It's funny to see people here trying to protect something "because the Constitution" when the right to bear arms in the US Cobstitution is "archaic and should be changed."
It is amazing how people "just don't get it". Laws can (and ocassionaly) should be changed. They should not be violated. The discussion here is about a person constantly violating the law, court order and just getting away with it.
What does this conversation have to do with the second amendment? Who has brought up guns here, except you? Are you intentionally trolling?
I think it's a fair comment. I would expect everyone who supports the constitution to just as vigorously support the 2nd Amendment.
Or is it a pick and choose document?
We're talking about the California Constitution, and no one has mentioned guns or the second amendment of the United States Constitution, except for the above nonsequitur. WTF are you talking about?
Because there's a HUGE difference between access to nature, and access to devices who's sole purpose is for killing.
The difference is that one's actually on the paper and one's not