Community | April 24, 2010 | 26 comments

California To Ban Open Carry?

Image
MidnightHorrors
On Tuesday the California Public Safety Committee passed the bill with 4-2 vote that would prohibit law abiding citizens to carry their, unloaded and holstered firearms, in the open. It now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This bill being spear headed by Democratic assembly-woman Lori Saldana.

"Saldana, at a recent news conference, displayed video of citizens loading firearms within seconds. Such video was used to show how quickly one can bring an unloaded firearm into a ready-to-use condition. A rather contradicting piece from the politician who claims independent citizens “have no training.” The application of such skills and training for the greater good, for personal safety and public safety, seems to be irrelevant when the Assembly only considers what someone malicious might do."

This in the same state who plans to release almost 43,000 inmates early in the next two years in order to relieve prison congestion not to mention lay off law enforcement officers state wide due to budget cuts.

Remember people without guns citizens are nothing more than slaves.
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Ban,  Second Amendment,  open carry
  3.     
    |

26 comments // California To Ban Open Carry?

  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  

    • state committees can do what they want, but if pushed, as i believe this measure would, it will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, and will be declared void.

    • 2 years ago
  • HsIV
    • 0
      HsIV  

    • I am totally torn on this subject on one hand to protect the people from the government and all that jazz. Than on the other hand I think about kids killed in cross fire of drive-bys, and nearly all crimes evolve guns. Than on the other hand (yes I know that’s 3 hands) the people willing to shoot through a playground to kill 1 guy don’t care much about laws anyhow.
      Is this subject all or nothing why can’t it be compromise? like if you live in a metropolitan city no guns at the play pin of Burger King (honestly what are you going to hunt in L.A.) and more back woodsy rural areas like in Sacramento where there are farms and what not bunker down. Don’t flame me on this I see both sides.

    • 2 years ago
  • oppressed1
  • CaptainGroovy
    • +1
      CaptainGroovy  
    • Image

    • Why is the Second Amendment of Our Constitution so hard to understand?

      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.

      Every state in this great country that has relaxed the Lawful carry of firearms has had a significant decrease in all crime, where as any city, county our state that has restricted firearms in any way has had a explosive increases in all crime especial violent crime.

      If you still don't believe me about the correlation between crime and restriction of firearms look at what has happened to Australia since it gun ban, crime is up 45%
      take a look
      http://current.com/news/89945552_crime-up-down-under-since-australias-gun-ban-ar...

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • CaptainGroovy:

      What's absurd is the notion that gun control has anything to do with lowered crime rates. It's not as if citizens with guns suddenly participate in vigilante justice and save the nation from crime.

      Lax or strict laws, crime is about the same. Violent and crime-ridden areas are fucked up no matter what the gun control laws are like.

      And that article is total bullshit, it came right off of World Net Daily.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptainGroovy
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • CaptainGroovy:

      The Second Amendment of Our Constitution is not hard to understand.

      I don't get how the pro-gun advocates keep missing the entire first clause of the sentence. The problem is those people who don't get the "well regulated Militia" part of the second amendment. It does not even simply say "militia", but "well-regulated" militia.

      "well regulated Militia".

      That means guns are for organized groups who were trained how to use them, NOT for each and every joe shmoe to cary them to Starbucks.

      Why is it the NRA brainwashed masses don't read the Second Amendment they keep quoting? Is it so hard to understand?

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptainGroovy
    • 0
      CaptainGroovy  
    • UtopianSky:

      The Second Amendment is a compound sentence what you have forgotten is the little punctuation mark called the COMMA. Read it again and place emphasis on the comma or switch the comma for a period and make it two sentences. When the constitution was written the founding father wanted to make sure of two things. The first is two ensure the protection of the Republic and that is why the first part of the amendment states the need for a "Well Regulated Militia". The second part of the Amendment was to insure that Citizen's shall be allowed to own firearms with interference "To keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

    • 2 years ago
  • dalistuff
  • Mike_DeRusha
    • +1
      Mike_DeRusha  

    • Why are people so obsessed with making new crimes to deter real crimes instead of taking care of the real problem? And the real problem is making life so expensive and hard for some people they resort to crime. Who can justify $600 a month for rent on a 1 bedroom shithole? Or $200 a month "health insurance"? on top of that, there's food, clothing, utilities, and transportation. So that $10 an hour job grosses $1600, after taxes you get about $1100. Minus rent and such, you're left with about $50 for food.
      This is also why I keep saying "screw these big corporations who want to move into town, rape a few hundred acres, and provide us with some awesome $8.75 jobs. That will go to out of towners who will then move here and add to the overpopulation."

    • 2 years ago
  • NickerBocker09
    • +1
      NickerBocker09  

    • Just because someone has been trained on how to use a gun means nothing in terms of how they will react in the event it is needed. Even cops mess up.

      There really is no reason to be carrying around a gun. The amendment in the Constitution was created for different reasons in a different time. If the government is really that bad, then people will start getting their guns and start a revolution, but at the moment we are no where near that. Also, today we have phones, news, internet, etc... you dont need a dam gun to protect yourself at a bar, or from bandits trying to raid your farm or steal your horses.

      I really dont want some drunk man with a gun. Maybe you feel its safe, but the fact is; its not.

      Heres an example of why it is completely idiotic. --- Someone walks into a bank with guns and tells everyone to get on the floor, be quiet, etc... one of the customers has a gun, pulls it out and shoots, then the guys with guns start shooting, people die. End of story.

      Oh and by the way, Missouri, Texas, and Mississippi (just to name a few) are reducing their prison populations and releasing inmates. Im guessing that makes them commies.

    • 2 years ago
  • webmoocher
    • +1
      webmoocher  
    • NickerBocker09:

      Actually the literal translation of the right to keep and bear arms directly relates to keeping the government in check and not overstepping their bounds. I think that the 2nd Amendment was rather visionary.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • -1
      unimatrix0  

    • It is a good idea to ban open carry. Guns are not toys. If you want to carry a gun in public you should be required to pass a gun safety test, background check and psychological screening first.

    • 2 years ago
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  
    • unimatrix0:

      If I could put together that psychological screening test (and I'm reasonably qualified to do so) I suspect we'd be looking at 70% failure rate for those who want to carry.

    • 2 years ago
  • webmoocher
  • MidnightHorrors
  • ampersand
    • 0
      ampersand  

    • Well, maybe having everyone in the US armed and dangerous might improve parking opportunities and traffic manners...
      I, myself will more likely stay home than go to Dodge City to shop.

    • 2 years ago
  • fatmonkey85
    • 0
      fatmonkey85  

    • articles like this make me never want to visit america ever. i dont understand how people not being allowed to walk around with guns (that were invented with no other reason than to kill people) can possibly be bad

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • csmonut
    • +1
      csmonut  
    • treewolf39:

      No! We are not done! We must take over the woooorrrllldd! We have to! It is our right!
      Hopefully the sarcasm will show through:))

      Remember Pinky and the Brain? I think some of our leaders took the cartoon to heart.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  
    • fatmonkey85:

      Hey, feel free to live wherever you wish. This is about freedom, pure and simple, a concept many have a problem with. Particularly in Kommifornia. I wonder if this will pertain to the states agents also or just the serfs in that state.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptainGroovy
  • raylinmarie
    • 0
      raylinmarie  

    • Uh, I've lived in california all of my life, and I wasn't aware that people were allowed to carry unloaded firearms anyway...

      And stop watching Fox news.

    • 2 years ago
  • webmoocher
more from Community:
from the community

top videos