Newsome thinks legally owning a gun is SIN

Nordberg said:
Do you have trouble understanding the logic? Assuming your post is accurate, how can you extrapolate that into the subject of guns in the nation and the principles behind them? Every single gun owner is not a terrible danger. However, guns in America are a clear and present damage to the country as a whole and children in school too. Are you familiar with mass shootings? They require a person to have a gun, or an AR.
Click to expand...
So how many of those shootings were done with legally acquired guns.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
I work with investors from all over the country and they always ask about what's going on in SF. Because it's business I stay away from the politics when responding. If pushed the one answer I'll give is one can be a liberal or conversative, yet still be pragmatic and get things done. Or one can be an ideologue. And SF has far too many of the latter, thus the issues we have.

Respectfully, when it comes to guns, you fit the ideologue category. We all know there are very few, if any, places that have no crime. Urban areas have always had crime, it's just a reality. A City like Oakland, in a certain sense, almost prides itself on that in that it's a blue collar/gritty City. You have to have a certain toughness to be from here. So with that back drop, it is now so bad that some people still feel like they have no choice but to possibly arm themselves to stay safe. Yet your response is they think they are vigilantes who are on going to shoot kids at their front door?! That's an ideologue.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
ExpressLane said:
Cause we all know scary looking guns look scary .
Can I please keep my AR 15 I use it for protecting my farm. It is a tool like a shovel.


:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Just trying to find compromise.
Silly me.

I would prefer it if you left your assault weapon on the farm
rather than take it to the supermarket and the movies.

I imagine that's asking too much as well.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Just trying to find compromise.
Silly me.

I would prefer it if you left your assault weapon on the farm
rather than take it to the supermarket and the movies.

I imagine that's asking too much as well.
Click to expand...
Oh thank you for allowing me to keep it. It stays at my farm where the Feral hog cause damage
 
cawacko said:
I'm not following how me stating what people are saying on Facebook in response to the rapid rise in crime in Oakland in any way suggests I back or support vigilantism? Where did that come from?

I offered you color on what's happening in Oakland and why people feel this way. It's easy for people living in a low crime area to judge those who don't feel safe where they live, and why they might choose to purchase a gun for safety. People who don't feel safe probably aren't thinking "America has too much gun violence so if something bad happens to me that would be better than me potentially protecting myself." Kind of goes against human nature.
Click to expand...

There is always people who think they need a gun, even many in low crime areas, especially rural America, but that doesn’t rationalize adding more guns to society
 
archives said:
There is always people who think they need a gun, even many in low crime areas, especially rural America, but that doesn’t rationalize adding more guns to society
Click to expand...
So you are for preventing a single mom from being able to protect herself because you are afraid of guns. Got it!
 
archives said:
There is always people who think they need a gun, even many in low crime areas, especially rural America, but that doesn’t rationalize adding more guns to society
Click to expand...

Except I'm not talking about low crime rural areas (I want nothing to do with guns but if I lived in a rural area I'd probably actually buy one). I'm talking about friends/acquaintances of mine in Oakland and what they are saying. I think it's ideological reasons you won't address them specifically.

A couple of things come to mind to tell them:

1) move out of Oakland
2) vote for people for put more emphasis on law and order and aren't so anti-police (which they maybe already do)
3) pay for private security at your home/in your neighborhood (but even that doesn't protect you when you're out and about)

But short of that your attitude seems to be 'your concerns for desiring extra protection are unfounded and you should pretty much suck it up'. Again, kind of goes against human nature and the desire to protect oneself and their family
 
Last edited:
RB 60 said:
The military seems to think it's OK to use one to shoot people, so there's that...
Click to expand...

The military uses fully jacket ammunition, both sides have medics, and it's a war crime to fire on medics.

The pigs will not be saved by medics.

An excruciating bleed-out is inhumane.
If you must kill them, hit them with something that will kill them quickly.

Of course, you're familiar with all of this, know firearms,
and are merely breaking balls with your comment.

I'm not stupid, Arby.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The military uses fully jacket ammunition, both sides have medics, and it's a war crime to fire on medics.

The pigs will not be saved by medics.

An excruciating bleed-out is inhumane.
If you must kill them, hit them with something that will kill them quickly.

Of course, you're familiar with all of this, know firearms,
and are merely breaking balls with your comment.

I'm not stupid, Arby.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the plan.

That is debatable.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The military uses fully jacket ammunition, both sides have medics, and it's a war crime to fire on medics.

The pigs will not be saved by medics.

An excruciating bleed-out is inhumane.
If you must kill them, hit them with something that will kill them quickly.

Of course, you're familiar with all of this, know firearms,
and are merely breaking balls with your comment.

I'm not stupid, Arby.
Click to expand...

Yes, firing on medics is a war crime.
And no, medics will not save pigs.

Every responsible hunter wants a quick and painless kill, I was brought up to make a clean kill, or not to take the shot.
I have only once used my .220 on a deer, that shot was at 500 yd using a telephone pole as a steady rest and making
the proper turret adjustment for the shot, a clean neck shot that dropped it in it's tracks. Otherwise, my choice is my
700 BDL .06.

BTW, I didn't say you were stupid, did I?
 
RB 60 said:
Yes, firing on medics is a war crime.
And no, medics will not save pigs.

Every responsible hunter wants a quick and painless kill, I was brought up to make a clean kill, or not to take the shot.
I have only once used my .220 on a deer, that shot was at 500 yd using a telephone pole as a steady rest and making
the proper turret adjustment for the shot, a clean neck shot that dropped it in it's tracks. Otherwise, my choice is my
700 BDL .06.

BTW, I didn't say you were stupid, did I?
Click to expand...

Not that I remember, no. At least not recently.:)

Remington makes a decent rifle.
I have an old 40XB chambered in .220 Swift.
It has a heavy stainless steel barrel which isn't as pretty as nice bluing.

At 4000 fps+, the .220 tends to be a barrel burner [although that velocity is exciting]..
Tiny bullet not great in a crosswind, either.

If I were shooting at something that breathes, I'd rather go with a .22-250.
That's my favorite center fire .22 but....
if I were a Republican, it would be the 5.56 mm, of course.
I think that's what they bring to church, but again, it's been a while.��

Despite the popularity of the .308, the 30-06 is still a good round after all of these decades.
My late friend Willie had a .30-06 with a spectacularly beautiful stock.
He built it himself on a Mauser action as I recall.

I haven't done any shooting for a while, now.
Even better, I haven't been shot at lately, either.:thumbsup:
 
Yakuda said:
Normal people would answer "No" to that question. The idiots however say, "Yes". All this will do is prevent decent people from having guns. It will do nothing to address illegal guns. I can't fathom how stupid leftists actually are.
Click to expand...

You don't need a gun.
 
cawacko said:
Except I'm not talking about low crime rural areas (I want nothing to do with guns but if I lived in a rural area I'd probably actually buy one). I'm talking about friends/acquaintances of mine in Oakland and what they are saying. I think it's ideological reasons you won't address them specifically.

A couple of things come to mind to tell them:

1) move out of Oakland
2) vote for people for put more emphasis on law and order and aren't so anti-police (which they maybe already do)
3) pay for private security at your home/in your neighborhood (but even that doesn't protect you when you're out and about)

But short of that your attitude seems to be 'your concerns for desiring extra protection are unfounded and you should pretty much suck it up'. Again, kind of goes against human nature and the desire to protect oneself and their family
Click to expand...

Recommend they build walls around their house, dig moats, or if they feel that threatened, move

You have to realistically evaluate how real the threat actually is, or, if one actually feels endangered due to sensationalized news coverage. Myself, and I live in a city, not far from a depressing area, if I felt that threatened, I would move rather than think I am protecting myself by buying a gun
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
What goes on in Cafilornia stays in Cafilornia!

You'll stay safe in Texas here with us Dude- unless you get shot on some EXPRESSWAY for flagging some trigger-happy GUNTARD Republican off! :laugh:

So be very careful when waving with just one finger in traffic here in TEXAS, and you'll be alright!

You guntards really should find another way to settle your differences on the EXPRESSWAYS here in Texas other than shooting each other!

You just risk shooting innocent drivers like ME- when Ya'll do that!!

Good Luck!
Click to expand...

You demoncrats have always supported poll taxes.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Let's compare owning a gun to owning a dildo or pornography. The latter two are indeed regarded as objects of sin because they are a prerequisite to it. Now you obviously buy a gun thinking you might need to use it thus making it a prerequisite. So yes, a gun is a tool of sin. An at times necessary one but still a tool of sin.
Click to expand...


Wow, that was really stupid.

Defense of one's person, property, and family are not a sin.

You of the fascist left support "victims right" laws - that is you support laws that make being a victim the ONLY right anyone has.
 
archives said:
There is always people who think they need a gun, even many in low crime areas, especially rural America, but that doesn’t rationalize adding more guns to society
Click to expand...
You mean in rural areas where it may take the police 40 minutes or more to arrive
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top