Gavin Newsom gifted a gun on podcat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

The Second Amendment literally contains the word "necessary".

Arguing comic-book style technicalities while hiding behind a scrap of text written by people who didn't even know semi-automatic weapons were possible , or that massacring schoolchildren would become USA's #1 pastime, just makes you look stupid.

NP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

The Second Amendment literally contains the word "necessary".

Arguing comic-book style technicalities while hiding behind a scrap of text written by people who didn't even know semi-automatic weapons were possible , or that massacring schoolchildren would become USA's #1 pastime, just makes you look stupid.

NP.

Yes. It contains the word “necessary.” As in privately held firearms are “necessary.”

Do you even know what distinguishes a semiauto firearm from any other type?

[Anonymous]

WE NOT AGAINST GUNS, we just want backgrounds checks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WE NOT AGAINST GUNS, we just want backgrounds checks

I beg your pardon, but you DO NOT speak for me!

I’m a lifelong Dem and I’m 10,000% against guns and gun people. And I will NOT support ANY Democrat who doesn’t want a 100% ban on ALL guns.

I understand politicians have to say things to get elected, so I can forgive anyone who says something like “I respect the second amendment” or other such thing, as long as after they’re elected they revise their position once they’re an incumbent. I’m a pragmatist. I get that you have to say things you don’t mean to get elected. And getting elected is what is most important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kamala Harris has a handgun in her California home.

She talked about it on her Oprah interview.

Sure she does. California publishes gun owners right? It should be easy to verify or refute. Has anyone checked? That was a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WE NOT AGAINST GUNS, we just want backgrounds checks

I beg your pardon, but you DO NOT speak for me!

I’m a lifelong Dem and I’m 10,000% against guns and gun people. And I will NOT support ANY Democrat who doesn’t want a 100% ban on ALL guns.

I understand politicians have to say things to get elected, so I can forgive anyone who says something like “I respect the second amendment” or other such thing, as long as after they’re elected they revise their position once they’re an incumbent. I’m a pragmatist. I get that you have to say things you don’t mean to get elected. And getting elected is what is most important.

Either you are trying to troll, or you speak for a very small minority and are out of touch on how small of a minority you represent. Less than 10% of Americans share your view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

The Second Amendment literally contains the word "necessary".

Arguing comic-book style technicalities while hiding behind a scrap of text written by people who didn't even know semi-automatic weapons were possible , or that massacring schoolchildren would become USA's #1 pastime, just makes you look stupid.

NP.

I’ve heard cogent arguments against the 2nd Amendment, but this isn’t one of them. The framers of The Constitution were so much smarter than you. They were visionaries.

From 2000 to 2022 there were 206 total fatalities in elementary schools, secondary schools and postsecondary schools from school shooters. That’s far from being a pastime, let alone the #1 pastime. They actually keep statistics about these things, which is troublesome for you.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01/violent-deaths-and-shootings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WE NOT AGAINST GUNS, we just want backgrounds checks

I beg your pardon, but you DO NOT speak for me!

I’m a lifelong Dem and I’m 10,000% against guns and gun people. And I will NOT support ANY Democrat who doesn’t want a 100% ban on ALL guns.

I understand politicians have to say things to get elected, so I can forgive anyone who says something like “I respect the second amendment” or other such thing, as long as after they’re elected they revise their position once they’re an incumbent. I’m a pragmatist. I get that you have to say things you don’t mean to get elected. And getting elected is what is most important.

Either you are trying to troll, or you speak for a very small minority and are out of touch on how small of a minority you represent. Less than 10% of Americans share your view.

91% of Americans want strong gun control. There’s probably some disagreement about what exactly “strong” means, but the overwhelming majority of Americans want guns to be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WE NOT AGAINST GUNS, we just want backgrounds checks

I beg your pardon, but you DO NOT speak for me!

I’m a lifelong Dem and I’m 10,000% against guns and gun people. And I will NOT support ANY Democrat who doesn’t want a 100% ban on ALL guns.

I understand politicians have to say things to get elected, so I can forgive anyone who says something like “I respect the second amendment” or other such thing, as long as after they’re elected they revise their position once they’re an incumbent. I’m a pragmatist. I get that you have to say things you don’t mean to get elected. And getting elected is what is most important.

Either you are trying to troll, or you speak for a very small minority and are out of touch on how small of a minority you represent. Less than 10% of Americans share your view.

91% of Americans want strong gun control. There’s probably some disagreement about what exactly “strong” means, but the overwhelming majority of Americans want guns to be eliminated.

It doesn't mean "eliminated." 91% of Americans want gun control but nowhere near that many want it "eliminated" - stop misrepresenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

Well, except for to all of the rules that actually do apply to firearms.

We could just add high capacity magazines, or semi autos altogether, to the class III list, or create a separate class. There are a lot of perfectly legal ways that don’t violate the constitution to provide safe and sane access to firearms. I guess that we will have to wait until 2028, but the new democratic president is going to have SO MUCH new power, all due to trumps executive efforts.

What about lower income citizens? They are more likely to face the threat of violence in their neighborhoods than DCUMs in theirs. Having to bend the knee to local, state and federal government and pay for a $200 tax stamp to exercise a constitutional right because you want to make the most ubiquitous firearms class III is inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

+1

Where was he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala Harris has a handgun in her California home.

She talked about it on her Oprah interview.

Sure she does. California publishes gun owners right? It should be easy to verify or refute. Has anyone checked? That was a rhetorical question.

She lost why does it matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

This is a weird analysis. Each of the weapons you listed has a substantially lower capacity and substantially more kickback than an AR-style rifle. They're much harder to shoot effectively. If you're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a tight space (like a school classroom or a nightclub) the AR is clearly superior. You're right that the AR has less power, but that's really academic in a mass shooting scenario. At a distance of <30 feet or so, being shot with ANY rifle round is going to be fatal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

This is a weird analysis. Each of the weapons you listed has a substantially lower capacity and substantially more kickback than an AR-style rifle. They're much harder to shoot effectively. If you're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a tight space (like a school classroom or a nightclub) the AR is clearly superior. You're right that the AR has less power, but that's really academic in a mass shooting scenario. At a distance of <30 feet or so, being shot with ANY rifle round is going to be fatal.

AR has no advantage in a tight space as it's the same length and no more maneuverable. The only potential advantage is the higher capacity and faster recovery but then you're basically just talking spray and pray as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is pretty dumb for anything other than either inflicting random chaos or putting out some suppressing fire for cover.