Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry handguns

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Thats bull Charles. So I take it calling someone a racist bigot is far worse than actually being a racist bigot and making statements as such?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Awww Kip, I see you've been warned by your moderator benefactors about your trolling. So nice of you not to call me some murderous despot or some other warped and deluded name.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Awww Kip, I see you've been warned by your moderator benefactors about your trolling. So nice of you not to call me some murderous despot or some other warped and deluded name.

According the the admins, I'm a repeat offender/high risk...or something like that according to the email they sent me so I'm trying to tone it down a bit.

[The_Dude 1,142]

LOL, I was on that list back in February I believe. I was the one that Ewok made that rule about, the extra long suspension for the repeat offenders. Too bad he never followed up on that. But that seems to be par for the course here on VJ.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

one post removed for tos violation:

Additionally any direct communication (with the exception of publicly viewable Posts on the discussion forums) between administrators or moderators and a member are strictly prohibited from being Posted to the discussion forums or retransmitted in any way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A sheriff is a political position, a police chief is not.

A CCW is not that hard to get really, as long as you can show a practical need for it. If your only reason for wanting to get one is to exercise your 2nd amendment rights or because you state you are in constant fear, but live in Laguna Beach, then no, you're not going to get one.

So Laguna Beach...is that safer than, say, Seal Beach?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So Laguna Beach...is that safer than, say, Seal Beach?

If I ever go to get my hair cut in California I'm going to make sure I'm wearing body armor.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Under the original intent of the 2nd amendment? No, it's quite clear that it was intended for our national defense because we did not have a national standing army. We do now, and don't need weekend warriors who have had too many natty lights to defend our country. However, in light of the Heller decision, apparently, the original intent and context of the amendment is moot.

Slim, it is a good thing that you will never be a member of congress. Your inability to even grasp basic history and reading is profoundly shocking. Our forefathers had to take up arms as we were in a war with no standing army. That is no longer the case, you should update yourself.

Slim, again, reading comprehension would be a big help to you here. No, it isn't covered under the 2nd Amendment, and your fundamental misinterpretation of the history and context of the 2nd Amendment is shockingly puerile.

There is no purpose for it other than to further a crime or evade capture. Is that why you want it?

No they wouldn't, that is a stupid fallacy.

Slim, I'm actually a libertarian, although I am a civil libertarian and not one of those moron libertarians who want to legalize all drugs and abolish all government except for a mayors, sheriffs and local government, those people are borderline retarded.

So you take your cues from Jay Leno now? I don't, so what is your point here? Fifty cars is excessive, I agree.

Ok Good morning! The government is open for business!

I'll go with the Supreme Court's decisions on the Second Amendment. Why wouldn't you?

Body armor has no use for criminals except to defend from armed citizens, in the case of the safe city of Seal Beach where no one needs a gun, what was the purpose? How did it affect anything?

Banning body armor could not possibly have changed the outcome in the safe city of Seal Beach where no one needs a gun but allowing people to have the means to kill attackers could have made a difference...I mean if there were such things in a safe city like Seal Beach. which there are not....

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Under the original intent of the 2nd amendment? No, it's quite clear that it was intended for our national defense because we did not have a national standing army. We do now, and don't need weekend warriors who have had too many natty lights to defend our country. However, in light of the Heller decision, apparently, the original intent and context of the amendment is moot.

Please read the Heller decision. There is no other intent for the 2nd amendment than the "original" one. It has not changed, been modifed, repealed or erased in any way at any time by any means.

The Heller decision of the Supreme Court addresses exactly the issues you do here but with much different analysis. Who would imagine?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Thats bull Charles. So I take it calling someone a racist bigot is far worse than actually being a racist bigot and making statements as such?

Yes, it is against the rules of TOS of this site. Actually being a bigot is not.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Please read the Heller decision. There is no other intent for the 2nd amendment than the "original" one. It has not changed, been modifed, repealed or erased in any way at any time by any means.

The Heller decision of the Supreme Court addresses exactly the issues you do here but with much different analysis. Who would imagine?

Gary, I'm sorry that you don't understand the heller decision, or the original intent or context of the 2nd amendment, but that doesn't change anything. The heller decisions strips the part about gun ownership being tied to national defense in a militia, thus changing the initial intent. We didn't have a national standing army when it was written, so a well armed militia was needed. That is not the case anymore Gary, despite your delusions.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

LOL, I was on that list back in February I believe. I was the one that Ewok made that rule about, the extra long suspension for the repeat offenders. Too bad he never followed up on that. But that seems to be par for the course here on VJ.

Hey, congratulations!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, I'm sorry that you don't understand the heller decision, or the original intent or context of the 2nd amendment, but that doesn't change anything. The heller decisions strips the part about gun ownership being tied to national defense in a militia, thus changing the initial intent. We didn't have a national standing army when it was written, so a well armed militia was needed. That is not the case anymore Gary, despite your delusions.

Of course it does. It never was about national defense. It is about having the ability to resist an oppressive government. Who ever said it was about National Defense? You? Who? Have you read the briefs of the Heller case? I have. Nothing in there about national defense.

If you were right there would have been no McDonald decision and the ban on handguns in DC and Chicago would still be in effect.

[slim 1,525]

Six people would disagree that this is an important distinction. The man went into that shopping center, determined to kill, and wore body armor to make sure that he could kill his exwife, undeterred. You seem to mitigate his 6 murders with him surrendering. It doesn't. We're just lucky he wasn't like those North Hollywood guys 10 years ago.

Are you actually insinuating the body armor assisted this man in perpetrating the crime?

If so, what helped him more, the few layers of fabric he wore under his shirt, or the machine that transported him several miles to the crime scene and aided him in immediately departing it?

There is no practical use for body armor for civilians, none. It isn't covered by the 2nd amendment, and is federally banned for criminals. I think that needs to be expanded to everyone who is not military or a sworn law enforcement officer.

The practical use for civilians is the same as it is for police - to lessen the severity of getting shot.

Which federal ban are you talking about? The one that was overturned in 2009 by the circuit court in LA? Funny that it would be overturned in LA of all places. It's no surprise to me you think something should be available to government agents but not civilians. This proves you have no concept of what the 2nd amendment was put in place to do. Body armor may not be specifically covered but the 2A was put in place for folks to fight the government and retain their means to do so. Body armor would aid in that capability.

Slim, that is nonsense and only makes you look like an imbecile trying to use that argument.

Perhaps it's you that doesn't realize who the imbecile is. You're insinuating that an item used in only a handful of crimes - nationwide - is more detrimental to our safety than an item used in almost every crime.

Slim, this is why I keep telling you to read. If you had read the Zombie Survival Guide, you would know that zombies won't take up arms, as they have no brain to actually work any sort of mechanism.

Zombies is a nice way of saying, "urban poor" and/or "stupid ** anti-gunners" who weren't smart enough to prepare for the coming fight. They will act exactly like zombies.

So are you saying that you own one? I think you would fall under the federal ban on owning one.

I own several. Don't you?

Along with helmets, gas masks and a whole bunch of other ####### that serves "no practical purpose" I'm doing my part to ensure our safety.

What federal ban are you talking about?

Slim, unless you are planning on commiting a crime, or intentionally hosting some terrorist militia group siege situation, you don't need one. Follow the law, and be a good citizen. You could always move to Waziristan if you dont' like laws.

Where's the law prohibiting me from owning body armor?

Being a good citizen almost requires me to own body armor and frankly, I'm surprised more people don't. You'd think with the relative ease of use and affordability, more folks would have some just laying around.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Of course it does. It never was about national defense. It is about having the ability to resist an oppressive government. Who ever said it was about National Defense? You? Who? Have you read the briefs of the Heller case? I have. Nothing in there about national defense.

If you were right there would have been no McDonald decision and the ban on handguns in DC and Chicago would still be in effect.

Seriously Gary, how can you say that it isn't. Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of " a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" don't you understand? This isn't complex constitutional law, it's plain language that you are willfully disregarding so that it suits your personal goals. You're still wrong about the initial intent.

Now, the Heller decision takes away the part that ties a militia to gun ownership.