Gursant Singh sues California to stop gun ban.

[Singh559]

First I would like ti ask the fugter jet guy how big his female parts are.

Seco d to op, you are not an amerucan..

Thus lawsyit is good, but I would say the wrong way. It would be akin to suing mughals to get them to allow non-halal meat.

A fact in law is what both parties agree upon; i.e either agree or you fail to dispute/re-but i.e silence.

Device going slow so vjkvjf

Obvious troll is obvious.

No one's English is this good.

[GtLoc]

Obvious troll is obvious.

No one's English is this good.

Except the keyboard was glitching, and I came back to correct it.

Why don't you look into what I've written, as being smart is part of sikhi too; otherwise you get the leaders tricking people to ignorant to find out better.

Ignornace is one of the five thieves is it not?

[S1ngh]

Assault rifles like ar16 and others are really not needed on our streets. The only reason that such guns should not be in the hands of regular folks is because such guns are specifically made for military use. The whole process from R&D to final step in such gun making process is "battle field" and that is what these guns are or. These guns are made because study shows that all soldiers are not marksmanship and thus introducing rifles like ar16 bit solves that problem. With the bush letting certain restrictions get expired in 2004, companies like bushmaster did only very minor modifications to such assault rifles and dumped huge cache in our markets and so did china.

Obama is not anti-constitution nor he is doing anything that is against American interests. When constitution was made, back then I believe it takes a bit time to load and reload guns (gun powder). I believe that they made such amendments by keeping that in mind. If founding fathers were alive today they would be shocked to see the approval of its citizens carrying guns that is capable of causing great harm to our society in matter of seconds.

Hunting/NRA, NRA once was the voice of hunters and now they are the voice of gun industry. As various poll shows that majority of American hunters favor of putting restrictions on assault rifle and so on. Plus no hunter ever take assault rifle for hunting purpose because that would be huge personal shame for hunters depending on such rifles.

Now this comes to Sikhs and America.. Now, majority of American gun owners are not Sikhs... Heck, I believe not even 1% of Sikhs living in America owns the gun or even went to range. My point is that a Sikh holding is different then a non-Sikh holding gun. If all gun owners are Sikh then hell yeh we don't need ban on anything but that is not the case. So, if we are thinking sikhi wise then it makes some sense of having Biden/Obama or our California senator Feinstein bill to put limit on assault rifle and strong universal background check. It is true that we can't kill all evils who kill innocents whether in temple, mall, school but at least we can limit such happenings.

Conclusion: shotgun/handgun = yes. Assault/sniper rifle = no.

[GtLoc]

Yet, looking into those mass shooting veer ji, they are mostly because of prozac and other anti depressants and not people themselves. Therefore no drugs but keep weapons is again a universal truth.

Also, can't exact case at, supreme court also ruled that private people not parties to constitution. Especially the one since Lincoln.

Simply put, the only law is the 10 maxims

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/01/24/ten-commercial-maxims-jack-harper

If you do not harm someone no reason to not have gun. Sikhs are not separate from humanity, what is good for us is also good for them.

Now, lawfully cali cannot ban anything there can be an individual punishment on a murderer for example but a jury decides that. We should not be involved in changing the codes of things which don't actually exist. We must assert the law, that is already there. Many died for it; I can explain in five minutes verbally but typing it becomes hard (for me).

I will not argue for or against a ban it is a nonsensical argument. A ban can't be done, lawfully and only way to enforce would be to have martial law and even then.. I will put further detail later as well as the exact stuff I beat the government with. There can be an effective ban as if they tell avg you can't and avg doesn't know the truth, they will go along. Bus. Won't sell etc. But, I mean are availible down the street in C.anada

Just will post details later.

[Singh559]

Assault rifles like ar16 and others are really not needed on our streets. The only reason that such guns should not be in the hands of regular folks is because such guns are specifically made for military use. The whole process from R&D to final step in such gun making process is "battle field" and that is what these guns are or. These guns are made because study shows that all soldiers are not marksmanship and thus introducing rifles like ar16 bit solves that problem. With the bush letting certain restrictions get expired in 2004, companies like bushmaster did only very minor modifications to such assault rifles and dumped huge cache in our markets and so did china.

Obama is not anti-constitution nor he is doing anything that is against American interests. When constitution was made, back then I believe it takes a bit time to load and reload guns (gun powder). I believe that they made such amendments by keeping that in mind. If founding fathers were alive today they would be shocked to see the approval of its citizens carrying guns that is capable of causing great harm to our society in matter of seconds.

Hunting/NRA, NRA once was the voice of hunters and now they are the voice of gun industry. As various poll shows that majority of American hunters favor of putting restrictions on assault rifle and so on. Plus no hunter ever take assault rifle for hunting purpose because that would be huge personal shame for hunters depending on such rifles.

Now this comes to Sikhs and America.. Now, majority of American gun owners are not Sikhs... Heck, I believe not even 1% of Sikhs living in America owns the gun or even went to range. My point is that a Sikh holding is different then a non-Sikh holding gun. If all gun owners are Sikh then hell yeh we don't need ban on anything but that is not the case. So, if we are thinking sikhi wise then it makes some sense of having Biden/Obama or our California senator Feinstein bill to put limit on assault rifle and strong universal background check. It is true that we can't kill all evils who kill innocents whether in temple, mall, school but at least we can limit such happenings.

Conclusion: shotgun/handgun = yes. Assault/sniper rifle = no.

What is your reasoning that the founding fathers wouldn't want people to be armed with modern weapons?

This is highly unconstitutional and it's sickening that the media is brainwashing people into changing America's founding principles. (see quote below)

The reason for the second amendment is a security safety net against a foreign/domestic tyrannical government and to keep our government in check and to over-throw it if need be because the founding fathers knew that this can and will eventually happen if the masses become uninformed of who is controlling the government (something that has now happened). Technically speaking China can buy and fund a presidential candidate with how the current election fundraising works and no one would know. The second amendment is there so civilians can form their own militia and defend themselves.

May I ask you why you support banning of scary looking weapons that are NOT military grade - Ar-15's when handguns are over 90++ (I think I saw 98%) of the killings in the United States? Taking away the constitutional rights from law abiding citizens because of crazy people isn't just and it will not stop crime from occurring.

Sikhs aren't the only people who can be good and because of that all law abiding people have a God given right of freedom and sovereignty - this includes the right to choose to pick up arms within the law. I know this is going to sound harsh, but our elders have brainwashed us into thinking like them using fear and saying "ah hojoo te ah hosagda" without any reasoning. Using emotions such as fear to sway policy decisions ends up in taking advantage of the voting masses.

I know many "Sikhs" who should never own a gun because of how they are so who decides who is a Sikh and who is? It's simple, do not infringe upon someone's right unless there is a reason to (or a red flag) - that is what the government should focus on instead of liberal politicans trying to clear their guilty conscious by creating death zones (gun free zones) where crime is the HIGHEST in the country and leaves people sitting like chickens.

Again, look at the norway massacre where they have the strongest gun control and columbine that occurred during the ban on AR's.

The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I'll leave you with this video to inspire you to reevaluate your position on this very important issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLGIptgaQL52klwBNjn8NGfA&

[Singh559]

Just to add I've been a democrat all my life, but gun control (and infringing upon any freedom) is a single issue thing for me. I used to be anti-gun when I was unaware and also brainwashed by the media's portrayal of shastar.

I'm more of an independent voter now because democrips and rebloodlicans are the same thing and the two party system is what prevents the democracy from actually working.,

These concepts that Guru Sahiban laid out for us aren't merely to be seen in hindsight, they are to be applied today as well. Look how much our founding father's view on shastar is parallel to Dhan Dhan Guru Sahiban:

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, June 14, 1788