Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-18-2019, 2:34 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Shannon Watts Claims Moms Demand Action Is Not Anti-Gun

Okay. I think it can now be 'officially' claimed that the Left is running scared over the 'confiscation' cat being let out of the bag.

Moms Demand Action founder says advocacy group is not anti-gun

Quote:
...Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts says that it's a "misnomer" to call the group anti-gun...

"This is simply about restoring the responsibilities that go along with gun rights," Watts said. She added that while the top priorities for Moms Demand Action are background checks, red-flag laws and disarming domestic abusers, the organization also advocates for an assault weapons ban and has worked with municipalities on the issue.

Watts declined to endorse a voluntary or mandatory federal buyback for assault weapons, a proposal raised by Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke...

Watts said that the organization needed to do more research before determining the best way to "adjudicate" an assault weapons ban...
Video of the podcast can be found... Here.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2019, 2:51 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is like the new version of "The Alamo" where we kept retreating and retreating and retreating and then all of a sudden we won...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-18-2019, 4:28 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

maybe some should ask her what she is going to use to defend herself and her family between the time she calls 911 if she is lucky enough to have time to do it and the time the cops arrive? Is her family going to die because she chose to do the easy thing or is she going to waste her time attacking a gun toting criminal with a knife. Will she wish she had a gun or will she stick by her dislike of them and watch her family perish? a gun is for that time between calling 911 and when the cops arrive. After that it is the cops problem and hopefully the victims are still alive. Personally I rather have a mother shooting back to save her family than burying them later. But then Watts and i will probably never see eye to eye on much. I am a family first kind of guy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-18-2019, 4:35 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 492
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OhReally, Mrs Watts exactly what guns do you support people owning.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-18-2019, 5:02 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,217
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Okay. I think it can now be 'officially' claimed that the Left is running scared over the 'confiscation' cat being let out of the bag.

Moms Demand Action founder says advocacy group is not anti-gun



Video of the podcast can be found... Here.
Ms. Watts has always made that claim. I know some of her members and they also make that claim. They also say, when it comes right down to it (sshh, don't tell anyone …) that deep in their hearts they don't want anyone to have guns. Any guns, at all.

One wonders, if they just want background checks and only the "right people" to have guns why would they oppose a federally licensed store such as in San Carlos. Would seem to meet their "we're not anti-gun" criteria.

A rhetorical question - is someone who votes for David Duke racist? Does it matter that they say they're not?

So, they can be as "not anti-gun" as they want to believe. Doesn't matter to me. What counts is which politician they flak for, who they support with time and money. There has never been a gun control bill or virulent gun control politician that MDA hasn't seen fit to support.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2019, 5:11 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,133
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts says that it's a "misnomer" to call the group anti-gun...
because they'll need heavily armed goon squads to confiscate guns from private citizens. She's absolutely correct: They're not "anti-gun". They're "anti-private-gun-ownership". They think the government should have all the guns.


That's worse.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-18-2019, 5:13 PM
Bigtwin's Avatar
Bigtwin Bigtwin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: N. Cal
Posts: 2,510
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They just don't want you to own guns
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-18-2019, 5:14 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Ms. Watts has always made that claim. I know some of her members and they also make that claim. They also say, when it comes right down to it (sshh, don't tell anyone …) that deep in their hearts they don't want anyone to have guns. Any guns, at all.

One wonders, if they just want background checks and only the "right people" to have guns why would they oppose a federally licensed store such as in San Carlos. Would seem to meet their "we're not anti-gun" criteria.

A rhetorical question - is someone who votes for David Duke racist? Does it matter that they say they're not?

So, they can be as "not anti-gun" as they want to believe. Doesn't matter to me. What counts is which politician they flak for, who they support with time and money. There has never been a gun control bill or virulent gun control politician that MDA hasn't seen fit to support.
Exactly.

My point is that there seems to be an emerging public relations 'campaign' to create the perception that the anti-civil rights people/groups are 'pushing back' against confiscation; i.e., that confiscation is something they are in not favor of.

Such could, in fact, be accurate - IF - you recognize the unstated... "for the moment."

In other words, Beto and others (pun, partially, intended) "jumped the gun" in announcing confiscation as the purpose. The media and the Right has run with it. Now, in the interest of the long-term plan, the Left is trying to create the perception of pushing back on that so they can proceed with their incremental plans of putting the necessary infrastructure (background checks, registry, red-flag laws, etc.) in place which will allow for actual confiscation.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2019, 9:21 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
because they'll need heavily armed goon squads to confiscate guns from private citizens. She's absolutely correct: They're not "anti-gun". They're "anti-private-gun-ownership". They think the government should have all the guns.


That's worse.
Correct, they support every agency connected to government at every level to have guns.
FDA no problem
IRS no problem
Dept of agriculture -- automatic weapons ! Sure .

on and on local, state and feds are all legally armed. No wonder they feel so confident releasing the worst of the worst into society !

Democrat Moms demand a police state is more appropriate !

Does anyone doubt the democrat party is planning a police state. Complete with the killing fields socialists are known for !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
Who is John Galt!
Recent NRA LIFE ENDOWMENT MEMBER--on the way to PATRON. See you friends, in Nashville next April 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-19-2019, 10:04 AM
Half Cocked's Avatar
Half Cocked Half Cocked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan
Posts: 699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
OhReally, Mrs Watts exactly what guns do you support people owning.
Any gun without the shoulder thing that goes up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-19-2019, 10:20 AM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Urbanized Suburbia
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

lying liars gonna lie
__________________


1A - 2A = -1A

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2019, 11:19 AM
waawaaweenie waawaaweenie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central, Ca
Posts: 538
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I am a meat eating vegan.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-20-2019, 2:05 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,217
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Exactly.

My point is that there seems to be an emerging public relations 'campaign' to create the perception that the anti-civil rights people/groups are 'pushing back' against confiscation; i.e., that confiscation is something they are in not favor of.

Such could, in fact, be accurate - IF - you recognize the unstated... "for the moment."

In other words, Beto and others (pun, partially, intended) "jumped the gun" in announcing confiscation as the purpose. The media and the Right has run with it. Now, in the interest of the long-term plan, the Left is trying to create the perception of pushing back on that so they can proceed with their incremental plans of putting the necessary infrastructure (background checks, registry, red-flag laws, etc.) in place which will allow for actual confiscation.
Sort of like Bull Conner claiming to be a progressive on civil rights because he's not so harsh as lawmen Rainey and Price -
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-20-2019, 3:04 PM
Thoughts Thoughts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you believe that the Second Amendment is a "collective right", then you can claim quite easily to support it and the illegalization of all non-government firearms. A "collective right" means absolutely no right. Ownership is a privilege that can be revoked at any time.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-20-2019, 7:22 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughts View Post
If you believe that the Second Amendment is a "collective right", then you can claim quite easily to support it and the illegalization of all non-government firearms.
I agree with you regarding the first part of your statement. In fact, I have claimed precisely that in relation to Obama and Hillary on several threads; i.e., that they are not, of necessity, 'lying' when they say they support the 2nd Amendment. They simply have a different, working definition of what the 2nd Amendment means.

However, as regards the second portion of your statement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughts
A "collective right" means absolutely no right. Ownership is a privilege that can be revoked at any time.
In case you missed it on the other thread a week ago, here's what I said to you in regard to 'collective right' theory...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoughts View Post
And what exactly is a "collective right"? If an individual can't have a gun, I don't think the courts are going to allow group buys.
Assuming, for the moment, that was not an entirely rhetorical question, it has to do with how one parses the Amendment. Here's one phrasing...

Quote:
... some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right...
It's precisely why Heller spent so much time examining each portion of the 2nd Amendment. The collective right theory runs afoul of historical interpretation and, in fact, has been shown to be directly contrary to the actual intent. But, that's not a problem for living constitutionalists. As Gorsuch put it...

Quote:
...I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn’t with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short—only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn’t dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy...
In 2011, David Kopel put out an interesting piece on the history of 'collective right theory' related to the 2nd Amendment - How a mythical monster nearly swallowed the Second Amendment whole - concluding...

Quote:
After a heyday from 1968 to 1990, the collective right theory met its ignominious end in 2008, collectively rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court. It was a well-deserved demise of a theory that never should have gained traction, yet did so anyway because of dishonest judicial decisions and gun-ban proponents who repeated the lies until some actually came to believe they were true.
Unanimous? Heller was a 5-4 decision?!?! Except, according to Kopel...

Quote:
...Let's start with some basic legal facts. In Heller, the five-justice majority led by Justice Antonin Scalia followed what is called the "standard model" of the Second Amendment--namely that the Second Amendment protects the right of all law-abiding persons to own, use and carry firearms for all legitimate purposes, especially for self-defense.

The four dissenting justices in Heller, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, instead preferred what is called the "narrow individual right." Under this theory, individuals have Second Amendment rights, but only in connection with service in a well-regulated militia...

So all nine justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects some sort of individual right. In contrast, the "collective right" theory asserts that there is no individual right...
Thus, there is a 'right,' just not one of individual ownership/possession in the manner we understand/accept it. Likewise, as Kopel noted, none of the nine Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court appear to adhere to 'collective right' theory. (How much of that is 'interpretation' on Kopel's part is open to conjecture.) They simply view the 'limits' of the individual right differently.

That means any politician who believes in, adheres to, or attempts to invoke a 'collective right' theory in relation to firearms still has an uphill battle in taking away what you claim would be a 'privilege;' such 'privilege' being extremely limited as well. They'd have to pass new legislation, contrary to existing public opinion. They would then have to survive court challenges, including getting SCOTUS to overturn both Heller and McDonald. Then they'd have to find a way to enforce the new legislation; which, at some point, would involve confiscation in some form.

As the current crop of Democrat Presidential candidates is discovering, "confiscation" is something which doesn't play well with even many of those we view as anti-gun. As I pointed out in yet another thread, even the 'best' of polls show the public does not favor confiscation? Take a National Review article in September...

Quote:
A majority of Americans supports banning the future sale of assault-style rifles but is against a federal gun-confiscation program that would force current owners to forfeit such weapons, according to a new Monmouth University poll.

About 56 percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll supported banning assault-style weapons, while 38 percent opposed it. Only 43 percent of respondents supported a “mandatory buyback program,” in which the federal government would confiscate such weapons from current owners, while 53 percent of respondents opposed such a program...
Many like to look toward New York and California as a bellwether. Pointing to the non-compliance rates over so-called 'assault weapons' bans/registration, they extrapolate that should Government 'suddenly revoke the privilege' of firearms ownership, there would be... resistance... in some form; even if it is simply 'hiding' the firearms currently possessed.

This is precisely why the Left is reacting to some of the Democrat politicians letting the cat out of the bag in relation to 'confiscation.' The necessary infrastructure and public mindset isn't in place... yet.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-20-2019, 7:27 PM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Urbanized Suburbia
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Sure, and auntie fah isn't anti-American
__________________


1A - 2A = -1A

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-20-2019, 7:28 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Sort of like Bull Conner claiming to be a progressive on civil rights because he's not so harsh as lawmen Rainey and Price -
Well... JFK did say of Bull Connor: “The civil rights movement should thank God for Bull Connor. He helped it as much as Abraham Lincoln.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-20-2019, 11:15 PM
DB> DB> is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 191
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Weez not anti-gun, except fer the "salty" ones, and the ones the military might use... which kinda defines most modern civilian firearms

IOW, they ARE too stupid to understand that they ARE anti-gun!



These leftists should just pass a law that dictates 911 calls go directly to the coroner, because they want all the criminals on the loose, a defenseless public and neutered law enforcement...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-21-2019, 5:41 AM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 5,782
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Exclamation

Milfies needing "action," eh?


Paging BIG-PIMPIN' - paging BIG-PIMPIN'!


Would Mr. BIG-PIMPIN', please pick up the whitey courtesy phone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.