Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues

Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
You can’t lump all individual rights together. Some are proper rights. Some are not. Your argument suffers from oversimplification.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can. OTOH, you can’t decide which rights apply to a lesser extent simply because you don’t like it.
 
JonNC said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
You can’t lump all individual rights together. Some are proper rights. Some are not. Your argument suffers from oversimplification.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can. OTOH, you can’t decide which rights apply to a lesser extent simply because you don’t like it.
Click to expand...
My criteria is entirely based on the teachings of my faith. If a right (like carrying guns) is not mentioned, it is not a God-given right. If it is mentioned as a right, then it is.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Can you understand this nuance?
Click to expand...
We’ve had this discussion before too.

We are “citizens”, not “subjects”. Free citizens.

The right is in self-defense. When Governments assume that right for guns for THEMSELVES, citizens have it too.

You may not think so, but the founders of our Country did.
“The original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” – Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...
 
Are you sure about that? I believe in Great Britain that even the police don’t carry guns, so how can what you say be correct? And if the right to bear arms is the case for all governments, as you state, then it is no wonder the world is in such terrible shape.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I believe in Great Britain that even the police don’t carry guns
Click to expand...
Many of the British police that guard politicians have guns.
Other more “elite” police in England have guns too.
That is WHY they were able to SHOOT a knifing perpetrator in a train station a couple of years ago (which is just one example that quickly came to mind).

I just don’t have time to argue with you.

If you want to think British police (universally) have no arms, go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

And the British military as well.

And the UN “Peacekeeping” FORCES are unarmed, go ahead and think that too.
 
Last edited:
I don’t mean to argue. I wasn’t sure about British police, and now you have clarified the situation there.
 
meltzerboy2. I don’t have any idea how religious of a Jewish person you consider yourself or not consider yourself and it’s none of my business.

But . . . .

. . . . You MAY be interested in these good guys . . .

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership​

Click to expand...

Or this book . . .

Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” Paperback – January 14, 2014​

by Stephen P. Halbrook (Author)
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-...598131621/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-...598131621/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

.

Or for that matter you may be interested in these good guys too . . . .


https://gunowners.org/

.


https://home.nra.org/
 
Last edited:
Excerpt from editorial from Houston Courant (courtesy of GOA)
Here’s how it works.

First, the gun controllers re-name. They call commonly used firearms “assault weapons,” and refer to standard-capacity magazines as “high-capacity.” These new terms make it sound like our normal guns and magazines are uncommonly dangerous. According to them, an “assault weapon” can include any revolver, most semi-automatic pistols, and most firearms that adjust to fit you.

The gun controllers also re-define terms. For example, when I say “gun safety,” I mean, “Treat every gun as if It’s loaded, always point the muzzle in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to fire, and be aware of your target and what is beyond it.” When they use the term “gun safety,” they mean something vastly different…

This re-definition of “gun safety” carries with it a strong message that guns are dangerous, useless, and have no positive value.

But we know the opposite is true: Americans use guns hundreds or thousands of times every single day to defend themselves and protect their lives. Guns serve a very valuable purpose…

Along with re-naming and re-defining, the gun controllers also incentivize, shame, and apply peer pressure to dupe people into voluntarily signing up for gun control – just as Tom Sawyer manipulated his friends into wanting to do his chores for him.

Examples of these tactics abound. Police departments conduct gun “buy-backs,” in which they offer to pay small sums of money for guns that people voluntarily surrender. Social media organizations stigmatize gun owners, flagging pictures and videos of guns for extra scrutiny and telling pro-gun posters that these posts “violate community standards” — or permanently banning them. Government agencies seem all too happy to do their part; the Governor’s EMS and Trauma Advisory Council has been considering for months how to empower doctors to talk to patients about “gun storage,” using talking points and skewed data straight from the gun controllers. . . .

. . . Instead of being distracted by the “shock-and-awe” bills that call for full-on gun bans and outrageous California policies, gun owners need to also scour the bills that are presented in a more palatable light using terms of “gun safety,” “responsible gun ownership,” and “ending ‘gun violence.’” Those bills, which manipulate the way that we think about guns and gun ownership, pose the largest immediate threat to our safety and our liberty.
Click to expand...
https://houstoncourant.com/editorial/heres-how-gun-grabbers-are-trying-to-get-inside-your-head
 
Cathoholic said:
The right is in self-defense
Click to expand...
If you are referring to Catholic doctrine of self defense, it does not include the right to buy a gun. If you are referring to the American definition of rights, then it is, as I have said, a legal artifact applying to only 4% of the world.
 
(name removed by moderator). . . .
How nice of you to concede that living in the UK I might just be somewhat better informed on this.
Click to expand...
Good grief.
 
Citizens have a natural God-given right to adequately defend themselves.

Not “live by the sword” but defend themselves (which is WHY Jesus tells His Apostles to purchase a sword before they go out into the world to share the Gospel.)
LUKE 22:35-36 35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.
Click to expand...
ALL countries see that inherent right for them to own guns. ALL of them. As I said, even the Vatican.

Here is a photo of the Vatican’s Swiss Guard Armory. . . .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Hisso MP43-44 subguns just down from Schmidt Rubin K31s and Swiss Vetterli rifles…
Click to expand...
. . . Speaking of the Swiss Guards Armory, it is a functional time capsule of Swiss weapons development. Inside the secure location deep within the Vatican are racks of Model 1871 Vetterli Rifles (with their extremely collectable Yataghan-style short-sword bayonets), opposite racks of Swiss T59 rifled muskets with socket bayonets. These guns mingle freely with SIG 510 and 550 assault rifles . . .
Click to expand...

Leaf’s response to ALL COUNTRIES (including the Vatican) seeing an inherent right to own firearms at least for THEMSELVES?

They are ALL WRONG,
and LeafByNiggle IS RIGHT!
LeafByNiggle said:
They are … wrong.
Click to expand...
And there ya have it! Now you know.
 
Cathoholic said:
Citizens have a natural God-given right to adequately defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Only the US interprets that to mean an AK47 though. The discussion the Church has around arms is within the bounds of the Fifth commandment and in respect of a blameless defense which obligates moderation.
 
Motherwit said:
The discussion the Church has around arms is within the bounds of the Fifth commandment and in respect of a blameless defense . . .
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s right. Which does not exclude guns. At times defense can be a “duty” as the Church teaches.
Motherwit said:
. . . which obligates moderation
Click to expand...
WHO do you think is the “moderation” referee Motherwit?

And since all things are to be done in moderation, who do you think should be the “moderator” when someone goes out “shopping” for gifts. Or food? Or for a car?

Who should nanny these decisions?
 
Last edited:
Motherwit said:
Only the US interprets that to mean an AK47 though.
Click to expand...
the AR-15 is a customizable gun, able to be configured to be used by anyone with almost any disability. why do we want to restrict self-defense to the rich and fit?
 
JonNC said:
48.png
upant:
globalist only see rights as what their global leaders allow
Click to expand...
Correct. It is the rebirth of divine right of kings, minus the title of nobility.
Click to expand...
It’s actually the opposite of the divine right of kings which is a belief that an elite/elect are intrinsically authorized to dictate laws outside the process of the common good.
JonNC said:
One should keep in mind their denial of rights when they claim that (government dictated) healthcare is a right. It will be a “right” until they say it is not.
Click to expand...
This is one such example of how a universal objective right can be realized and be in line with Catholic teaching. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25.​

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

U. S. Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

"Reform efforts must begin with the principle that decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person. … The bishops’ conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and it should be genuinely affordable "
 
Motherwit said:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
Click to expand...
The issue is, HOW is that BEST provided?

By wasteful Government bureaucracies that piddle-away much of that funding that could go to help?

Or is their a better way without labeling the citizens as beasts (“Oh. They CAN’T take care of the poor. They are just citizens. They NEED Government to take over!”)?
 
Cathoholic said:
48.png
Motherwit:
The discussion the Church has around arms is within the bounds of the Fifth commandment and in respect of a blameless defense . . .
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s right. Which does not exclude guns. At times defense can be a “duty” as the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Neither the Church or natural law say there is in inherent right to bear arms. That right is dictated by the conditions and needs of the environment being addressed.
Cathoholic said:
48.png
Motherwit:
. . . which obligates moderation
Click to expand...
WHO do you think is the “moderation” referee Motherwit?

And since all things are to be done in moderation, who do you think should be the “moderator” when someone goes out “shopping” for gifts. Or food? Or for a car?

Who should nanny these decisions?
Click to expand...
Anything that impacts the common good is necessarily moderated by the authority elected to guard the common good. It’s a basic principle that individual rights can’t be safeguarded without respect for the common wealth of society which suppresses ‘survival of the fittest’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top