Even the "Liberal Gun Club thinks Newsom is BS

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

No worries. Should he run on this issue, the majority of gun owning Democrats will still vote for him. I mean after all they are Democrats first, gun owners second.

Like the battered wife/girlfriend....Newsome has no reason she'll leave him.

^This. Like I have said before. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[V]

If I might interrupt the thread crapping...

What is the fund raising loophole? That funds raised by a committee (Form 410 filings and all) for support of an initiative can simply be rolled over to some other campaign? Or that the funds are used by the proponent, in this case Newsom, to keep him in the spotlight while campaigning on the initiative prior to starting his gubernatorial run?

Normal programming can now be resumed...

[Mayor McRifle]

Below is a E-mail from the "Liberal Gun Club" They make some good points on why Newsom is full of it.

The Liberal Gun Club nailed it. This is exactly the kind of advocacy we need to defeat Newsom's asinine initiative that threatens us all.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Even the "Liberal Gun Club thinks Newsom is BS

No, no, no. They're liberals, and therefore suffer from a mental disorder, remember? That type of ally you don't need. You need to focus on ostracizing as many liberals as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tankarian]

Dear OBG,

To continue my previous post: now since we got this out of the way (your admission that you only post on CG), please tell me why are you posting here on a forum which by definition was created to defend gun rights and the Second Amendment?

You are admitting you are not a single issue guy, that your leftist politics agenda trumps gun rights and this is why you continue to support a Party that has tightening gun control in its platform. This "I'm not a single issue guy" makes you vote and support the Dianne Feinstein Party. The Kamala Harris Party. The Leland Yee Party. The Gavin Newsom Party. The Hillary Clinton "NRA is my enemy" Party. The Kevin DeLeon "30 magazine clips a second" Party. The Party that is relentlessly pursuing the final goal of complete civilian disarmament in California.

You are not a single issue voter, that's your choice and I'm OK with that.
What I cannot understand is why, by your own admission you don't post in other forums that pursue other political and social goals which have a higher priority for you?

Let me guess, gay marriage would be one priority that trumps gun rights. Socialism and unions and workers rights would be another. Gender equality, abortion, racial issues. Global warming, maybe. As a leftist, these must be priorities for you. Priorities that make you support the Party of Feinstein, Kamala, DeLeon and Yee even if you know this support is at the cost of the Second Amendment.

Then why aren't you active on forums discussing all these issues dear to your heart? Forums for gay people, for Black Lives Matter, for Right To Choose An Abortion? Democrat Underground, Daily Kos? Why aren't you active there?
Why are you posting (again, by your own admission) only on Calguns, where GUN RIGHTS are the number one issue if gun rights are at the bottom of your list and where -as you just said, you and other liberals are "ostracized"?

And I'm also asking you why aren't you active on Liberals Gun Forum -or whatever the hell is that website for delusional gun owners called? Why aren't you seeking validation for your values and political priorities on a forum where other "I am not a single issue" gun owners are talking and spending time on the Net? They're your kind of people, yet you ignore them by choosing not to post there. Instead, you are only posting here on Calguns where you don't miss any opportunity to remind us how intolerant and stupid we are because we're not inclusive of those who like yourself are self professed gun rights advocates. You talk gun rights but when the rubber hits the road and you should vote for candidates who are pro-gun, you still support the gun grabbers of the Democrat Party. Because those yucky Republicans bastards, yeah... they may support gun rights for Californians and they may appoint a pro-gun Judge here and there, and maybe if we're lucky we may keep our guns for another 20 years or so - but they're so mean to the unions and don't believe in global warming dude! And those are my priorities man, guns are just a hobby you dig?

My final question: why aren't you honest for once and admit that you care a lot more about gun rights than you care for leftist causes and that's self evident because you are only spending your time here?

Maybe you are looking for us to help you break with the Democrat Party of Gun Haters once and for all.
Or maybe you are simply a gun hating troll posing as a gun owner, a sapper - to use a term coined by a forum colleague.

I don't know exactly what you are and what you are looking for here on Calguns but I hope someday you will have the courage and the honesty to tell us.

[spyde12]

sorry, but f*** them. they are part of the problem. they vote for the people who will strip their rights away. they wanted this guy and his liberal friends in office well they got their wish. they will still probably vote for him just because they see that D by his name.

He'd give his "D" for all the power.

If I might interrupt the thread crapping...

What is the fund raising loophole? That funds raised by a committee (Form 410 filings and all) for support of an initiative can simply be rolled over to some other campaign? Or that the funds are used by the proponent, in this case Newsom, to keep him in the spotlight while campaigning on the initiative prior to starting his gubernatorial run?

Normal programming can now be resumed...

I'm curious about this too.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Even the "Liberal Gun Club thinks Newsom is BS

Tankarian,
You apparently have some deep pathologies. I'm not sure why it's so important to you, but I am what I've said I am. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but your attempts to dig deep and discover some hidden agenda is indicative of something bizarre on your part.

Seeking answers through my forum of choice is a needless chore. It's simple--there are no other gun forums that are both CA specific and have a high volume of traffic. Since you admittedly spent time researching my posting history, I'm assuming you had the opportunity to see my posts in the LTC forum going back to a few months before I was licensed in 2011. You've read what I do for a living and my county of residence. You've noticed that most of my posts have been in the LTC forum, as that's my primary interest. Your emerging obsession with me is a little strange, but to each his own.

As for my priorities on the issues, I'm neither looking for assistance or trolling. I have a few guns. I'm licensed to carry three of them concealed. I detest the republican stance on several issues, but I am open to voting for a moderate Republican should one ever again emerge. I detest the Democratic stance on RKBA, but not as much as I detest the republican stance on several issues. It's always easier and more comfortable to adopt an entire belief system, because it resolves uncomfortable decisions and removes the need for prioritization. I choose not to do that.

That's all there is to it. Any Machiavellian plots are products of your imagination.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dustoff31]

The do make some points. And then, some not so good points.

Gavin’s initiative is a vehicle for his personal ambitions that is a lemon when examined closely:

1. Magazine confiscation will be expensive, dangerous, and ineffective. Out of California 38 million citizens, roughly 8 million are gun owners. They comprise 20% of California’s overall population, and many own legal, grandfathered magazines rarely used in crimes. In fact, they are valued collector's items. The taxpayer money required to go door-to-door to gather up all of these magazines is staggering and, as Gavin knows, completely unrealistic. This proposal will turn good neighbors into felons, putting innocent Californians at risk of jail. It will provide a pretext for invasive policing and dramatically increase the likelihood of deadly police encounters.

That's never stopped them before.

2. Background checks for all ammunition sales already failed in New York and will fail here. New York attempted a similar policy, then backed off because it proved too costly and impossible to implement [NYTIMES]. Just like using restrictions to make legal abortion as difficult as possible, this proposal will make it as difficult as possible for law abiding gun owners and recreational shooters to buy ammunition. As criminals can easily procure ammunition on the black market or in Nevada, Arizona, or Oregon, this measure will cost taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and not make us one bit safer.

No, the law didn't fail, it's still on the books. Enforcement is simply being delayed until they get the system in place to do it.

3. Disarming felons and prohibited persons raises issues best handled by the legislature, not a ballot measure. There is good reason why our legislature is still debating this issue. California already has a task force tracking down felons and other prohibited persons to ensure they do not have any firearms. Confiscating firearms is a complex issue best handled by the Department of Justice and the California Legislature.

As they point out, APPS exists, so the DOJ and the legislature already has handled the issue. They like it.

5. NICS database sharing risks violating privacy, especially healthcare data, and stops short of effectively fixing California's background check system. The state could save millions by shelving the state run background check program and using the federal program instead, as we are already paying for a Federal system.

The feds will not allow NICS to be used for ammo background checks. That's why the NY thing is delayed, they have to set up their own system to do that.

Since CA already has such a system, that's not a problem here.

Yes, CA could just use NICS (except for ammo). But they won't. They have had that option since the Brady bill passed and they elected to do otherwise. They only use it for guns because they have to.

Gavin’s proposal will eat up California’s dwindling resources better used to reduce our debt, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and improve the lives of all Californians. He is using the pretext of gun control to exploit a fundraising loophole in California law, putting Californians at risk, evading the good judgement of the legislature, and funneling special interest money to his coffers as a pretext to raise his personal profile. This is about Gavin, not guns.

Again, that's never stopped them before.

[C.W.M.V.]

sorry, but f*** them. they are part of the problem. they vote for the people who will strip their rights away. they wanted this guy and his liberal friends in office well they got their wish. they will still probably vote for him just because they see that D by his name.

Quoted for truth.
Bears repeating.

[tankarian]

Tankarian,
You apparently have some deep pathologies. I'm not sure why it's so important to you, but I am what I've said I am. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but your attempts to dig deep and discover some hidden agenda is indicative of something bizarre on your part.

Seeking answers through my forum of choice is a needless chore. It's simple--there are no other gun forums that are both CA specific and have a high volume of traffic. Since you admittedly spent time researching my posting history, I'm assuming you had the opportunity to see my posts in the LTC forum going back to a few months before I was licensed in 2011. You've read what I do for a living and my county of residence. You've noticed that most of my posts have been in the LTC forum, as that's my primary interest. Your emerging obsession with me is a little strange, but to each his own.

As for my priorities on the issues, I'm neither looking for assistance or trolling. I have a few guns. I'm licensed to carry three of them concealed. I detest the republican stance on several issues, but I am open to voting for a moderate Republican should one ever again emerge. I detest the Democratic stance on RKBA, but not as much as I detest the republican stance on several issues. It's always easier and more comfortable to adopt an entire belief system, because it resolves uncomfortable decisions and removes the need for prioritization. I choose not to do that.

That's all there is to it. Any Machiavellian plots are products of your imagination.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure dude. You just gave me a non answer. Yeah, I know Calguns is the largest CA gun forum on the Net, but what I asked is why are you spending time ONLY HERE if by your own admission other political and social issues trump gun rights for you. Shouldn't you be active on forums dedicated to issues that are on top of your list?

You just avoided to give an honest answer to the most important question I asked but I am not surprised; honesty isn't a quality often associated with leftist talk.

Enjoy your LTC and don't forget to vote for those who want not only to take it, but to take your gun away with it too.

Be proud you support the Party of Leland Yee, Dianne Feinstein, Kevin DeLeon and many, many others like them. And since you just declared they're more palatable to you than those disgusting Republicans, don't forget to send a donation to the non-profit groups that just like you, support finance and endorse them: the Moms for Gun Nonsense and the Bradys.

[tankarian]

Dear OBG,

All these politicians are thanking you for your unconditional support of their Party.
Just go ahead and surrender your LTC and your guns now to the nearest police station.
Your Second Amendment rights are not nearly as important as the other social and political issues you and the people in the pictures above are supporting.
Thank you for your cooperation.

[baggss]

I find it interesting that the LGC even posted this.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Even the "Liberal Gun Club thinks Newsom is BS

Sure dude. You just gave me a non answer. Yeah, I know Calguns is the largest CA gun forum on the Net, but what I asked is why are you spending time ONLY HERE if by your own admission other political and social issues trump gun rights for you. Shouldn't you be active on forums dedicated to issues that are on top of your list?

You just avoided to give an honest answer to the most important question I asked but I am not surprised; honesty isn't a quality often associated with leftist talk.

I avoided nothing. You throw so much up there at once that I lack the attention span to reply to everything. The question you think is so all-fired important is actually very easy to answer, but it's not the dramatic response you may feel it deserves. It's more mundane than all that: I don't read and participate in forums for political organizing purposes. It's a pastime. Entertainment. Picking up some valid info once in awhile. This place interests me most of the time. Other forums, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tankarian]

I avoided nothing. You throw so much up there at once that I lack the attention span to reply to everything. The question you think is so all-fired important is actually very easy to answer, but it's not the dramatic response you may feel it deserves. It's more mundane than all that: I don't read and participate in forums for political organizing purposes. It's a pastime. Entertainment. Picking up some valid info once in awhile. This place interests me most of the time. Other forums, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No problem, confusion and short attention span are typical attributes of the low information leftist voter so this is why I'm trying to help you again by asking the same question.

You see, by your own admission gun rights interest you less than other social and political issues which is why you support the Party of Gun Hating Democrats at the cost of sabotaging the Second Amendment.

Yet just a couple of replies after that you contradict yourself and claim that you are not spending any time discussing issues you care about. The same issues you previously said that are on top of your priorities list when you are voting. Instead you come here often to vigorously engage in debates on gun rights which is an issue that sits on the bottom of your list. Because this GUN RIGHTS forum "interests you most of the time" and all other issues are pastime, entertainment".

If all other issues are just entertainment and pastime not worth of your attention, then why you vote for the Party that supports those issues and who has the objective to destroy gun rights in its platform?

Can't have it both ways dude.

Again: why are you here all the time if guns rights aren't your main concern?

[Dr Rockso]

Don't suppose this would be an opportune time to point out that most folks around here support the party of James Brady, Paul Helmke, Arnie, "Gun Ban Dan" Lungren, and (until 2007) Michael Bloomberg.

We get it, the D's are, on average, much more anti-gun than the R's are. But I just don't understand this dogpiling that always happens whenever somebody mentions a left-leaning pro-gun group or individual. Mostly because they're in such a tiny minority around here, yet people like to pretend that half of CGN is voting D (my guess is its more like 10% at the high end).

Ok, so in tank's perfect world 100% of active calgunners vote R (instead of just 90%). What changes? Nothing at all, the number of voters to whom gun rights are a serious issue but who identify politically according to other beliefs is just too small to swing any elections. Not to say a candidate can't alienate a much more substantial population of gun owners who don't typically consider gun rights an important issue, but doing that requires the candidate take a position extreme enough to pop up on the radars of gun owners who don't consider gun politics until somebody starts talking confiscation.

From a strategic perspective I would rather have some people on the opposite team from me (politically) who have the credibility within their own party to criticize bad policy, and to serve as an example within left-leaning circles that gunowners aren't a monolithic block who are always on the "wrong" side.