View Poll Results: Is this a good ruling?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good decision

    29 90.63%
  • Bad Decision

    1 3.13%
  • Netural

    1 3.13%
  • Don't know/Care

    0 0%
  • Rotabega

    1 3.13%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63

Thread: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    So let me get this straight, you are NOT upset the CONs took the far bigger bite out of the 2nd A in 1967 with a majority agreeing with 'em because they feared a few black folks, but oh no you are mad that now unloaded weapons can't be carried...
    "A few black folks"? Do you mean the Black Panthers? And after several armed conflicts between the police and the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers who were a criminal organization.

    It's laughable at what lengths that some on the left will go to spin the facts and play the race card.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    "A few black folks"? Do you mean the Black Panthers? And after several armed conflicts between the police and the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers who were a criminal organization. It's laughable at what lengths that some on the left will go to spin the facts and play the race card.
    Yes a few black folks, and the lengths a CON goes to to edit history to fit their whine. Leave out the constant problems with the white police force before the blacks armed themselves. Selective history, the old CON game.

    But please tell us just how many armed black men does it take to strip ALL Californians of their 2nd A rights by a CON governor and his pals in Sacramento????

    Howsomever you deflect, because of a few black folks the very governor and legislature that declared the BP's outlaws did so to EVERY Californian. Skip the big picture.... typical CON game...

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Yes a few black folks, and the lengths a CON goes to to edit history to fit their whine. Leave out the constant problems with the white police force before the blacks armed themselves. Selective history, the old CON game.

    But please tell us just how many armed black men does it take to strip ALL Californians of their 2nd A rights by a CON governor and his pals in Sacramento????

    Howsomever you deflect, because of a few black folks the very governor and legislature that declared the BP's outlaws did so to EVERY Californian. Skip the big picture.... typical CON game...
    Well, you are going to see it that way because that is the only way the narrative fits into your agenda. But armed agitators making threats at government buildings, police stations and in the streets was behind what eventually caused the Mulford legislation. We could talk about the ancient history of how one group was treated over how another group was treated. And eventually we might even find a good reason why the Germans, English and French have a legitimate reason to hate the Italians because their forefathers the Romans kicked everyone's ass in Europe a long time ago---- but what would be the point at this point in history?

    I lived in California at that time; I am a hunter, a sportsman and a gun rights advocate, but I don't see where laws prohibiting unlicensed (CCW), unregistered, and even likely felons to have loaded guns in the streets as being an infringement on my rights. Which we all know you agree with anyway. I do however find California law and policy (as it currently stands) to infringe on law abiding citizens by not providing a fair process to acquire CCW permits. But I don't agree with allowing people who have not been vetted by a fair process to carry loaded weapons in public--- who does?

    BTW, if it were that Huey Long and company were upstanding citizens who were not also involved in or advocating crime wanted to apply for carry permits, then I would have said more power to them. It would have had absolutely nothing to do with the color of their skin.

    The irony as it applies to the nearly defunct Black Panthers is that they were despised by a vast majority of the African-American community because they did not reflect the values of that community.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •