By Jack

Recently the notoriously liberal, 9th circuit court, held that open carry of a firearm in CA is legal and that the magazines with more than 10 rounds are also legal, and this is based solely on Constitutional grounds.

Okay, so that’s great – I agree with them.  They were finally forced to restrain a crazy CA legislature that has been passing un-Constitutional laws for years.   Our legislature has gone too far and they just got spanked. (Ha-ha)

Now two gun laws have been returned to where they were for the last 150 years.  But, that wasn’t good enough for the CA Dept. of Justice was it?  No.   They vowed to vigorously pursue the restoration of these overturned and now illegal gun laws.

In other words, they are choosing to support by the power of their state office, those two un-Constitutional (illegal) laws because… why?  Because their democrat handlers told them too? Because they are packed full of far left ideologs and don’t care what the Constitution says?

They are publicly saying they will use their office (and your tax money) to reverse the decision of the Appellate Court.   The last time I checked, this was NOT in their job description.  By the way,  I just checked again 5 minutes ago. 

“The DoJ, is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice.  The DoJ carries out complex criminal & civil investigations, prosecutions, and other legal services throughout the state.”  The Dept. of Justice, like any other law enforcement body, is charged with enforcing the laws on the books.  They are not a lobbying group and they clearly have no right to play anti-gun politics.  Their job is to serve the will of the people and enforce the law.   This deviation is outrageous breach of protocol and it calls into question, is our Dept. of Justice just a corrupt, politically controlled, arm of the Democratic Party?   If so, shouldn’t they be investigated by the federal Dept. of Justice or the FBI?

My humble opinion is, California is corrupt.  We’ve become a virtual socialist state run by far left, power hungry, crazy-people that do not respect my gun rights, our federal authority or the Constitution of the United States.   

What’s your opinion?  


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. J. Soden says:

    You are absolutely correct. And the result of a lunkhead legislature dominated by Demwits.
    What’s really amazing is that the ruling was handed down from the 9th Circus!
    And since Taxiforrnia has decided to allow Illegals to vote, until that’s challenged and removed I doubt if there’s much hope for regaining sanity.

    • Chris says:

      “And since Taxiforrnia has decided to allow Illegals to vote”

      This did not happen.

      • Harold says:

        “This did not happen”, Yes it has, sort of, San Francisco has established a first step, while the illegals may not be able to vote in all election now, in Francisco they used one of the popular 3 reasons to pass a proposition. As well as schools to pass this city ordinance.

        The big 3 are always, Clean air, Clean water and Kids!

        So while it may be limited right now, give it time as the Liberals use this toe hold to expand and champion a new base of voters.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Harold, thanks for the link…I found this part enlightening, “If our apathetic citizens continue to turn out at barely 50 percent in off-year elections, the chances of motivated non-citizens having a substantial impact on the outcomes of entry-level political races such as Board of Education, will increase as both politicians and non-citizens see a path forward for real foreign influence in our elections, far more tangible and potent than the specter of Russian bots tweeting propaganda in a social media echo chamber. While we are distracted by such issues at the national level, on the ground, non-Americans are having a growing impact every day at the polls. The Russian bots aren’t voting on the billion-dollar school board governance – but foreign nationals surely are, and the movement is coming to a city near you.”

      • J. Soden says:

        Chris is back and is STILL wrong! Already happening in San Francisco. And it’ the old “camel’s nose under the tent.”

  2. RHT447 says:

    Build it, and they will come.

    You already know my opinion, Jack. GTFO. It is a perfect example of what would have happened had the Witch of Chappaqua been elected. Somebody breaking the law? Just who exactly were you planning to call?

  3. Libby says:

    Yeah, when the Deep State bangs on the door and tells you to hand them over … you let me know. In the meantime, I recommend Ativan.

    And I’d give this serious thought, because, in this Glorious State of California, if you publicly demonstrate irrational paranoias, political or otherwise, they WILL come take your guns. What’s more, you are just not going to be able to find too many people who object to this.

    • Harold says:

      Hey Libby, just letting you know:

      and there are more links, should you really want to know!

      and yes this is how Hitlers Germany started out with gun control methods by singling out certain classes of people and establishing a precedence for gun confiscation.

      • Libby says:

        Harold, you are going to have to find reports NOT made by gun-nuts … if you want to be persuasive.

        • Harold says:

          Libby, I would suggest you open your eyes and mind to what has already taken place By A.J. K.Harris, (prior CA AG) and documented with actual court decisions, then reported.

          You need to understand that Legal gun owners are responsible people, with overwilling evidence to support my comment, and not your contrary smear they are gun-nuts. But your anti gun smear is typical of the false hood your ideology so often uses to mislead people.

          What California has done already is documented, and if it takes pro gun people to bring out the truth, so be it.

          However if your going to wallow in the selective Liberal crap you read in Salon or Huff post, you will never have the facts correct to understand the truth .

          I gave you viable links to start, if they don’t suit your ideology, that’s not my problem, but yours.

          However if you cant get beyond your own blindness to what direction California will go to achieve it’s real position of trouncing ALL 2nd Amendment rights, which includes spinning false Liberal propaganda about guns, as well as anything political to achieve a anti gun population, then please keep your bias to yourself, because your just parroting the false BS spewed by anti gun propaganda.

  4. Cherokee Jack says:

    Jack: as a friend I want to caution you to temper your remarks. The State isn’t going to continue to allow such treasonous dissent for much longer. You’re already on the list of registered gun owners, and I’m sure your history of anti-social blogging is being re-examined closely. Be aware that resistance is futile.

  5. Chris says:

    I’ve told you this before, and I know you don’t care, but Hitler didn’t enact “gun control” in Nazi Germany. He actually loosened gun regulations on the citizenry, as Nazi Germany was a macho, gun-loving culture. Jews were declared non-citizens and had all their property confiscated; you may as well say Hitler favored “bike control” since that was among the first items the Nazis stole from them.

    I am more pro-gun than I used to be, but the meme you’re using here is misleading.

    • Cherokee Jack says:

      Did I mention Hitler? I don’t think so. I don’t think I ever have in this context. I don’t give a rat’s @$$ what the nazis did in the context of today’s Big State

      • Chris says:

        I don’t know how you mistook my comment on Regular Jack’s article, which uses an inaccurate meme claiming Hitler supported gun control, as a reply to you, Cherokee Jack.

    • Tina says:

      The simplicity of your argument, Chris, is extremely misleading.

      An article in
      The American Spectator
      , “Hitler and Gun Control,” cites a report, “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” by Stephen P. Halbrook:

      One of the issues that liberals and gun control advocates are most loath to discuss is how heavily and effectively totalitarians and mass murderers have relied upon gun registration and other firearms controls to round up “enemies of the state.” Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mussolini all seized upon gun laws to punish, incarcerate, and even exterminate their opponents, while permitting their own evil cliques to expand and strengthen the state and party monopolies on gun ownership.

      Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney and Research Fellow with the Independent Institute in California, has written a remarkably well-documented analysis of how Adolf Hitler and his Nazi henchmen in the government made private, “unauthorized” gun ownership a capital crime, while using registration records to effectively turn ordinary Germans into instant criminals.

      Halbrook’s book took 15 years to research and write, and he relied on German archivists and translators to assist him in plowing through original records and files from 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s Germany. The result is Gun Control in the Third Reich, a fascinating, readable, informative and important book.

      Conservatives, libertarians, and pro-Second Amendment advocates who believe or presumed that Hitler initiated all of the gun controls of the era will be disabused of that misinformation by Halbrook. We learn from him that extensive gun registration and controls were actually implemented by liberal Weimar Republic leaders in the late 1920s. In those days, Berlin and other German cities were repeatedly rocked by violent street battles between Communist and Nazi thugs, with police often bearing the brunt of the confrontations. For example, during Communist-led confrontations in Berlin, one Erich Mielke murdered two police captains, earning his Communist “street cred,” while cavalierly creating orphans. Mielke escaped prosecution by making his way to the Soviet Union, where he remained until the Nazi defeat in 1945. Mielke thereupon joined the East German Secret Police (STASI), where a frightening bureaucracy relied on hundreds of thousands of informers, while internal “professionals” were refining new ways to physically and psychologically torture countrymen whose loyalty to the state was under review.

      Mielke clawed his way to become director of the STASI in 1957, where he remained a feared and hated presence until the collapse of the Communist government in 1989.

      In 1931, the Berlin police recorded the murders of 47 members of the Nazi Brownshirts (SA), and 80 members of the Communist Rotfront (Red Front), mostly in street battles with each other. In this sort of environment, German liberals of the day were hoping that gun registration and controls would restrain the violence racking their urban centers. In a lesson for future jurisdictions considering new restrictions on private ownership of firearms, it became obvious that neither the Nazis nor the Communists registered or turned in their weapons. Ordinary, law-abiding Germans did register their legally owned guns. But they were no threat to public tranquility.

      On October 4, 1938, Nazi police arrested one Alfred Flatow in Berlin. His crime: being a Jew in lawful possession of a firearm. Lawful because he had dutifully registered his guns in January 1932, complying with the pre-Hitler anti-firearm decrees of the Weimar Republic. The arresting police were probably unaware that Flatow won Gold and Silver medals for Germany in the 1896 Olympics. He had also served in the German army in the 1890s.

      As Weimar leaders were implementing their gun registration initiatives, they stressed how lists of gun owners and registrants had to remain confidential and needed to be kept away from “radical elements.” Less than a year later, Hitler took control of the national government, and his minions did gain possession of the entire national list of gun registrants. The Nazis used the registration lists to identify Jews, Roma, and other “enemies” who possessed firearms, so they could be disarmed.

      In 1942, the Nazi government ordered Flatow to be deported. This action was protested by some of his Christian teammates from the 1896 German Olympic team, but to no avail. In October he was transported, along with 1,021 other deportees, to the Theresienstadt Concentration Camp. In December, the 73-year old Alfred Flatow died at the camp, of starvation.

      The Weimar gun control law of 1928 allowed police to deny firearms ownership to any “unreliable” person. The Nazis seized on this language, eventually making unauthorized ownership of guns and other weapons a very serious crime. As the Nazis were consolidating their power in the 1930s, there were two incidents where young male Jews, acting alone, assassinated Nazi leaders. In Paris, a young man shot and killed a German diplomat, and in Switzerland, the leader of the local Nazi party was also fatally shot. After each incident, the Nazis used the Ministry of Propaganda to demonize all Jews, and moved to restrict Jewish access to weapons. The Paris incident became the excuse for sparking the terrible “Kristallnacht” pogrom, where synagogues were set ablaze, Jewish stores were looted, and many Jewish citizens were beaten by brownshirted thugs.

      On November 10, 1938, the Nazi Interior Department formally decreed that persons defined as Jews under the infamous Nuremberg Laws were prohibited from possessing any types of weapons. They declared that Jews possessing weapons would be subject to 20-year sentences in concentration camps. In the nations and territories invaded and occupied on Hitler’s orders, private gun ownership was punishable by death.

      The Nazis also moved to control others who possessed weapons. Despite protests, the government banned all voluntary “shooting clubs” (Schuetzenvereine) in Germany. These clubs were popular forms of recreation across the nation, and many club leaders opposed the ban and even expressed objections to the Nazi government. As Hitler was rapidly centralizing and broadening his powers, he dissolved all local and independent shooting and sports clubs on May 10, 1933. Two weeks later, he created the Nazi-controlled German Shooting Sport Association (Deutscher Schiesssportverband), which became another mouthpiece for the Nazi government and, with war on the horizon, a source of males already trained in marksmanship. …

      … In addition to seeking ordinary information about individuals living in each household, the Nazis added a nefarious question in column 22: German citizens had to provide information on their religious affiliation, with Protestants getting punch hole #1 marked, Catholics #2, and Jews identified via punch hole #3.

      Then, with a simple cross-reference with the nation’s gun registration lists, Hitler’s henchmen easily identified those Jews with legally registered firearms.

      Earlier this year while in Berlin, I rented a car and drove about 20 miles to the north to tour the notorious Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp. First built as a pre-war facility to detain opponents of the Hitler regime, Sachsenhausen was later used to imprison gypsies (now Roma), homosexuals, prisoners of war, and Jews. About 105,000 Jews perished there, and notables such as a former Chancellor of Austria, the 1935 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and courageous Christian resistance leader Martin Niemöller were held there.

      German curators and researchers have done an outstanding job of cataloguing the murdered and imprisoned at Sachsenhausen, along with their biographies and individual odysseys during the Nazi era. However, there is no mention of how many tens of thousands of Jews and “irritants” to the regime were identified through the comprehensive German gun registration system that fell into the Nazis’ lap, prior “safeguards” notwithstanding.

      Is the horrible conversion of the Weimar Republic’s naively intentioned gun registration and control system into an efficient instrument of Nazi evil a cautionary tale for the United States? It is hard to imagine our nation descending into a dictatorship, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of an individual right to weapons ownership makes such a nightmare still less likely.

      But the fact that a Hitler or Stalin could not take power here does not mean that some politicians in power won’t try to further erode Second Amendment rights and other freedoms, toward some “greater good” they define.

      There are countless examples of liberal efforts to harass and regiment the 100 million legal owners of firearms in the United States, ranging from long-standing registration laws in many states to the costly and heavy handed “Safe Act” of Governor Cuomo’s in New York. Readers of Gun Control in the Third Reich, however, may sense an involuntary chill moving down their spines when they learn of announced plans of the police in Buffalo, New York.

      Gun control advocates almost always swear that registration schemes and other new gun laws will never lead to firearms confiscation. Surveys indicate that Americans overwhelmingly favor gun safety, yet oppose confiscation by wide margins as well.

      But recall the alarming report from last fall: the mayoral administration and appointed police leaders in Buffalo, New York declared their intention to descend upon the homes of recently deceased Buffalonians who, as determined by “crosschecking” (no IBM punch card system needed in 2015) were also legally permitted gun owners. Their mission: to remove firearms from the decedents’ homes, while families and friends are still grieving and organizing their loved ones’ wills and affairs. In their plan, Buffalo officials would execute this ghoulish confiscation scheme before families had time to consider whether to apply for retention of the family firearm, or perhaps to make a gift to another relative or responsible party.

      The United States has remained a free nation because of our federal and state Constitutions, with their definitive separations of powers. Presidents, governors, and now a Mayor of Buffalo have overstepped their bounds time and again, but are most always eventually made to heel by the federal judiciary or by their respective legislative bodies.

      So, no, we are not heading toward totalitarianism. But in era when the president’s appointees eavesdrop on reporters’ communications, punish political adversaries through the considerable power of the IRS, and collect growing files of information on as many Americans as possible, we must be concerned with the Orwellian implications of blocking ordinary Americans’ access to firearms, while using gun registration files and other personal information for their political purposes.

      Words like “enemy of the state” or “radical elements” and “unauthorized” made every citizen a target for gun confiscation depending on their cooperation and loyalty to Hitler’s Germany which later expanded to include the nations he invaded and took over.

      The left has been using similar methods to oppress people and deny them their rights under our Constitution. Right wing affiliated law abiding citizens have been labeled “a threat to our democracy,” accused of “racism,” and placed on “hate” lists. Their speech and assembly rights have been denied. Twitter and Facebook accounts have been banned or manipulated. And left wing leaders in states and cities across the nation are refusing to enforce laws.

      The NRA is a high level target/NRA leaders and spokespersons are being harassed at their homes and threatened with death. Any associated company has been targeted for harassment. The NRA, ironically, has been labeled a Nazi organization.

      The left advocates for stricter gun control while refusing to support law enforcement and the rule of law. If your party, which has moved to the extreme left, are given control of our government again who will decide which citizens are “enemies of the state?” Who will decide which citizens are “unauthorized” to own guns due to their enemy affiliations?

      The point is we may not be there yet but our nation is being pushed closer to the evils of the Nazi (and the communist) models that resulted in severe oppression and death. God only knows why Democrats choose to associate with the ideal and principles of the communist and fascists that so quickly became totalitarian nightmares when in America they have a much superior model. It was one thing to have the communist party in America, iit’s quite another to have a party completely taken over by these monstrous ideas.

      As an educator, Chris, you are obligated to know the truth about a subject and teach the children of America. Your education has failed you so it’s up to you to fill in the blanks. I hope this article is informative in that respect. I hope it will inspire you to learn and come to a greater understanding of the evils of that era, the dangers cropping up in our country, and the elements in your party (still a democrat?) that embrace the same types of controls and power.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Re: “As an educator, Chris, you are obligated to know the truth about a subject and teach the children of America.”

        That fell on deaf ears. The only obligation Chris has is to cherry pick information that serves his political agenda. Intelligent students will figure out he is full of it. The rest will become Democrats , Antifa or inmates.

      • Chris says:


        Halbrook is not a historian, but a litigator and gun lobbyist. I don’t take issue with much of the facts the American Spectator piece cites from him, but the interpretation of those facts–that there is something inherently Nazi-like about gun control, and that legal access to guns would have helped the Jews avoid the Holocaust–is disputed by historians and Jewish groups alike.

        Again, I do favor the individual right to bear arms and I won’t deny that is under threat by elements on the left. But the Hitler analogy is strained.

        I do find this part, which I think is your words, ironic:

        Words like “enemy of the state” or “radical elements” and “unauthorized” made every citizen a target for gun confiscation depending on their cooperation and loyalty to Hitler’s Germany which later expanded to include the nations he invaded and took over.

        The left has been using similar methods to oppress people and deny them their rights under our Constitution. Right wing affiliated law abiding citizens have been labeled “a threat to our democracy,” accused of “racism,” and placed on “hate” lists. Their speech and assembly rights have been denied. Twitter and Facebook accounts have been banned or manipulated. And left wing leaders in states and cities across the nation are refusing to enforce laws.

        The current president has literally labeled the news media the “enemy of the people.” He has placed children in the equivalent of internment camps because of misdemeanor offenses committed by their parents, with no real plan on how to reunite them. I don’t like Hitler analogies period, but the Nazi-like rhetoric you point out above is eerily close to Trump’s own. There are oppressive forces on both sides of the aisle and they should be fought wherever they are found.

        • Tina says:

          Chris, the President said that fake news is the enemy of the people…there’s a distinct difference….a fake news difference.

          Trump has placed children in the same facilities that Obama placed them in…fake news at work again!

          In what way have American citizens been “oppressed” by Trump? Not his words, Chris, his actions. Trumps tweets cannot possibly equal the horrendous multitude of left wing criticisms, lies and propaganda that have been united against him. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. There isn’t an equivalency to draw.

          Trump is refusing to tolerate the hate filled intentions to ruin him. He is simply fighting back…and with people that used to invite him to be on their shows, fawned all over him, and welcomed him to their weddings and parties. Such phoniness is a high indicator of persons with very little integrity and a willingness to do anything for power and control.

          • Chris says:

            “Chris, the President said that fake news is the enemy of the people…there’s a distinct difference….a fake news difference.”

            No, there is not a difference. Trump calls any news that he doesn’t like “fake news.” When he says the “fake news media,” he is referring to CNN, CBS, MSNBC…basically every cable news organization other than FOX. He’s also including the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP, and every fact-checking agency in that assessment.

            In other words, the news media.

            You know that, and you must know I know that, so I’m unclear who exactly you’re trying to mislead here.

            “Trump has placed children in the same facilities that Obama placed them in…fake news at work again!”

            Misleading again. The facilities under Obama were only used for *unaccompanied* minors, and they were put there because there was nowhere else for them to go, and released quickly. Obama did NOT intentionally separate children from their parents, as the Trump administration chose to do as a deterrence policy (Sessions’ own words). When families were caught illegally crossing, they were released and given court dates, to which 75% of them returned to. Huge difference–the Trump administration did not have a plan for how to humanely accommodate that many children, leading to the dehumanizing conditions I am sure you have read about included forcible drugging.

            “In what way have American citizens been “oppressed” by Trump?”

            I didn’t say he oppressed American citizens, but since you asked, kicking trans soldiers out of the military certainly counts.

            Not his words, Chris, his actions. Trumps tweets cannot possibly equal the horrendous multitude of left wing criticisms, lies and propaganda that have been united against him. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. There isn’t an equivalency to draw.

            You can’t pretend that Trump is simply “fighting back” when he opened with aggression. He made his political reputation by attacking Obama’s citizenship with lies. During his campaign announcement he fearmongered about Mexican immigrants, implying that most were rapists, drug dealers and murderers. Was he just “fighting back” when he said Megyn Kelly must have been on her period because she asked him a mildly tough question? Was he “fighting back” when he said POWs weren’t heroes? Was he “fighting back” when he said no one would vote for Carly Fiorina because she was ugly? Was he “fighting back” when he said Ted Cruz’s wife was ugly and that his dad probably had something to do with the JFK assassination? Was he “fighting back” when he said Jeb Bush had to support illegal immigration because his wife was Mexican? Was he “fighting back” when he said a judge might not be able to rule fairly on a case involving him because the judge was Mexican?

            Tell me, what did any of these (Republican) ever say about him to justify these petty attacks?

            You need to accept that this guy is just a mean, awful, unethical person. You can do that and still hate the Left.

  6. Post Scripts says:

    Cherokee Jack, yup that thought has cross my so-called mind several times recently.

    One of these days I’ll probably discover I’m on a no-fly list. If that ever happens… I betcha when I return home all disappointed cause I missed my vacation, the guberment men will be waiting for me!

    I can just imagine Ms. Libby standing on top of an armored personnel carrier provided by DOJ, pointing me out to the Uber-democrat sniper squad perched in my trees. She screams, “That’s him, that’s him! He’s probably got a gun or something…shoot that sucker, he’s a conservative!” Followed by a cacophony of ka-pow-pow, pa-pa-pow, blam, blam, blam, blam, rattatatat, kapow, then a huge window shattering BOOM as a small mushroom cloud appears right where my ol Buick was stopped. Nothing there now but a blackened hole. (Libs got me with a DOJ issued AT-4 rocket). At this point my old friend, you feel free to take over this blog. In that totally [likely] event…. I better wish much luck aforehand. ; )

  7. Joe says:

    Yes, they are coming for your guns. They will demand you be unarmed and helpless.

    Your only hope is the State of Jefferson.

  8. Joe says:

    Demorats doing what they do best…raising taxes.

    Your cell phone bill is going up. It says 20 to 80 cents per line per month but we all know the politicians and bureaurats typically under state how much they will stick us for, AKA lie! Of course they will tell you it’s for your own good and never mention the mess they’ve already made of 911. And of course the 9 billion dollar surplus. As usual incompetence and corruption are rewarded and taxpayers foot that bill. Thanks Demorats!

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Given their statements it should be fairly clear to anyone paying any attention that the California DOJ is an extreme left-wing corrupted, deep state machine that has turned into anti-2nd Amendment activists instead of doing the job we pay them for.

    No one mentioned Hitler here until Chris unilaterally brought it up. Of course Chris gets it only partly right about about Hitler and gun confiscation. The devil is in the details, but as you all know Chris is only concerned with certain details. Of course Chris completely ignores issue of this post — namely the astonishing statements from the California DOJ — and attempts to deflect the conversation to something no one really gives a flying **** about. That is Chris for you. His usual self absorbed mindless dreck trying to deflect. Nothing changes.

    As for Libby, she is just nuts: “…if you publicly demonstrate irrational paranoias, political or otherwise, they WILL come take your guns.” Oh really? Give us a few examples. I am sincerely interested in hearing if any law enforcement agency is actually doing that.

    • Chris says:

      “No one mentioned Hitler here until Chris unilaterally brought it up.”

      You are incorrect. Go back and look at the original post. Jack included a misleading meme that claims Hitler implemented gun control.

      “Of course Chris gets it only partly right about about Hitler and gun confiscation. The devil is in the details, but as you all know Chris is only concerned with certain details.”

      I appreciate you saying I got it partly right–that’s a big compliment from you given our history together. 🙂 I would be interested in what you think I have wrong on this issue.

      As for the majority of Jack’s post, we probably agree here–I am in favor of open carry, and am to the right of most liberals on gun control. I did find Jack’s article a bit vague–he didn’t really make it clear which laws the California DOJ are going after. I focused on the Hitler/other dictators meme because it was inaccurate, and I care about correcting inaccurate information (on both the left and right–check my Twitter account [if you remember who I am there] and you’ll see I critique liberal misrepresentations on gun issues often).

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Uh, I did. You are the usual bullshit. Nevertheless, who gives a damn? You have nothing to say about the outrageous statements from the Cal DOJ? Of course not.

        • Chris says:

          I have nothing to say about the outrageous statements from the Cal DOJ because I don’t know what they are, because Jack didn’t cite them.

          So you’re literally asking me to address something that was not in the post, right after falsely claiming that I brought up something that you thought was not in the post.

          Now I remember why it’s hard for us to communicate.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        “As for the majority of Jack’s post, we probably agree here–I am in favor of open carry, and am to the right of most liberals on gun control.”

        Why do I not believe Chris? This is the same ***hole who has called Jack a racist, bigot, xenophobe which he thinks passes as an argument.

        He is all for “reasonable” gun control and has NOTHING to say about the Cal DOJ statements.


      • Pie Guevara says:

        Open carry? This from the dork who is against California teachers carrying handguns to protect students from the insane. Fraud.

        • Chris says:

          Pie, that argument is not logical, as I am sure you know. One can support of open carry without supporting guns on school campuses. I oppose the latter because the potential dangers outweigh the potential benefits. There have been no documented cases of armed teachers protecting students from madmen, while there have been many documented cases of armed teachers misplacing their weapons on campus, accidentally firing their weapons, and even threatening self-harm on campus.

          I base my opinions on facts and what works, not on ideology.

  10. Peggy says:

    It’s been many decades since I registered to vote, but remember there was only one voter registration form. Has that changed? Does anyone know?

    Just curious if there are forms for US citizens and another for non-citizens? Are there forms now, or will be, for non-citizens with ONLY school board candidates listed for every school board election? Or will it be the honor system where the non-citizens gets the complete ballot for their prescient instructed to ONLY vote for certain elections?

    I see this as a massive backdoor to voter fraud. One wrong flip of a switch and non-citizens will be voting for candidates in every election from school board to US president, with no way to recall the ballots. No way. No thanks.

    • Libby says:

      Oh, geez.

      On the one hand, the future of democracy would seem to be doubtful … non-existent, even.

      Or … can we be relieved that such a flaming ignoramus does not vote?

      Nope. All bad. We’s done.

  11. Peggy says:

    Now what? Paper ballots?

    Hackers break into voting machines within 2 hours at Defcon:

  12. Peggy says:


    Scott Adams truth bombs the #WalkAway Movement:

  13. J. Soden says:

    Another Branco cartoon that hist the bullseye!

  14. Soaps says:

    As Jack (our Jack) well knows, I once had the honor of working for Cal DOJ as an investigator. Those were the days of Evel Younger and George Dukemajian. We did not accomplish too much, because of weak laws and weak judges, but we worked hard and took pride in our work. I moved away to a better law enforcement job in a better state that has not yet been usurped by radical libs, unless you count RINOS such as McCain and Flake (what a flake). Every now and then, I look back at this blog to see how bad things have gotten in California, and I thank God I’m outta there.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Soaps, you made the right choice when you left CA. I wish I had moved to either Texas or in Az. As I write the sky here is yellow brown, the particulates from wild fires are 300% over the safe levels. We’re told to expect regular fires like this because of CA changing climate and the way liberals mismanaged our forests.

  15. Peggy says:

    Another Democrat shamefully verbally attacked a Republican, but Paul hit back harder.

    Kentucky Democrat reportedly jokes about Rand Paul assault: ‘He can be beaten’:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.