KS_to_CA
Regular Member
Good luck.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Catfish Club Debate with Saldana
- Thread starter pullnshoot25
- Start date
Mike Hawk
New member
Hats off to Nate. He fought valiantly despite being outnumbered 2 to 1 by professional liars. The other two panelists pretty much behaved as expected.
The mindless twit from LCAV spewed lie after lie, and was laughed at several times by most of the audience. Once, when she suggested that we all "like, uh, learn karate or something" (instead of carrying guns) ... and again when she suggested we all just get CCWs rather than carry openly. LOL indeed.
Assemblyman Saldana again showed up with her armed security detail. BTW, thanks to Crewdad for calling her on it. She lied as expected, saying it wasn't her decision and that her handlers decided it was best because of "recent threats" made to her office. Most of her arguments consisted of emotional bleatings, void of any fact or logic.
Afterward, I got a chance to speak with Sheriff Gore, who was in attendance. I asked him for his take on the Peruta Case and CCWs. (O.K., I was trying to bust his balls a bit too.) He tells me that he wholeheartedly agrees that California should be shall-issue, but gosh his hands are just tied. I said I know very well that this state is may-issue, however his position allows him all the authority he needs to make San Diego defacto shall-issue by simply accepting self defense as a "good cause". He saw a newslady standing nearby watching this exchange, and quickly broke off the convo, saying "Well, uh, I don't want to debate this!" .... Yeah, I mean, what was this event, A DEBATE? Hahahaha!
10News reporter Allison Ash looked to be practically drooling from the mouth and asked us both (Gore and Myself) to please stick around a moment for an interview. I agreed, but also let her know that I was displeased with 10News' recent report that had claimed Nate had carried a "loaded weapon" to Saldana's Commonwealth event. She said she'd look into it. We'll see.
I haven't seen the story on 10News or elsewhere yet, but it's still early so I will post a link on this thread if I find any.
The mindless twit from LCAV spewed lie after lie, and was laughed at several times by most of the audience. Once, when she suggested that we all "like, uh, learn karate or something" (instead of carrying guns) ... and again when she suggested we all just get CCWs rather than carry openly. LOL indeed.
Assemblyman Saldana again showed up with her armed security detail. BTW, thanks to Crewdad for calling her on it. She lied as expected, saying it wasn't her decision and that her handlers decided it was best because of "recent threats" made to her office. Most of her arguments consisted of emotional bleatings, void of any fact or logic.
Afterward, I got a chance to speak with Sheriff Gore, who was in attendance. I asked him for his take on the Peruta Case and CCWs. (O.K., I was trying to bust his balls a bit too.) He tells me that he wholeheartedly agrees that California should be shall-issue, but gosh his hands are just tied. I said I know very well that this state is may-issue, however his position allows him all the authority he needs to make San Diego defacto shall-issue by simply accepting self defense as a "good cause". He saw a newslady standing nearby watching this exchange, and quickly broke off the convo, saying "Well, uh, I don't want to debate this!" .... Yeah, I mean, what was this event, A DEBATE? Hahahaha!
10News reporter Allison Ash looked to be practically drooling from the mouth and asked us both (Gore and Myself) to please stick around a moment for an interview. I agreed, but also let her know that I was displeased with 10News' recent report that had claimed Nate had carried a "loaded weapon" to Saldana's Commonwealth event. She said she'd look into it. We'll see.
I haven't seen the story on 10News or elsewhere yet, but it's still early so I will post a link on this thread if I find any.
yes, that about sums it up.
it was 2 to 1, both professional liars, and once or twice nate had so many lies to expose that he couldn't decide where to begin. he did show that he knew more about law and case law and history than either of his two harpy opponents.
saldana, though, showed amazing command of every type of half-truth and fallacy in existence. When it came to lying, nate got his head handed to him. He's just too darned honest.
it was 2 to 1, both professional liars, and once or twice nate had so many lies to expose that he couldn't decide where to begin. he did show that he knew more about law and case law and history than either of his two harpy opponents.
saldana, though, showed amazing command of every type of half-truth and fallacy in existence. When it came to lying, nate got his head handed to him. He's just too darned honest.
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
What? No one ran a digital recorder while the debate occured?
Gundude
Regular Member
Last edited:
Gundude
Regular Member
The reporter who wrote this story is Mitch Blocher. WTG Mitch.
Mike Hawk
New member
Myself and others also noted that before this meeting, there were several officers walking around the building with bomb-sniffing dogs. I thought this was a bit much. They must really think that 2A advocates are all terrorists or something. I'm curious though if they ran the little nazi doggies through the parking lot. I mean, how many of our cars would they have smelled cordite on? 
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
Of course it got recorded!
Here is the link to the audio from the recorder I had running the whole time. Sam has video of the whole debate, which should be published soon.
http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/forum/topics/listen-to-the-catfish-club
Here is the link to the audio from the recorder I had running the whole time. Sam has video of the whole debate, which should be published soon.
http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/forum/topics/listen-to-the-catfish-club
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
I sat down and had a listen while I cleaned my Ruger.
I think its very important that we make every effort to attend these events, even though they seem to be organized to eliminate the possiblity of practical open carry. We can use that to illustrate that if some violent act was to occur during the meeting, that there would be nothing for an individual to do to protect themselves and that police are not responsible for any individual's safety.
We should also be attending to get the other sides strategy on how they intend to push their agenda.
It seems to me that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Saldana are hanging their hats on their misinterpretation of Heller and McDonald. They have taken the rulings to exclusively apply in the confines of an individual's home and that since prior laws had been upheld with this interpretation, that this would continue be the case. They ignore that if AB1934 is passed, that between it, and the de facto ban on concealed carry, that there remains no other lawful alternative to the second amendment in California. They dont even acknowledge that Stevens left the door open for “a right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation". Yeah, they can't do that, because that would exclude the myriad of reasonable restrictions on who, how, when, where, and why people carry weapons, which when they are combined as a whole, are nothing more than a ban on possession.
Saldana claims open carriers are doing nothing but exploiting a loophole in our gun control laws. Well, if Ms. Saldana's armed security are exempted from violation of 171b in the California Penal Code, they too are exploiting a loophole. For normal people the absense of a restriction is called 'liberty'. A liberty that Saldana doesnt like; a loophole...
She brought up the conundrum of trying to make a distinction between good guys and bad guys. How do the police tell the difference? Well for one, the bad guys usually run away from the cops because they dont want to get caught and guilt tells them to evade capture. And if that isnt enough information for the police to make a well-informed decision, most criminals do not carry their firearms openly in a belt holster. The criminal will almost always conceal their weapon in their clothing without a holster. Why? Criminals cannot tolerate the additional scrutiny that a firearm would bring and having a piece of gun paraphanalia like a holster will only raise more questions from an investigating officer even if they manage to ditch the gun. The answer to the quandry of determining who is a good guy and who is a bad guy is already being resolved with training. Training that police must recieve anyway, despite Saldana's implication that open carry is too difficult for police to work around.
She and Ms Thomas are hung up on 4th amendment issues; thinking that somehow a firearm automatically triggers some right to know who is carrying a weapon. They clearly do not believe in a persons innocence before being proven guilty. This is tantamount to assuming that since Ms. Saldana is Hispanic in appearance, that she must speak Spanish and be an illegal alien, so police would be justified in proving her identity.
It is clear that both Ms. Saldana and Ms. Thomas are either aware of or understand the reality that since most issuing authorities use their discretion as a proxy ban on carry in their jurisdictions- I caught the laughter- it wasnt nearly loud or mocking enough in my opinion.
I heard Nate's frustration in the sighs and Uhms. I dont fault him, because Im not sure I would fair much better. Like the videos that he and Sam put together illustrate, its very important to roleplay scenarios over and over so you know what to expect before something pops up. Public speaking is super tough, and I applaud Nate for standing up to these know-it-alls; we need more stand up operators like Nate and more practice at addressing the public and presenting our beliefs.
I think its very important that we make every effort to attend these events, even though they seem to be organized to eliminate the possiblity of practical open carry. We can use that to illustrate that if some violent act was to occur during the meeting, that there would be nothing for an individual to do to protect themselves and that police are not responsible for any individual's safety.
We should also be attending to get the other sides strategy on how they intend to push their agenda.
It seems to me that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Saldana are hanging their hats on their misinterpretation of Heller and McDonald. They have taken the rulings to exclusively apply in the confines of an individual's home and that since prior laws had been upheld with this interpretation, that this would continue be the case. They ignore that if AB1934 is passed, that between it, and the de facto ban on concealed carry, that there remains no other lawful alternative to the second amendment in California. They dont even acknowledge that Stevens left the door open for “a right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation". Yeah, they can't do that, because that would exclude the myriad of reasonable restrictions on who, how, when, where, and why people carry weapons, which when they are combined as a whole, are nothing more than a ban on possession.
Saldana claims open carriers are doing nothing but exploiting a loophole in our gun control laws. Well, if Ms. Saldana's armed security are exempted from violation of 171b in the California Penal Code, they too are exploiting a loophole. For normal people the absense of a restriction is called 'liberty'. A liberty that Saldana doesnt like; a loophole...
She brought up the conundrum of trying to make a distinction between good guys and bad guys. How do the police tell the difference? Well for one, the bad guys usually run away from the cops because they dont want to get caught and guilt tells them to evade capture. And if that isnt enough information for the police to make a well-informed decision, most criminals do not carry their firearms openly in a belt holster. The criminal will almost always conceal their weapon in their clothing without a holster. Why? Criminals cannot tolerate the additional scrutiny that a firearm would bring and having a piece of gun paraphanalia like a holster will only raise more questions from an investigating officer even if they manage to ditch the gun. The answer to the quandry of determining who is a good guy and who is a bad guy is already being resolved with training. Training that police must recieve anyway, despite Saldana's implication that open carry is too difficult for police to work around.
She and Ms Thomas are hung up on 4th amendment issues; thinking that somehow a firearm automatically triggers some right to know who is carrying a weapon. They clearly do not believe in a persons innocence before being proven guilty. This is tantamount to assuming that since Ms. Saldana is Hispanic in appearance, that she must speak Spanish and be an illegal alien, so police would be justified in proving her identity.
It is clear that both Ms. Saldana and Ms. Thomas are either aware of or understand the reality that since most issuing authorities use their discretion as a proxy ban on carry in their jurisdictions- I caught the laughter- it wasnt nearly loud or mocking enough in my opinion.
I heard Nate's frustration in the sighs and Uhms. I dont fault him, because Im not sure I would fair much better. Like the videos that he and Sam put together illustrate, its very important to roleplay scenarios over and over so you know what to expect before something pops up. Public speaking is super tough, and I applaud Nate for standing up to these know-it-alls; we need more stand up operators like Nate and more practice at addressing the public and presenting our beliefs.
Gundude
Regular Member
How do you tell a good guy from a bad guy?
Everyone is presumed innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. It's simple...the bad guy is breaking the law. DUH!
Everyone is presumed innocent till proven guilty in a court of law. It's simple...the bad guy is breaking the law. DUH!
Michigander
Regular Member
I'm about halfway through the audio. That treasonous psychopath needs help.
CREWDAD
Regular Member
Yes.... There is video
I also have the whole debate on video, but the camera is new and so am I to being able to figure out how to cut and edit and get the whole 1hr8min to fit on You Tube. So it sounds like Sam has it also on video, if they need any of my video, they can get in touch with me.
I also have the whole debate on video, but the camera is new and so am I to being able to figure out how to cut and edit and get the whole 1hr8min to fit on You Tube. So it sounds like Sam has it also on video, if they need any of my video, they can get in touch with me.
EXTREMEOPS1
Campaign Veteran
Here's an 8 minute segment on you tube
Here's an 8 minute you tube video of the "Shootout with Saldana"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzMPYvS1dWI
Here's an 8 minute you tube video of the "Shootout with Saldana"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzMPYvS1dWI
Last edited:
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
Might want to re-upload that video with corrections, her name is Saldana, not Soldana
I cringed listening to myself talk, I had no idea that I said "um" that many times. That was truly a frustrating day.
I cringed listening to myself talk, I had no idea that I said "um" that many times. That was truly a frustrating day.
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
Start sending letters, fax, emails to your legislators again. Mention the irony of Saldana paying hired thugs (maybe with tax dollars) for her security while she tries to kill our rights to defend ourselves and our families.
If your legislatior would not see this irony, then you know who NOT to vote next election. And let them know that.
If your legislatior would not see this irony, then you know who NOT to vote next election. And let them know that.
Gundude
Regular Member
I cringed listening to myself talk, I had no idea that I said "um" that many times. That was truly a frustrating day.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry about your talk there. It's hard to collect your thought when you are overwhelmed with so much BS. She has had more practice standing up and spreading it.
Don't worry about your talk there. It's hard to collect your thought when you are overwhelmed with so much BS. She has had more practice standing up and spreading it.
EXTREMEOPS1
Campaign Veteran
Edited the spelling but not on the video
Um yes you did but an excellent forum by yourself and ably assisted at times by your brother ...what was that snide comment about "you clearly not being a lawyer" ...Also how Saldana made comment about the UOC's not being trained as good as LEO's when most are military or ex military and the LEO's only have to qualify annually to open carry a loaded weapon. Funny how most attendees were military trained as proved by the show of hands ...
Sorry Saldana your argument about the open carriers not being a non profit organization or some such tax paying charity was null and void . UOC's are private individuals with a collective cause ..no need to become a corporation etc to do that !!!
Might want to re-upload that video with corrections, her name is Saldana, not Soldana
I cringed listening to myself talk, I had no idea that I said "um" that many times. That was truly a frustrating day.
Um yes you did
but an excellent forum by yourself and ably assisted at times by your brother ...what was that snide comment about "you clearly not being a lawyer" ...Also how Saldana made comment about the UOC's not being trained as good as LEO's when most are military or ex military and the LEO's only have to qualify annually to open carry a loaded weapon. Funny how most attendees were military trained as proved by the show of hands ... Sorry Saldana your argument about the open carriers not being a non profit organization or some such tax paying charity was null and void . UOC's are private individuals with a collective cause ..no need to become a corporation etc to do that !!!
Exactly, because as we all know, in order to be able to comprehend the U.S. Constitution the founders saw fit to right it in complete legalese that no normal person could begin to understand. Take myself for example. I have the second amendment memorized, but try as I might I cannot find where it talks about how it only applies to my house or home. Clearly they teach you such things in law school.
What that LCAV lady was trying to say is that we are just total idiots. How dare we attempt to read and understand the bill of rights, let alone the rest of the constitution. We could never begin to rival her level of reading comprehension. After all, she's a lawyer. We should be kissing her feet at all times.
Or maybe she's misrepresenting the bill of rights based only on what current case law says. It must be sad to be a lawyer; you can't understand anything for yourself until a judge tells you what it means. How they read a newspaper is beyond me.
Gundude
Regular Member
I noticed that Saldana mentioned that OC'ers want to carry at schools. Well, ya dummy, of course we do. Should we stop being able to protect our children when dropping the off or picking them at school. Knock Knock..."Hello in there. Is anyone home"