I'm sure heterosexuals would be up in arms in no time if the state said heterosexuals are now limited to civil unions while gay couples can have marriages.

Gays and supporters shouldn't be instigating fights and religious sects should mind their own business when laws don't affect them.

 

im sick of seeing all the no signs still. i think people take my neighbors signs off the road, but then they reappear as if there is a stockpile of them somewhere.

Yeah they asked for too much on the prop IMO

 

Actually you are right. The Second may not be "more important" it recognizes a god given (or natural) right just as the others do (though the founders obviously felt it important or they wouldn't have written it down (also in many countries where the Government has turned against it's people they first secured the peoples firearms).

It is infringed in many states especially the "oh so Progressive ones" what part of "bear" is hard to understand (though California seems to have a special hoplophobia.) Owning doesn't help you if you don't have access to it to protect yourself/ family.
Lets look at it this way.
How about you have the right to peaceably assemble, but only at home or a designated "free speech" zone?
Or you can own a computer; any variety, but you can't have an Alien ware, unless you are a registered Gamer (those are especially powerful), and not a wireless lan unless you run a internet cafe. And computers may only have either a 1. DVD burner or internet access (both causes piracy)
How about this Gays can marry but they can only be "married at home". Makes sense right? No of course none of that crap makes sense does it?


It has been.. Many gun owners feel we've been fighting this since 1934. However most gun owners are not violent (several are prior/ current military).. We tend to realize that you can get more by legitimate means than by bad behavior.) Going out and shooting people every time some dip**** California Senator passes some stupid anti-gun law would not only be a waste of perfectly good paper killing ammo, but would also prove the need for those a-holes to pass stupid laws. However supporting organizations that support our rights while slower, most gun owners prefer to work within the system (for now)If gun owners were as irresponsible and stupid as the No on 8 fanboys had been, California would have had to replace their senate, governorship etc several times over by now.

This shows a basic misunderstanding of the constitution and how government works (do they still teach Civics in School?). What they are doing is terrorizing those that "voted yes on 8" because they didn't like the vote. One it doesn't help their position. Two, it wastes energy that could be spent doing real work.
I didn't for the "Great Zero" (Nor did 48% of US voters) but I'm not out assaulting people that did. I lost my right to carry when I was stationed here. (before that I was in Nebraska) We fought for 5 years to get right to carry and lost (by one vote) every year until the year I left
We didn't harass voters that voted the other way, we just worked on the next year. By terrorizing those that didn't vote their way they become the bigots.

 

If gun owners really felt their right to bear arms they would be any less violent then the N0 on 8 fanboys. But it hasn't, they're just pissing because they can't buy the super cool looking guns in the progressive states that they hate so much but still decide to live in.

Banning certain weapons was a failed attempt at disarming criminals. The average citizen has to pay the price for that. It was an attempt to use a simple solution for an overly complicated problem. Regular citizens weren't the intended victim of the law, but many of them like to believe that they are. That's their prerogative, just like the No on 8 protesters. At least they're actually doing something about it instead of sitting around whimpering about how their second amendment rights have been infringed upon, and how important the right really is (probably much more important than gays marrying each other), yet not doing anything about it.

Funny how the sissy gay people are fighting back and the 2nd amendment supporters just whine.

 

This is true, Cal Gun owners didn't do a lot when Roberti Roos passed, they didn't get organized till the later 90's really they've been struggling to keep what they have (which isn't much anymore). Though I wasn't here for the laws that passed in 89, or many since and I don't participate in CA politics I'm just stationed here. I don't have the time now to discuss all the problems with CA Gun owners as a group (and I'd be missing things I'm sure)