May 5, 200620 yr For those who don't know, Don Perata is the senator in California who wrote the SB23 gun ban, concealed weapons permit ban, and numerous other pieces of gun control legislation that restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms. What a f***ing hypocrite :lol .
May 5, 200620 yr Do you ever think about anything other than guns? Also, this is not hypocritical. If his proposals had passed, he'd have no need for a concealed weapon because, in theory, no one would carry a concealed weapon and therefore he'd be safe.
May 5, 200620 yr Also, this is not hypocritical. If his proposals had passed, he'd have no need for a concealed weapon because, in theory, no one would carry a concealed weapon and therefore he'd be safe. In theory communism works. You dont really believe what you said do you? Do you think that would prevent a crazy mofo from carrying a gun when he is already willing to kill someone?
May 5, 200620 yr I like that he blames the internet as adding to the trouble. yeah that was the best part. *shoots browser*
May 5, 200620 yr Can we please call them firearms. Calling firearms "guns" is one of the biggest pet peaves I have. Or if you can, convey the specific model of the weapon. Or at least say pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc.
May 5, 200620 yr And the crazy gun owners that want to kill him for this law shows how responsible people are huh?
May 5, 200620 yr I believe that some restrictions in the area of firearms is a good thing. Some others within the area of firearms are not a good thing as it violates the rights of the individuals that are law abiding for the country. I have no problem with a member of the government getting a concealed weapon permit. Even if at the same time they are looking to place some restrictions upon guns.
May 5, 200620 yr Author Do you ever think about anything other than guns? Also, this is not hypocritical. If his proposals had passed, he'd have no need for a concealed weapon because, in theory, no one would carry a concealed weapon and therefore he'd be safe. Newsflash: HIS PROPOSALS DID PASS and have been in effect for almost 8 years now. And guess what? Gun crime in California is at an all time high. Looks like all that gun control really worked, huh? Oh wait, that's right, criminals do not obey the law. Gun control serves no purpose other than to restrict the honest law abiding citizen. And the crazy gun owners that want to kill him for this law shows how responsible people are huh? That's an incredibly awful point you're trying to make and it's no different than someone trying to say that all christians are crazy racist nutjobs because of a select few extremists like Pat Robertson, it's no different than saying all muslims are terrorists because of a select few, the list goes on. Regardless, when you take away someones constitutional rights, you can't expect them to just roll over and take it without any recourse. If you tried to restrict someones first amendment rights, there would be HELL TO PAY, try and take away someones second amendment rights and that's A-OK! :plain I have no problem with a member of the government getting a concealed weapon permit. Even if at the same time they are looking to place some restrictions upon guns. I do. He made the bed, so let him lie in it. If he is in trouble then he can call 911 and tell the person trying to kill him to please wait the 8 minutes it will take for the police to get there. What he is doing is flat out disgusting, not only is he restricting the rights of millions of honest law abiding citizens but he is at the very same time exercising those same rights he stripped from those millions of people. Here is a translation of his letter in plain english: "I need a concealed permit to carry a gun to protect myself because my efforts to deny everyone else the right to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families have made people mad at me."
May 5, 200620 yr I do. He made the bed, so let him lie in it. If he is in trouble then he can call 911 and tell the person trying to kill him to please wait the 8 minutes it will take for the police to get there. What he is doing is flat out disgusting, not only is he restricting the rights of millions of honest law abiding citizens but he is at the very same time exercising those same rights he stripped from those millions of people. Here is a translation of his letter in plain english: "I need a concealed permit to carry a gun to protect myself because my efforts to deny everyone else the right to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families have made people mad at me." So, let me get this straight.... If he gets killed by a crazy guy with a gun, it's ok because he tried to make sure said crazy guy with a gun would have a tougher time accessing said gun. Edited.
May 5, 200620 yr And the crazy gun owners that want to kill him for this law shows how responsible people are huh? That's an incredibly awful point you're trying to make and it's no different than someone trying to say that all christians are crazy racist nutjobs because of a select few extremists like Pat Robertson, it's no different than saying all muslims are terrorists because of a select few, the list goes on. Regardless, when you take away someones constitutional rights, you can't expect them to just roll over and take it without any recourse. If you tried to restrict someones first amendment rights, there would be HELL TO PAY, try and take away someones second amendment rights and that's A-OK! :plain Do you enjoy beating yourself down with irony? You accuse me of stereotyping gun owners, which I didnt. Then you, a gun advocate, go off and defend these individuals and their use of violence by saying that I cant expect them to just roll over when their second amendment rights are encroached. Hmm..so you condone their action? The ends justifies the means? How about using the courts of law and the political process like the rest of us? I have no problem with a member of the government getting a concealed weapon permit. Even if at the same time they are looking to place some restrictions upon guns. I do. He made the bed, so let him lie in it. If he is in trouble then he can call 911 and tell the person trying to kill him to please wait the 8 minutes it will take for the police to get there. What he is doing is flat out disgusting, not only is he restricting the rights of millions of honest law abiding citizens but he is at the very same time exercising those same rights he stripped from those millions of people. Here is a translation of his letter in plain english: "I need a concealed permit to carry a gun to protect myself because my efforts to deny everyone else the right to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families have made people mad at me." Clearly more subtle nuances are going past you. Is it possible that the law he passed allows for exceptions, that people have to apply for, when one feels a definite threat? He isnt a hypocrite if he is exercising the procedures under the law itself. I mean its hard to imagine he would try to obtain permission for something he himself knows is illegal...so it leads me to believe there is an exception in the law.
May 5, 200620 yr Author I do. He made the bed, so let him lie in it. If he is in trouble then he can call 911 and tell the person trying to kill him to please wait the 8 minutes it will take for the police to get there. What he is doing is flat out disgusting, not only is he restricting the rights of millions of honest law abiding citizens but he is at the very same time exercising those same rights he stripped from those millions of people. Here is a translation of his letter in plain english: "I need a concealed permit to carry a gun to protect myself because my efforts to deny everyone else the right to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families have made people mad at me." So, let me get this straight.... If he gets killed by a crazy guy with a gun, it's ok because he tried to make sure said crazy guy with a gun would have a tougher time accessing said gun. Moron. That makes zero sense and any law he has enacted would not have prevented the crazy guy from obtaining a gun in the first place. And the moron comment was quite mature, I commend you for that. I would like to think that those participating in discussions in the Bull Pen would be above childish insults such as that, but I am seemingly proven wrong on a daily basis. These childish insults do nothing but devalue any argument or point you're trying to make.
May 5, 200620 yr That makes zero sense and any law he has enacted would not have prevented the crazy guy from obtaining a gun in the first place. And the moron comment was quite mature, I commend you for that. I would like to think that those participating in discussions in the Bull Pen would be above childish insults such as that, but I am seemingly proven wrong on a daily basis. These childish insults do nothing but devalue any argument or point you're trying to make. Sorry for the insult... I was just really having a tough time understanding what you were saying, because it sounded like to me you were saying he would deserve to be shot, which seemed awfully moronic.
May 5, 200620 yr Author And the crazy gun owners that want to kill him for this law shows how responsible people are huh? That's an incredibly awful point you're trying to make and it's no different than someone trying to say that all christians are crazy racist nutjobs because of a select few extremists like Pat Robertson, it's no different than saying all muslims are terrorists because of a select few, the list goes on. Regardless, when you take away someones constitutional rights, you can't expect them to just roll over and take it without any recourse. If you tried to restrict someones first amendment rights, there would be HELL TO PAY, try and take away someones second amendment rights and that's A-OK! :plain Do you enjoy beating yourself down with irony? You accuse me of stereotyping gun owners, which I didnt. Then you, a gun advocate, go off and defend these individuals and their use of violence by saying that I cant expect them to just roll over when their second amendment rights are encroached. Hmm..so you condone their action? The ends justifies the means? How about using the courts of law and the political process like the rest of us? I have no problem with a member of the government getting a concealed weapon permit. Even if at the same time they are looking to place some restrictions upon guns. I do. He made the bed, so let him lie in it. If he is in trouble then he can call 911 and tell the person trying to kill him to please wait the 8 minutes it will take for the police to get there. What he is doing is flat out disgusting, not only is he restricting the rights of millions of honest law abiding citizens but he is at the very same time exercising those same rights he stripped from those millions of people. Here is a translation of his letter in plain english: "I need a concealed permit to carry a gun to protect myself because my efforts to deny everyone else the right to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families have made people mad at me." Clearly more subtle nuances are going past you. Is it possible that the law he passed allows for exceptions, that people have to apply for, when one feels a definite threat? He isnt a hypocrite if he is exercising the procedures under the law itself. I mean its hard to imagine he would try to obtain permission for something he himself knows is illegal...so it leads me to believe there is an exception in the law. Way to put words in my mouth. I never once said or even so much as implied that I condoned anyone threatening to use violence against Perata. You asked how about using the laws and the courts? I do, that's why i'm an NRA life member and supporter. I said that you cannot expect to restrict someones consitutional rights and not expect any type of recourse such as this, if a senator made a law that was in clear violation of the first amendment and it passed, you know damn well there would be hell to pay and he would receive threats and whatnot, but never once did I say that it's okay or that I supported such stupidity. And yes you did stereotype gun owners, despite what you believe, not all of us have underground compounds and stockpiles of guns and ammunition on standby for when the commies invade Yes, the law does allow for one to apply for a CWP, however it is entirely dependent on the chief/sheriff and whether he wants to grant one or not. Let's take San Francisco for example, there has not been a SINGLE concealed weapons permit issued in the past 5+ years because the chief will not allow them under any circumstance. There have been women who were victims of domestic violence and had restraining orders on their husbands threatened to kill them and the chief in San Francisco refused to issue them a permit even though it is entirely 100% legitimate - that is disugsting. The only people able to obtain them are those who are powerful and can pull some strings, such as a senator. If you're a regular person with a clear and present danger to your life on a daily basis and you need a permit but live in a municipality with a chief such as the one in San Francisco? Too bad unless you have friends in high places - the whole system is corrupt and ineffective at best. That makes zero sense and any law he has enacted would not have prevented the crazy guy from obtaining a gun in the first place. And the moron comment was quite mature, I commend you for that. I would like to think that those participating in discussions in the Bull Pen would be above childish insults such as that, but I am seemingly proven wrong on a daily basis. These childish insults do nothing but devalue any argument or point you're trying to make. Sorry for the insult... I was just really having a tough time understanding what you were saying, because it sounded like to me you were saying he would deserve to be shot, which seemed awfully moronic. Not a problem, I respect you for apologizing. I never said he deserves to be shot, I was merely trying to imply that he was not above the law just because he is a politician and if a regular citizen cannot obtain a permit even if they have a legitimate reason, then neither should he. He can rely on 911 just like every other citizen that is in trouble if he feels so strongly about his ineffective and unconstitutional gun control laws.
May 5, 200620 yr Not a problem, I respect you for apologizing. I never said he deserves to be shot, I was merely trying to imply that he was not above the law just because he is a politician and if a regular citizen cannot obtain a permit even if they have a legitimate reason, then neither should he. He can rely on 911 just like every other citizen that is in trouble if he feels so strongly about his ineffective and unconstitutional gun control laws. I just think the "He made his bed let him lie in it" does come off as you are saying if he's afraid someone's going to try to kill him, it's his problem. That sort of sounds like you are saying if it happens, it's his fault. I think if he feels his life is in danger, and (big if) there is a loophole in the law that says if you feel you are in danger you can carry one, then I don't think it's a problem.
May 5, 200620 yr Author Not a problem, I respect you for apologizing. I never said he deserves to be shot, I was merely trying to imply that he was not above the law just because he is a politician and if a regular citizen cannot obtain a permit even if they have a legitimate reason, then neither should he. He can rely on 911 just like every other citizen that is in trouble if he feels so strongly about his ineffective and unconstitutional gun control laws. I just think the "He made his bed let him lie in it" does come off as you are saying if he's afraid someone's going to try to kill him, it's his problem. That sort of sounds like you are saying if it happens, it's his fault. I think if he feels his life is in danger, and (big if) there is a loophole in the law that says if you feel you are in danger you can carry one, then I don't think it's a problem. The problem is, in most California cities people who do have a legitimate reason to fear for their lives still can't get one, so why should he? I certainly agree that if his life is in danger then he should be able to get one, but it's not right to issue a permit to him all the while restricting others with reasons equally as legitimate as his from obtaining one just because he's a powerful politician and they're not. It's a massive double standard.
May 5, 200620 yr if any one cares to realize the ban he proposed and was passed was a ban on assault weapons. it is not illegal for californians to carry concealed weapons maybe hard to aquire the permit but it is not outlawed nor did he try to outlaw it. he votes against assault weapons he carries a concealed weapon that makes him a hypocrite? gimme a break. did nrawinningteam.com tell you to believe that? btw i think you meant the biggest hypocrite of the year award of 1999 goes to him. rehashing 7 year old news is awesome.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.