The California experience

[old lady new shooter]

If California goes under that would be a good thing, are they allowing illegals to vote in their system, it would seem California should loose some of its electoral power and voting influence
Like said about it is a mess for sure

Yes, everybody who gets a driver license is automatically registered to vote.

 

[BSA1]

I agree with your 1st parts but not the 2nd part.

It sounds fine and dandy but the fact is that the Feds have handed you the AWB of 94…

Er…the AWB expired in 2004. I consider that to be a significant victory.

and about to again with the bump fire stocks at the encouragement…

Bump Fire stocks were a bad idea from the beginning. They serve no real practical purpose and it was inevitable that someone was going to shoot a place up.

and bill proposing from the states everyone wants to give up on is proof that its fundamentally flawed to think that youre fine as long as your state is fine so just worry about your own state.

There is a saying that all politics is local. You are right that I don’t care about what is happening in California. The harsh reality is gun owners and sportsmen and women failed to organize and put up a effective fight over the years. What I do care about is Kansas making the mistakes that happened in California.


Gun owners and sportsmen and women in Florida can flip the legislature and Governor if they organize and effectively get the voters out.

It took the 13 colonies to defeat the oppressive rule. They didn't win because of an 'every state for them self' mentality.

And they lost a lot of battles before the British pulled out. Wars are not won or lost on a single battle. Do some brushing up on your history and you will find many Americans did not support the revolution even after it ended.

New gun control laws are dead on a national level. Both parties know that even if you don’t. The real battle is the November elections. If the Democrats win control of House of Representatives they will immediately pass gun control bills along with impeaching the President. Our real concern then will be the RHINOS in the Senate.

 

[indyogb]

In replying about the Alamo....

'Don't Tread on Me' wasn't ever meant in the singular sense. In fact, it's roots, along with ' Join or Die ' go back to the 13 colonies banning together

It is entirely possible that you are correct. I would posit, however, that our country is now more similar to its makeup from its founding through the Civil War that at any time since. The Federal Government (and specifically the Executive Branch) has been given more power over the years. Given that it is now the end-all-be-all of government (in a practical sense), it strikes me that no one government (let alone one person) can accurately represent 300+ million people. During the Revolution (and the Texas Revolution), it was more likely someone identified more as being from their state than from the United States. I think the "retreat" and "state's rights" angle is just an outgrowth of people realizing the chasm that has grown between the coasts and "flyover country" (really, urban vs rural) and the corresponding difficulty in forcing our will upon those other states. In many political ways, we are in a position similar to that of the south before the Civil War (although I almost hesitate to bring up the comparison and I would argue, strenuously, that there is no moral equivalence in our positions).

 

[danez71]

Er…the AWB expired in 2004. I consider that to be a significant victory.

Bush said he would have signed it but it didn't make it to his desk.

That it expired is a victory?!?! Wow.

There is a saying that all politics is local.

Yes... there are a lot of sayin that sound nice and cleaver and make you eel good but are misleading at best.

What I do care about is Kansas making the mistakes that happened in California.

Well that's a start... and somewhat a contadiction/admission that all politics are not local.

Do some brushing up on your history and you will find many Americans did not support the revolution even after it ended

So what? Ok some didnt. But that doesn't undermine the facts. Dont try to obfuscate with meaningless trivial points.

Do some brushing up on recognizing that the reality is that enough of them did, apparently most of them did, and it was the banning together that enabled us to defeat the oppressive rule. No single colony would have defeated the Brits.

New gun control laws are dead on a national level. Both parties know that even if you don’t.

Really? You play ostrich often?

If the Democrats win control of House of Representatives they will immediately pass gun control bills

But you just said new control laws are DOA....another contradiction and in the same paragraph no less.

 

[danez71]

It is entirely possible that you are correct. I would posit, however, that our country is now more similar to its makeup from its founding through the Civil War that at any time since. The Federal Government (and specifically the Executive Branch) has been given more power over the years. Given that it is now the end-all-be-all of government (in a practical sense), it strikes me that no one government (let alone one person) can accurately represent 300+ million people. During the Revolution (and the Texas Revolution), it was more likely someone identified more as being from their state than from the United States. I think the "retreat" and "state's rights" angle is just an outgrowth of people realizing the chasm that has grown between the coasts and "flyover country" (really, urban vs rural) and the corresponding difficulty in forcing our will upon those other states. In many political ways, we are in a position similar to that of the south before the Civil War (although I almost hesitate to bring up the comparison and I would argue, strenuously, that there is no moral equivalence in our positions).

I dont think that really contradicts anything a said and I don't fundamentally disagree with anything.

Interesting and thoughtful... thanks.

 

[BSA1]

Sigh!

Bush said he would have signed it but it didn't make it to his desk.

That it expired is a victory?!?! Wow.

It was not passed again by Congress so that is a victory. Obviously not to you anyway.


There is a saying that all politics is local

Yes... there are a lot of sayin that sound nice and cleaver and make you eel good but are misleading at best.

Ok Civics lesson 101 for you. Your State and Federal legislative branches are made up of Congress people from your district and your region of the State. They are suppose to represent the will of the majority of people that voted for them. If you and people that share your beliefs don't organize and get enough voters to convince your Representative and Congress person that you have power to make reelection real difficult if he/she doesn't vote for the things you believe in then that is your fault. I don't know how much more local that can be unless they live in your neighborhood.

Well that's a start... and somewhat a contadiction/admission that all politics are not local.

You are obviously a quarrelsome person with anyone that doesn't share your opinion.

So what? Ok some didnt. But that doesn't undermine the facts. Dont try to obfuscate with meaningless trivial points.

Do some brushing up on recognizing that the reality is that enough of them did, apparently most of them did, and it was the banning together that enabled us to defeat the oppressive rule. No single colony would have defeated the Brits.

Early American history is not one of your strong points is it? Those are the facts. They are just inconvenient for you.

Really? You play ostrich often?

I don't think so. But I do live on the other side of the rainbow in the Merry Old Land of Oz.

But you just said new control laws are DOA....another contradiction and in the same paragraph no less.

sigh! There are no proposed FEDERAL gun laws that I know of that have a chance of being passed by both the House and Senate before the elections in November. What ones do you know of?

The proposed ban on Bump Fire stocks is not a result of a NEW FEDERAL LAW BEGIN PASSED.

Anyway all I have left to say to you is if you don't come in out of the rain you are going to get the drizzles.

 

[danez71]

It was not passed again by Congress so that is a victory. Obviously not to you anyway.

It's not a victory to me that it expired nor should be to anyone imo.

You are obviously a quarrelsome person with anyone that doesn't share your opinion.

Not at all. I like meaningful alternate views. See above post.

ETA. I don't even like pistol gripped rifles. I've said it many times here. However, those that do, have good meaningful reason to. I'm not the least bit 'quarrelsome' as yoy say because they make sense even though they don't share my view.

Early American history is not one of your strong points is it? Those are the facts. They are just inconvenient for you.

It's not that it isnt convenient to me.

It's that it's irrelevant that some didnt want the revolution because it was the majority that did and their combined strength is what is meaningful and lead to our Constitution.




Civics lesson 102 for you. It's the non-local to you polticians that gave you Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and now Harris and countless others too, that you have to live with at the federal level.

Some or all of those non-local to you politicians are the ones that introduced and helped force feed you the Fed AWB in 94.

Yeaaaaa, sure.... all politics are local. Not.

 

[Flechette]

Look up the many graphs and maps of federal taxes vs federal spending. As well as total revenue generated, as well as per capita, and you start to see something. Here is one that spans a good couple decades covering federal spending vs revenue:

View attachment 783067

Much of the conservative generally more pro-gun America make the feds less money than they cost them or break even.
Like it or not California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, New York, and etc with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation pay for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, etc with strong gun rights.

I am dubious on much of the data used to make such maps. Remember who is assembling and making the data: big government people (like the IRS and U.S. Treasury) who most often look down on rural states.

Take for example, Wyoming.

Much of what Wyoming generates in GDP comes from mining. The Mineral Leasing Act states that mineral royalties should be split 50-50% between the State and the Feds.

However, that money is taken by the U.S. Treasure and only 48% is given back; a 2% "collection fee" (not in the law) is withheld. Wyoming has been suing the Feds to get that money back.

To add insult to injury the Feds now give that 48% back and document it as Federal *aid* to the state. In other words, it makes Wyoming look like a taker.

Remember, the source for all the mining wealth in this transaction, ALL of it, is Wyoming. The Feds are not mining anything. They are simply pushing paper. But the Federal bookkeepers manage to make Wyoming look like it is receiving Federal support to survive.

I suspect that there are many more examples of such bookkeeping tricks by the Feds to make those icky Red States look like they are receiving more than they are giving.

 

[Zoogster]

Oh absolutely, that is how government works it lives off of the people. A government job usually creates no GDP and only consumes it. It creates no product, and does not generate wealth to tax.
Government knows this and is why they do try to help out the big revenue makers. They know they are a parasite and rely on the private sector.
When government does try to do things they are inefficient requiring more dollars to accomplish less. The only upside of the government vs the private sector is they are supposed to answer to the people meaning they are supposed to be under more direct voter control. Inefficient but voter controlled.
It is also why the founders encouraged as small of a government as you can have and still provide the necessary services and control.
The more people employed by the government the less free a nation is, as those people will vote for themselves and their jobs even when doing so is not financially sound, so if the percent of the population employed by government gets too high you will have a solid voting block that swings elections towards unrealistic spending.


I would also add that one of the biggest reasons New York is a huge contributor in tax revenue is because they are managing and playing with the wealth of the rest of the nation through the financial system and Wall Street. So a lot of the taxes generated there actually stem from manipulation of wealth of other parts of the nation.
The middle of the nation also feeds the country, and while farming is subsidized, without it people would rely on imports to eat which may not always be reliable. Depending on people outside our nation to avoid famine is not smart policy. So even if the dollar value given is a certain number the real value to the nation is higher than that number implies.

The government farms the people, that is how it works. Just look at how we create a new government in other parts of the world and you can understand a simple less developed government.
You give a bunch of people the best weapons in the area, train them how to use them so they can defeat everyone else in their borders, put them into debt to pay for those and other modernization/rebuilding, then direct them to recover those costs by taxing their people. Viola you have brought their citizens under the control of the modern banking system and that nation can be manipulated by the worldwide financial system thousands of miles away. The citizens once free to roam around herding goats or farming the patch of dirt outside their modest dwelling they pay no mortgage on and doing what they wanted now must be more productive because they are taxed and only keep a fraction of what they generate and must work harder. It also insures they answer to someone locally that the world has influence over.

In our own society we have a debt based system that keeps most people in debt from the time they finish secondary education in the form of school loans for higher education they then must work constantly to pay off. Auto loans for an asset that loses most of its value artificially (insurance and bluebook values are part of the banking system and artificially controlled) by the time it is paid off encouraging people to take out a new loan and permanently have a financed payment. And mortgages/rent where the average person spends most of their lives working to pay for basic shelter. Basic shelter where they primarily sleep and store their possessions as they are working elsewhere most of their awake hours.
Local government wants people in the highest value properties they can be because property taxes are based on a percent of the home value, and the more expensive the homes the more wealth they get to play with. And state and federal government work with the financial system and bank to keep everything balanced, meaning they can extract as much value from the population as possible without damaging the system.
You are farmed no different than cattle, and beyond just taxes the value of your dollar and what it buys also has some wealth extracted out so there is hidden taxes that are not even considered taxes.
The whole purpose is so nobody can ever sit in their rocking chair on their porch on the family farm and relax, as they once did. They must work non stop generating maximum revenue until they get too senile to do so. This gives the government the maximum amount of tax dollars. As the population gets wealthier the burden put on them is increased, so they never can be idle.
The American Dream before the Great Depression wasn't to have a home, it was to have a self reliant estate and is what the term once implied before it came to mean only its legal terminology or wealthy property today. With a dream like that everyone also appreciated the right to have guns that could deal with anything that needed managing or threatened the estate. That is why the RKBA is closely connected to the Yeomen of old, before bows were replaced by guns. Most archers were Yeomen, and why the Battle of Agincourt meant so much. The power had shifted to the people and away from the police state knights/men at arms.
But a self reliant piece of property without a mortgage doesn't generate maximum government revenue or encourage those living at it to do so.

But yes the federal government will always take more than people can do without, so that they then rely on government to give some of it back. Terms and conditions are then placed on what is given back.
That is how they control state and local government.

 

[tark]

Wow!

 

[4v50 Gary]

Former Asst. Sect. of the Treasury under Reagan Dr. Paul Craig Roberts puts it best, "An armed populace is incompatible with the police state." The election of Trump was an upset for the globalists who sought to dismember the United States. This has been in progress for a long time but became evident with George H. W. Bush who called for the New World Order. Every president since him has been on that agenda and every presidential candidate supported it - except Trump. Trump to his credit recognizes their achilles heel and issued his E.O. on human trafficking. It's the first pushback in decades and thus the doubling down of anti-2A efforts. Soros funded the three Delta Airline load of students who protested at Washington. I for one don't care what some kid has to say about my civil rights. They're too ignorant to know what is at stake. Push back we must as well as take back the government. Don't vote for incumbents. They're all bought off and besides, they stole enough money the first time.

Every congress critter is allowed to work the law to their advantage. Campaign contributions, insider trading tips, immunity from insider trading laws (which applies to you and me) and before the end of their first term, they're multi-millionaires. It worked for Fineswine whose husband's initial fortune of $16 has grown at least tenfold. Ditto for Pelosi. Each congress critter has a "control file" on them which allows the paymaster to persuade them to vote per instructions. That's why 0-care, TARP, Bush's Homeland Security, Bathhouse Barry's NDAA '12 were all passed easily j- some which the congress critters didn't even read.

We learned here in Colorado that the only thing a politician listens to is the threat of recall (local elections only) or of being unseated in their bid for reelection. I learned in San Francisco that the people can vote against something, but if the political will is for it, it gets passed anyway. Rent Control, Domestic Partner health care and six-figure salaries for the Board of Supervisors were all voted down by the people but was sneaked in one way or another. Lesson: Keep your politicians under tight control. Boot 'em frequently.

 

[harrygunner]

Can a constitutional republic stave off government trends toward tyranny? The U.S. is an experiment that will add to the tomes of history.

The other side of national decay is the people's trend toward apathy and decadence. How to fight that? History has shown that trend is just as prevalent. A constitution can't stop a people willing to gut it.

The offspring of a tortoise born in 1776 could be alive today. But, in that short time, we've become an indebted, drug addled nation.

We as a people need to get our act together.

 

[Zoogster]

We as a people need to get our act together.

What? I'm sorry I was texting.
Had to make sure the Tivo was recording my favorite show, so when I get that little bit of time off work later its ready.
The kid shouldn't need me anyways, they still got their daily 5 hours of homework to do when they get out of their afterschool program, which is longer than they have before bedtime. Its okay the school system is raising them great. Just gotta be sure to make great memories with that occasional vacation, I will post pics of it all over my facebook.

On my way to pick up a giant microphone that I can put in my house that talks to me and pretends to be my friend, not that I need a friend, I have several thousand on social media.
In the couple hours I am off work per day, when my phone is not in my face, and i'm not posting about my lunch on twitter, and I finally catch up with all my favorite TV shows crowding my Tivo I will try to figure out what you mean. Then again that really cool video game is coming out soon with a virtual reality that almost makes up for my reality, and someone wants a date on my dating app and I haven't been laid by my wife that I never see in awhile so...

Did you say something about drugs? Oh the kid takes adderall and ritalin to study better already the school recommended it! Getting them ready for meth, then they can really study! Gotta make sure they get into a good school. They do seem a little depressed though on the rare occasion I spend time with them, might have to add an anti-depressant soon.
Or did you mean my oxycontin prescription that is getting harder to fill? No big deal heroin is cheaper and right around the corner, that war in Afghanistan really helped out with the price.

/sarcasm

 

[harrygunner]

If only that was all the OP is feeling ...

Relatively benign distraction is one thing, undermining our strength is another.

California's pattern is to support weakness and attack strengths. It's that simple.

If you're doing something illegal, there's a tax payer supported program for you.

If you are expressing independence and self-sufficiency, there are regulations and laws to discourage you.

For example, drug using, illegal aliens have shelters. Business owners, gun owners feel pressure to leave.

Our Constitution needs the opposite of California's leanings to support its intention.

 

[340PD]

To the OP. Under no circumstances would I remain living if CA. Unless they can morph into two distinct states I think any freedom loving individual that chooses to live there on the coast is lying to themselves.

California was actually quite conservative and had better gun rights than most of the east coast, and even a lot of the nation in the 1980s. When the gang culture exploded California began down the road it is on now with the population being duped into given up their rights.
Prior to that they got scared of the armed black panthers and started the initial restrictions when Republican champ Ronald Reagan banned open carry.
Later Republican champ Ronald Reagan would also grant Amnesty to millions of illegals, most of whom lived in California and while the Bay Area was already quite left leaning from the influx of every demographic that didn't fit in in the rest of the country flooding to it in the 1960s, the state didn't become permanently blue until Reagan gave amnesty and added millions of votes to the other side.


The middle the country cannot stand against the coasts.

This is much bigger than Republican/Democrat, but the only reason Trump won is the electoral college, which barely allowed both Trump and George W. Bush in his first election to get in power.
They lost the popular vote, and the demographic changes in the US mean they will continue to lose ground, because the growing parts of our population are not conservatives.


The middle of the nation has less population and also spends more government money than it generates. The feds get most of their money from New York, California, and yes Texas. The states that generate most of the federal government's money are left leaning.

Look up the many graphs and maps of federal taxes vs federal spending. As well as total revenue generated, as well as per capita, and you start to see something. Here is one that spans a good couple decades covering federal spending vs revenue:

View attachment 783067

Much of the conservative generally more pro-gun America make the feds less money than they cost them or break even.
Like it or not California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, New York, and etc with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation pay for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, etc with strong gun rights.

Why does that matter? Well money is what the government operates on and you better believe they take note. It also means the people it relies on the most to accomplish what it does are generally from more left leaning liberal areas that generally have less firearm freedom. Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania tow the line, but the feds definitely depend more on left leaning anti-gun locations to fund the government.

All that math is interesting but I look at it from the standpoint that the US government is subsidizing all those states by allowing the deduction from federal taxes their state taxes. That has now changes and it should be interesting next year.