Not at all, republics have existed throughout history wherein the territorial governers have maintained their power through force of arms and subjugation of the people. They did not enjoy freedom, yet lived in a republic - to which you would reply "Specious nitpicking, back in your hole."
CA's gun prohibition is "government is working as designed"? What a clownish attitude.
Is this a serious? California does not have a protection built into their constitution that 46 other states do, and you're telling me that it was not done on purpose? Take a look at the history of your state, why do you suppose it does not contain that clause? My suspicion is that the Midwest states left it out because they knew that were there an explicit RKBA within the state, they could not implement laws such as Illinois 'black codes' and keep guns out of the hands of ethnic minorities. Do you suppose heavy oriental immigration into CA may have had a similar effect?
You cry and whine about CA doing to you exactly what she had in mind for others at the formation of the state, then demand that somehow Washington do something, and, by corallary, Iowans (like me) help shoulder the burden. Like I said, CA government is working exactly as designed, only the target of it's prohibitions has changed.
Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
Yeah, I don't even know why I'm replying. After all, you can already read my thoughts. Maybe I'll just freepmail you my password so that you can go around telling others what I think. In this case, you happen to be right. Californian's problems with the government as they established it are not my problem, and I could give a crap less whether they decided to draw a letter of the alphabet out of a hat and drown everyone who's last name began with it.
I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
So what then, every generation gets to re-ratify the constitution, bill of rights, and all amendments? The fact is that government is handed down from age to age and the only means for alteration are the amendment process and revolution. You seem unwilling to carry out either, so you just complain and demand that the rest of the country do something about it. Your claim that your rights were violated is (to cop a word from you) specious at best. If you didn't know that CA was anti-gun when you moved there, then you're either 100 years old or don't watch the news much.
Don't come into my neighborhood and demand that the age of consent is 14 because that was the case for your previous residence. It was a decision that you made, just like I said in an earlier post.
You are a constitutional scofflaw
Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
----------------------------------------
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy
Of course, you are wrong about this, and it is idiotic to continue your rambling. Go over to google and type in 'left libertarian' and you will see that this is not something I just made up. Really, those with smarts here are starting to get embarassed for you.
I tried to give summary before, but you just demanded that there's no such thing. Let me help you once again: Left Libertarians are people like you. They want to consolidate power with the federal government and use it to "protect our liberty."
If you need an example, I can name two:
1. Roe V. Wade,
2. Texas v. White
Expect that we will be seeing a lot of federal legislation soon to reinforce the Texas v White decision and insure that states aren't carrying out "jim crow" against the homosexuals.
Bizarre comment
I'm afraid you'll have to do better. First you espouse anarchy, then say that it's bizarre for me to call it anarchy?
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities. Seems as though you want to be the only one setting arbitrary standards. The arbitrary standards of others are totally invalid, however they meet the requirements set forth in the California constitution for legal enforcement, yet you should be exempt? What is your argument again?
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states. Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality
You've become silly. The state conventions ratified a plan for federal government of our republic.
If the BOR was done away with, our "republic" would still stand. The BOR is the foundation for our freedom, not our republic.
Specious nitpicking.
Not at all, republics have existed throughout history wherein the territorial governers have maintained their power through force of arms and subjugation of the people. They did not enjoy freedom, yet lived in a republic - to which you would reply "Specious nitpicking, back in your hole."
No, I'll reply that you are insane to say a ~republic~ maintains its "power through force of arms and subjugation of the people"...
-------------------------------------
CA's gun prohibition is "government working as designed"? What a clownish attitude.
Is this a serious? California does not have a protection built into their constitution that 46 other states do, and you're telling me that it was not done on purpose?
Yep, I believe it was simply an oversight. In the Ca of 1848 the RKBA's was a given. Everyone carried, at will.
Take a look at the history of your state, why do you suppose it does not contain that clause? My suspicion is that the Midwest states left it out because they knew that were there an explicit RKBA within the state, they could not implement laws such as Illinois 'black codes' and keep guns out of the hands of ethnic minorities. Do you suppose heavy oriental immigration into CA may have had a similar effect?
No, I doubt it did, as "heavy oriental immigration into CA" did not start till the gold rush. You've proven yourself a bigoted fool.
You cry and whine about CA doing to you exactly what she had in mind for others at the formation of the state,
Another bizarre claim..
then demand that somehow Washington do something, and, by corallary, Iowans (like me) help shoulder the burden. Like I said, CA government is working exactly as designed, only the target of it's prohibitions has changed.
Weird. -- You imagine CA's founders designed its constitution to be able to prohibit guns. Incredible...
------------------------------------
Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
Yeah, I don't even know why I'm replying. After all, you can already read my thoughts. Maybe I'll just freepmail you my password so that you can go around telling others what I think. In this case, you happen to be right.
Yep, it's merely more BS--- didn't I just say that?
Californian's problems with the government as they established it are not my problem, and I could give a crap less whether they decided to draw a letter of the alphabet out of a hat and drown everyone who's last name began with it.
More proof that you're a scofflaw. Thanks.
---------------------------------------
--- the people of CA did not include RKBA in their BOR at the state level. By living there, you grant implicit agreement with their governing documents, which have allowed them the leeway to restrict weapons.
More bull. -- I moved here as a citizen of the USA, with a 2nd amendment RKBA's, which has since been violated by unconstitutional state acts, which I fought since they were proposed. I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
So what then, every generation gets to re-ratify the constitution, bill of rights, and all amendments? The fact is that government is handed down from age to age and the only means for alteration are the amendment process and revolution.
Exactly my argument. CA cannot violate my RKBA's by fiat prohibitions.
You seem unwilling to carry out either, so you just complain and demand that the rest of the country do something about it. Your claim that your rights were violated is (to cop a word from you) specious at best. If you didn't know that CA was anti-gun when you moved there, then you're either 100 years old or don't watch the news much.
How dumb you are. - I moved to CA in '58, right after bearing army arms, --- and I can assure you there were few or no 'anti-gun' laws in the state. The feds 'ruled' with the NFA of '34, which 'taxed' all the evil weapons of the day.
Don't come into my neighborhood and demand that the age of consent is 14 because that was the case for your previous residence. It was a decision that you made, just like I said in an earlier post.
You're goofy. I made no such 'demand'.
--------------------------------
You are a constitutional scofflaw.
Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
Your own words belie you.
----------------------------------------
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy
Of course, you are wrong about this, and it is idiotic to continue your rambling. Go over to google and type in 'left libertarian' and you will see that this is not something I just made up. Really, those with smarts here are starting to get embarassed for you. I tried to give summary before, but you just demanded that there's no such thing. Let me help you once again: Left Libertarians are people like you. They want to consolidate power with the federal government and use it to "protect our liberty." If you need an example, I can name two: 1. Roe V. Wade, 2. Texas v. White Expect that we will be seeing a lot of federal legislation soon to reinforce the Texas v White decision and insure that states aren't carrying out "jim crow" against the homosexuals.
Bizarre comments
I'm afraid you'll have to do better. First you espouse anarchy, then say that it's bizarre for me to call it anarchy?
I didn't "espouse anarchy"... You are lying in your desperation to refute my rational comments.
-------------------------------------
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities.
Merely owning such a rifle is CRIMINAL in your mind, Gianni? Thank you, you've proved my point. Case closed.
Seems as though you want to be the only one setting arbitrary standards. The arbitrary standards of others are totally invalid, however they meet the requirements set forth in the California constitution for legal enforcement, yet you should be exempt? What is your argument again?
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states. Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality
You've become silly. The state conventions ratified a plan for federal government of our republic.
Indeed they did, and they agreed to be bound by the supreme law, -- which is our constitution, as amended. [See Art. VI]