Comments on: Gun control quickly rears its head in Calif.

By: double l

double l — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:05:47 +0000

If California imposes gun control, which takes precedence CA law or the U. S. Constitution? I’m betting on the Constitution.

By: stevefromsacto

stevefromsacto — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:29 +0000

Here’s a FACT: The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary used an assault rifle that had been banned until 2004, when the NRA and the gun nuts forced Congress to allow the law to ban such weapons of mass destruction to expire.

In other words, he had the weapon he used thanks in part to the NRA.

John, there is NO reason that civilians need assault weapons, 100-clip magazines, armor piercing bullets, etc., in order to hunt or protect their families. That’s not firearm censorship, Rexie, it’s reasonable controls.

And anyone who truly believes that stopping someone from owning an assault rifle–hardly a draconian law–will allow the Nazis or the Communists or even our own American government to invade our homes may be too delusional to own a gun in the first place.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:32:20 +0000

Your “DOA” prounouncements always fail, Rex. Is there one that you ever predicted right?

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:15:48 +0000

Saw Diane Feinstein on, “Meet the Press”, this morning. The Bill she is going to present has been in the works for years, before this incident
==
It is DOA….Just like the law she tried to enforce in San Francisco when she was mayor, banning ALL handguns, struck down in a nanosecond.
We could use instant background checks, that is what we need. Not firearm censorship.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:01:21 +0000

Saw Diane Feinstein on, “Meet the Press”, this morning. The Bill she is going to present has been in the works for years, before this incident. She advocates that assault weapons be banned from private ownership, prospectively–not retroactively. Therefore, you could keep your prescious possession. She stated that there are 900 kinds of weapons that would not be banned. Could you live with that?

By: Newsom Begins New Anti-Gun Campaign — California Political Review

Newsom Begins New Anti-Gun Campaign — California Political Review — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:00:14 +0000

[…] CalWatchdog colleague John Seiler, thankfully also jumped on the politicians yesterday. “…it didn’t take long for gun-control advocates to take a bead on our Second […]

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:54:00 +0000

G.O, there are guns in my home–they are behind lock and key. We don’t put them in our car and go out and rob and kill with them.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:15:22 +0000

No Gun Owner, I am not politically hyper-sensitive. My only political activism is limited to discussion and opinions derived from observation. I do not give money to political campaigns–I vote. My personal political stance is but a small iota left of center–not hyper anything, in my book.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:06:37 +0000

Spare it Jimmy–I went to school, and I know about the Gettysburg address and the man that delivered it. What has that to do with the world we have now! I could care less whether or not BO uses a teleprompter–such things did not exist in Lincoln’s day.

By: SeeSaw

SeeSaw — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:54:43 +0000

U.S. Citizen, nobody is coming to take your gun, so don’t get excited. I agree that this was a mentally-ill person. But, how do you characterize all these gangs that are armed to the teeth and have no compunction against killing? I don’t put them in a category of being mentally ill. Shouldn’t there be some regulation to put a stop to the carnage that they cause?