancy Pelosi - a member of the US House of Representatives. Again, she has nothing to do with state laws.

You do know that ONLY Californian's elected them, correct? How could having people like that in EVERY aspect of your government and then suggest it didn't contribute to the BS that disarmed them in the first place?

One more time, they wanted to prove how "caring" and "for the children" they were and are by handcuffing themselves.

 

[oknow]

Uh, in California, they allow these infringement's to happen. We do not allow them to happen in OR and WA. That's nice that you want to stand together, now that CA has OVERWHELMINGLY voted for the people and the las that have put them where they are, we are to stop with our own fight and battle FOR CA? Isn't that the problem with our "brothers" to the south? They want to do everything the PC way(and no, that does not include EVERY citizen, only a majority so overwhelming that it is in fact futile.), then, when they have tired of showing how "tolerant" they are "for the children", it's time for everyone to stop fighting their fight and fight for CA. No thanks. CA did nothing for OR, besides stealing our water and crippling OR farmers.

Nah, I had been convinced to write the letter, now I'm considering writing one in support of Feinstein, Boxer and any other CA trash. We really are on our own. CA had no problem telling us for years that their gun problems are because of neighboring states allowed "horrible" guns to kill their children. Now they want help.

it's great to oc with a loaded gun in Or. isn't it! this is just a start of Or. being P C I guess

 

[unklekippy]

Hey, I want Californian's that voted for people like Darrel Issa to live free and prosper. Comparing those dusty NorCal cities to San Fran and LA is as absurd as comparing Lakeview to Portland, Wenatchee to Seattle.

The fact of the matter is, the decent people in that state are outnumbered along the lines of 3 or 4 to 1. How do you fight that? If you all show up to vote and only 1/3 of the Lib's show, you STILL get slaughtered.

It's time to save what can be saved, not go down with the ship to try to save one burnt out section. Too many people in occupied CA WANT these infringements. You can't fight that.

So, to you CA people that believe in Liberty, GET OUT OF CA! Or, stay and go down fighting. Either way, don't pretend that the troubles you forced on yourself and others is anyone's fault but your own.

 

[unklekippy]

it's great to oc with a loaded gun in Or. isn't it! this is just a start of Or. being P C I guess

Thank you for proving my point. Why would you take your eye off that ball to go after your neighbors ball, that has been deflated and ran over decades ago? We have our own problems and we can't wait until we get to CA levels before we tell everyone else they need to drop their pitchfork's and pick up ours.

 

[oknow]

Hey, I want Californian's that voted for people like Darrel Issa to live free and prosper. Comparing those dusty NorCal cities to San Fran and LA is as absurd as comparing Lakeview to Portland, Wenatchee to Seattle.

The fact of the matter is, the decent people in that state are outnumbered along the lines of 3 or 4 to 1. How do you fight that? If you all show up to vote and only 1/3 of the Lib's show, you STILL get slaughtered.

It's time to save what can be saved, not go down with the ship to try to save one burnt out section. Too many people in occupied CA WANT these infringements. You can't fight that.

So, to you CA people that believe in Liberty, GET OUT OF CA! Or, stay and go down fighting. Either way, don't pretend that the troubles you forced on yourself and others is anyone's fault but your own.

the same way the people in colorado did. it seems to have worked out for them

 

[oknow]

Technically, he's got a point. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded space, not that I'm advocating any limits on firearms...

incorrect --------------- you can yell fire in a crowded space if there is a fire. Just saying

 

[unklekippy]

incorrect --------------- you can yell fire in a crowded space if there is a fire. Just saying

It's always in the details, isn't it?

 

[unklekippy]

the same way the people in colorado did. it seems to have worked out for them

I couldn't agree more. That would be akin to CA doing something 20+ years ago, not waiting until the ship is sunk for a call-to-arms.

You are absolutely correct, states need to vote out those that trample their freedoms. Since we can't vote in CA and their "officials" don't care what the people think, are you gonna let your state go by the wayside to fight a battle that is already lost?