Welcom to Soviet Kalifornistan

"I now declare this town.. DEFENSELESS!"

Muawhahhahaha!

Did you know that something like 65% of males have a concealed weapons license in Texas?

We're not killing eachother everyday.

It appears that California is run by morons. I'd act surprised but what's the point?

 

Well. Looks like the americans are taking after the canadians to some degree.

We aren't allowed carrying concealed weapons (legally) up here.

Detectives can. certain other people can.. but that's about it.

Otherwise, we'd all be runnin around with glocks an shit tryin to shoot people if they piss us off.

 

*shrug* it isnt a real issue for me, i would honestly rather there werent so many guns available. But at the same time, i feel sorry for the poor bastards who think they will have an easy time of it once they get on american soil.

 

When guns were 'banned' in England the crime rate SOARED~!!!
Seriously.
(sigh)

= (Dane said there was none...) This is a Gray area; Does Calif have a "National Guard" base? If so you have a 'Militia'...

=means you can APPLY and OWN (but not carry) a gun.

= Sadly, this boils down to what the law rules the 'legal definition' of the word 'Milita' is.

= I'm not even gonna get started here...

= Interesting, yet it's not just limited to felons, nor specific 'felonies' either.

=Interpreted as the 'High court' is acting in a slightly biased manner (anti-gun).

= and what hs been defined as "high powered' and 'rapid fire'? (Possib. anything above .22 single action?)

= ask him it it's ok to carry 'non-military' weapons. The answer won't surprise you.

= did you catch the name...?

~PM~

 

...and to think I am applying for a postion out in Santa Monica...

~PM~

 

Pump to your question what is the 'legal definition' of 'Milta'. If you look it up in the Federal Dictionary of terms. Milta means any able bodied invidual who owns a gun.

I also got this from the NRA's web site.

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

 

First off these judges need to go back to english class. The second amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first part: "A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free State": At the time regulated meant trained, and militia meant the common man. The defense plans early on for America centered around having a small officer core, and mobilizing the population to meet a threat.

The Second part stands for itself: "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They seem to be having some difficulty with the concept.

As for the whole, that first dependent clause does not AT ALL modify the independent clause.

Because this is a dependent clause,being necessary to mimic the dependent clause in the amendment, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A question to those judges, does the above statement mean that dependent clauses can have guns?

If you communists want it changed, call forth a constitutional convention and change it, don't make yourself out to be a fool that can not read or write.

When you make it against the law to have a gun, the only people that will have them will be the government security force, and the criminals. Who trusts either group?

http://www.jpfo.org/data-docs.htm

In Taiwan just having a gun is a capital offense, yet Their crime rate is much higher then ours.

The Israelis allow their own citizens who have proper training to draw sub machine guns from their armories. In effect every man between 18 and 40 in both countries can have a gun.Citizens, so bear in mind that palestinians can't do this.

Both the Swiss and Israelis both lend handguns from their armories to any citizens. Both have lower crime rates then here in the US. And as the site shows, even pro gun control activists point to Switzerland because it does have strict licensing on hand guns. It just lends guns to its citizens thats all.

 

Ok I think we have all posted enough evidence at this point to shoot down the court in san fransisco

 

http://www.geocities.com/LadyLiberty_1776/RightBareArms.html

because we all like overkill:

"Gun Control:
The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."

 

"I don't have pet peeves. I have major fucking psychotic hatreds."

I own guns.

I've yet to bustout and blast my neighbors though.

I've never shot someone during roadrage. (Though very tempted)

I guess it's because I know I'd get caugh.. I mean it's wrong.

Guns should only be given to semi responsible people IMO.

 

Like Cars, gun users should take a training course before they are allowed to own a gun. In some of the midwestern states teens are required to complete and pass a gun safety class before they can get a hunting license. There is no reason why this should not be expanded.

 

Woohoo bring the Dog to mah town!


And Besides Cali is not part of the United States of America or so I have heard from some Texans