• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Yeah, I'm fine with that; it's California law.

in other words-you support an arbitrary and capricious system where bureaucrats have far too much discretion.
 
It's not Florida law, so I'm not fine with it.

a few more Trump judges on the Ninth Circuit will doom the racist and bigoted May Issue nonsense in California
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Wrong again. I'm smart on the gun issue and what we need to do about it. Your paranoia is your problem.

No. You aren’t. Here is why:

How many people have firearms related accidents each year?
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

So even though someone has the requisite training and has a need for self defense in public, you support the sheriff not allowing them to do so based upon political donations?

Shall issue and open carry without training is the law in plenty of other states. I presume by your statement above that you support it because it's the law?

I don't know where you get your crap from, but now even you agree that the second amendment requires training.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

I don't know where you get your crap from, but now even you agree that the second amendment requires training.

No, I've never agreed that the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment requires training to exercise that right, especially training mandated and controlled by the government. I just think it's a very good idea.

I get my "crap" directly from the source: your posts. You support the non-carry restrictions in California, in your own words, "because it's the law". Not that there's a training requirement, for you accept that even those with SEAL level training can be forbidden. It's not based on any apparent need. In many counties the sole gate to getting a concealed carry license is based on campaign donations to the incumbent sheriff.

You're fine with that set up.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

No, I've never agreed that the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment requires training to exercise that right, especially training mandated and controlled by the government. I just think it's a very good idea.

I get my "crap" directly from the source: your posts. You support the non-carry restrictions in California, in your own words, "because it's the law". Not that there's a training requirement, for you accept that even those with SEAL level training can be forbidden. It's not based on any apparent need. In many counties the sole gate to getting a concealed carry license is based on campaign donations to the incumbent sheriff.

You're fine with that set up.

I support California carry laws because they're smart. The crap you post comes from you, like you agreeing that any schmo can carry. That's not smart.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

I support California carry laws because they're smart. The crap you post comes from you, like you agreeing that any schmo can carry. That's not smart.

So you support a law that is based on racism. The may issue laws were specifically designed to deny blacks with clean records carry permits. and your depiction of "shall issue" is not honest. You still have to have a clean record, and in many states pass a written and shooting test
 
Back
Top Bottom