On 8/20/23 9:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>On Aug 20, 2023 at 6:39:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 01:22:57 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2023 at 6:05:22 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:50:46 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to end the
>>>>> gun
>>>>> violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to states to
>>>>> step in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory background checks and
>>>>> waiting periods as "gun freedoms". That's the kind of government
>>>>> double-speak
>>>>> Orwell would be proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> With one caveat:
>>>>>
>>>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does not, in fact,
>>>>> accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the so-called gun violence epidemic
>>>>> within five years, those four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed,
>>>>> along with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, and all the
>>>>> BATF
>>>>> rules and regulations that stem from those Acts. (Which, of course, would be
>>>>> specifically itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all know
>>>>> what
>>>>> happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>>
>>>> I'll agree if we
>>>> 1) have a mandatory gun safety course before purchasing a gun that
>>>> requires at least five hours of training on how to properly use and
>>>> care for and store their weapon.
>>>
>>> Depends on what 'properly' means with regard to storage. I don't have any
>>> kids
>>> or anyone in my home to worry about other than my girlfriend-- who's an LAPD
>>> detective and has her own gun-- so I have no need to store my gun locked away
>>> in a safe with the ammo locked up separately somewhere else, which is what
>>> the
>>> gun-control lunatics demand. Washington DC even required the firearm be
>>> disassembled when not in use. They got sued over that so I don't know if
>>> that's still the case. A firearm is useless for any kind of home defense if
>>> it
>>> takes 10 minutes to get to it and make it functional.
>>
>>>> 2) Periodic retesting of gun owners every 5 years to verify that they
>>>> still know to safely use, care for and store their weapons.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Mandatory gun locks to be placed on every weapon when not in use.
>>>
>>> Again, do you call a time out for the home invader while you go get your keys
>>> and remove the lock?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Well, then you're dead.
>
>>> Nope. My gun is 'stored' in the drawer next to my bed with a full mag
>>> inserted
>>> and one in the pipe. Anything else and it's just an expensive paperweight.
>>
>> Good. So if someone breaks into your home but is silent enough not to
>> wake you up, what good is that weapon going to do you when they are
>> standing over you before you wake up.
>
>Unlikely given the technological and canine early alert systems we have in the
>house.
>
>However, the government spent over a million dollars training me in other
>forms of combat and self-defense, so there's a better than even chance I'd be
>able to hurt him enough that it would give me the time to grab the gun and
>finish him off. If I don't make it, so be it, but I have a helluva better
>chance of doing so if there's no trigger lock to f around with.
>
>> In the other case where you wake up when they break in to your home that
>> would mean you have time to
>> unlock your gun.
>
>Sorry, but I don't like to handicap myself in life/death situations. I give
>myself every advantage, not purposely put myself at a disadvantage.

Well anonyshitted and diarrhea'd of the mouth.

>> Truthfully no matter what case you or I provide we can always come up
>> with a different case where our ideas don't work. That said what we
>> are trying to do is cover the majority of cases knowing that there
>> will be specific case that we aren't covering.
>>
>>>> Though there are still so many illegal weapons out there that I doubt
>>>> that would do much to stop the violence from the criminals. It would
>>>> hopefully put an end to the more casual violence like that six year
>>>> old kid that took his mom's gun to school.
>>>
>>> Having kids in your home is an entirely different situation, but for those of
>>> us who don't, there's no reason we should be required to make our firearms
>>> functionally useless.
>>>
>>>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual journalism, one of
>>>>> our local reporters detached his mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long
>>>>> enough to
>>>>> ask him, "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun safety when
>>>>> you signed a bill last year to remove the ability of local prosecutors to
>>>>> charge gun enhancements on a whole series of crimes so that people who use
>>>>> guns to commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't someone who's
>>>>> really interested in gun safety (rather than just laying the groundwork
>>>>> for a
>>>>> presidential run with a political stunt like a constitutional amendment that
>>>>> will never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes rather than
>>>>> eliminated them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I almost expected Sith
>>>>> lightning to erupt from his fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true"
>>>>> response, and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed gun
>>>>> enhancements on
>>>>> a whole slate of crimes. He *does* have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons
>>>>> agenda, which the repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so much else. Maybe Ron
>>>>> will bring this up in their debate where Newsom can't just say "we're out of
>>>>> time" and run away.
>>> >>
>
>
>

--
This space for rent.

On 8/20/23 11:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>On Aug 20, 2023 at 9:46:06 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>> Unlikely given the technological and canine early alert systems we have in
>>> the
>>> house.
>>
>> When did you get the new dog? Show us a picture! What did the cat say?
>>
>>> . . .
>
>It's not my dog. It's the girlfriend's dog. He's only here when she is, much
>to the cat's consternation.

That's interesting, that means she's either live in girlfriend or you're
lying your ass off as usual. Thirdly I suppose you could just not be
cognizant of what the f*** you're talking about either.

--
This space for rent.

On 8/21/23 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>In article <ubuqne$1oukm$3@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 20, 2023 at 9:46:06 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>. . .
>>
>> >>>Unlikely given the technological and canine early alert systems we have in
>> >>>the house.
>>
>> >>When did you get the new dog? Show us a picture! What did the cat say?
>>
>> >>>. . .
>>
>> >It's not my dog. It's the girlfriend's dog. He's only here when she is, much
>> >to the cat's consternation.
>>
>> Heh
>>
>> My dog would try to befriend the burglar.
>
>Yes, I had a black lab as a kid that would just roll over and beg for
>belly scratches from strangers.

And did you tell people the problem was because it was black?

--
This space for rent.

> shawn
> > BTR1701
> >
> >1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21

Sure, as long as we also raise the age for sexual "transitions" to 21.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

> >2) Universal background checks

I've said before that I wouldn't have a problem with universal background checks
if _citizens_ could do them, without having to go to a licensed gun dealer and
paying $X for the "service" of a 1.5min phone call to the ATF.

The anti-gun fundies are pushing for background checks because municipalities
can restrict or ban gun dealers via zoning laws, potentially creating a situation
where there is only ONE gun dealer in the entire city, county, state or even the
nation who everybody has to use, as is the case in Mexico, where there is literally
only one legal gun dealer in the whole country (and despite this, Mexico is awash
is military-grade weapons and had 32,0000+ murders last year).

> >3) A waiting period for gun purchases

Pointless regulation that only affects the already law abiding.

> >4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons

Molon labe, nigga.

Which I believe the Left-Dems actually want to happen, as an armed revolt by the
People refusing to give up their human right to protect themselves, would be used
as justification for calling out the military to slaughter Americans.

> 1) have a mandatory gun safety course before purchasing a gun that
> requires at least five hours of training on how to properly use and
> care for and store their weapon.
>
> 2) Periodic retesting of gun owners every 5 years to verify that they
> still know to safely use, care for and store their weapons.

Firearm accidents have been in decline since the 1930s, this simply isn't an issue.

> 3) Mandatory gun locks to be placed on every weapon when not in use.

And when a methhead kicks in your door at 3:00am?...

In article <bdf3b9d0-197a-483c-8a73-65683174fc2cn@googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

> > shawn
> > > BTR1701
> > >
> > >1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>
> Sure, as long as we also raise the age for sexual "transitions" to 21.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think so.
>
> > >2) Universal background checks
>
> I've said before that I wouldn't have a problem with universal background
> checks if _citizens_ could do them, without having to go to a licensed gun
> dealer and paying $X for the "service" of a 1.5min phone call to the ATF.
>
> The anti-gun fundies are pushing for background checks because municipalities
> can restrict or ban gun dealers via zoning laws, potentially creating a
> situation where there is only ONE gun dealer in the entire city, county,
> state or even the nation who everybody has to use, as is the case in
> Mexico, where there is literally only one legal gun dealer in the whole
> country (and despite this, Mexico is awash in military-grade weapons and
> had 32,0000+ murders last year).
>
> > >3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>
> Pointless regulation that only affects the already law abiding.
>
> > >4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>
> Molon labe, nigga.
>
> Which I believe the Left-Dems actually want to happen, as an armed revolt
> by the People refusing to give up their human right to protect themselves,
> would be used as justification for calling out the military to slaughter
> Americans.
>
> > 1) have a mandatory gun safety course before purchasing a gun that
> > requires at least five hours of training on how to properly use and
> > care for and store their weapon.
> >
> > 2) Periodic retesting of gun owners every 5 years to verify that they
> > still know to safely use, care for and store their weapons.
>
> Firearm accidents have been in decline since the 1930s, this simply isn't
> an issue.
>
> > 3) Mandatory gun locks to be placed on every weapon when not in use.
>
> And when a methhead kicks in your door at 3:00am?...

Shawn already answered that. He says you tell him, "Hang on, have a
seat. I'll be a few minutes assembling my gun so I can shoot you."

On 8/21/23 5:43 PM, Trotsky wrote:
> On 8/20/23 11:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2023 at 9:46:06 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the technological and canine early alert systems we
>>>> have in
>>>> the
>>>> house.
>>>
>>> When did you get the new dog? Show us a picture! What did the cat say?
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>> It's not my dog. It's the girlfriend's dog. He's only here when she
>> is, much
>> to the cat's consternation.
>
>
>
> That's interesting, that means she's either live in girlfriend or you're
> lying your ass off as usual. Thirdly I suppose you could just not be
> cognizant of what the f*** you're talking about either.
>
>

Well, if he really does have that girlfriend, I'm pretty sure her dog
isn't the only one on a leash... just sayin'.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/21/23 6:10 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> shawn
>>> BTR1701
>>>
>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>
> Sure, as long as we also raise the age for sexual "transitions" to 21.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think so.

Guns aren't medically necessary.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/21/23 10:15 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2023-08-20 8:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  From @GavinNewsom:
>>
>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to end
>> the gun
>> violence epidemic in this nation.
>>
>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to
>> states to
>> step in.
>>
>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>
>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>
>> 2) Universal background checks
>>
>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>
>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>
>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory background checks and
>> waiting periods as "gun freedoms". That's the kind of government
>> double-speak
>> Orwell would be proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>
>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>
>> With one caveat:
>>
>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does not, in fact,
>> accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the so-called gun violence
>> epidemic
>> within five years, those four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily
>> repealed,
>> along with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, and all
>> the BATF
>> rules and regulations that stem from those Acts. (Which, of course,
>> would be
>> specifically itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>> know what
>> happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>
>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>
>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of his amendment.
>>
>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual journalism,
>> one of our
>> local reporters detached his mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long
>> enough to
>> ask him, "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>> safety when
>> you signed a bill last year to remove the ability of local prosecutors to
>> charge gun enhancements on a whole series of crimes so that people who
>> use
>> guns to commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't someone
>> who's
>> really interested in gun safety (rather than just laying the
>> groundwork for a
>> presidential run with a political stunt like a constitutional
>> amendment that
>> will never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes rather than
>> eliminate them?"
>>
>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I almost expected
>> Sith
>> lightning to erupt from his fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true"
>> response, and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>
>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed gun
>> enhancements on
>> a whole slate of crimes. He *does* have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons
>> agenda, which the repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was
>> concerned
>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>
>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so much else.
>> Maybe Ron
>> will bring this up in their debate where Newsom can't just say "we're
>> out of
>> time" and run away.
>>
>>
> So the DeSantos/Newsom Debate is on? Last I heard, Newsom was still
> hiding....
>

Man, you don't hear well, do you. Newsom agreed to do it on Fox News,
with Sean Hannity, of all people.

But that wasn't enough for the righties... they wanted a full studio
audience who could hoot and holler every time Newsom tried to make a
point - and set off fireworks every time DuhSantis said the word "woke".

How much is enough for you cowards to agree to a fair debate?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/21/23 2:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article<0001HW.2A93DCA30059458130EE0338F@news.giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup<plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:50:46 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>
>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to end the
>>> gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>
>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to states
>>> to step in.
>>>
>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>
>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>
>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>
>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>
>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20

>> So far as I know, Newsom's California already have
>> these as law. So what need for an Amendment?

> Newsom isn't content to just focus on California anymore. Every week he
> injects himself into some issue that has nothing to do with California
> because he's positioning himself for a run for national office.

Unlike Ron DuhSantis, who never leaves his home state. How come you
haven't mentioned Governor Puddin' Fingers if that upsets you so?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>
>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
>>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>
>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
>>> It's up to states to step in.
>>>
>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
>>> freedoms:
>>>
>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>
>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>
>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>
>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
>>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
>>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
>>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>
>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>
>>> With one caveat:
>>>
>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
>>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
>>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
>>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
>>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
>>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
>>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
>>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>
>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>
>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
>>> his amendment.
>>>
>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
>>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
>>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
>>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
>>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
>>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
>>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
>>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
>>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
>>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
>>> rather than eliminate them?"
>>>
>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
>>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
>>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
>>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>
>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
>>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
>>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
>>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>
>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
>>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
>>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
>>> away.
>>>
>> None of this will do anything than making it much more
>> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
>> Amendment rights.
>>
>> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
>> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
>> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
>> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
>>
>> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
>> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
>> or even slow things down.
>
> If Newsom was a smarter man,

You belong to the party of Trump you stupid motherfucker. My dog is
smarter than he is. Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? If you
want to sleep with Newsom so bad see if you can have someone arrange a
date for you.

On 8/21/23 1:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <0001HW.2A93DCA30059458130EE0338F@news.giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:50:46 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>
>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to end the
>>> gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>
>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to states
>>> to step in.
>>>
>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>
>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>
>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>
>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>
>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>
>> So far as I know, Newsom's California already have
>> these as law. So what need for an Amendment?
>
> Newsom isn't content to just focus on California anymore.

Cite?

Every week he
> injects himself into some issue that has nothing to do with California
> because he's positioning himself for a run for national office.
>
> Before guns it was abortion. Multiple tweets about other states'
> abortion laws. California already allows you to abort your kid any time,
> even after birth, so the Dobbs ruling had no effect on California, but
> Newsom felt the need to embroil himself in the debate over other states'
> laws because as president, it would all be his business.
>
> He wants to be seen as a statesman on national issues. This gun
> amendment is just more of the same.
>
>> All other states have to do is look at California's
>> success in gun violence to inspire other states
>> to follow California's lead.
>
> Heh. Ain't that the truth: Pass a bunch of super-restrictive gun laws,
> then refuse to enforce them because if you did, you'd end up locking up
> mostly brown and black men, and that's a 'progressive' no-no these days.

On 8/21/23 6:04 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/21/23 5:43 PM, Trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/20/23 11:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 2023 at 9:46:06 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely given the technological and canine early alert systems we
>>>>> have in
>>>>> the
>>>>> house.
>>>>
>>>> When did you get the new dog? Show us a picture! What did the cat say?
>>>>
>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>> It's not my dog. It's the girlfriend's dog. He's only here when she
>>> is, much
>>> to the cat's consternation.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's interesting, that means she's either live in girlfriend or you're
>> lying your ass off as usual. Thirdly I suppose you could just not be
>> cognizant of what the f*** you're talking about either.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, if he really does have that girlfriend, I'm pretty sure her dog
> isn't the only one on a leash...  just sayin'.

I'm starting to think his "girlfriend" is a robot he bought online from
Japan.

On 8/21/23 6:07 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/21/23 10:15 AM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-08-20 8:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>  From @GavinNewsom:
>>>
>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to
>>> end the gun
>>> violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>
>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to
>>> states to
>>> step in.
>>>
>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>
>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>
>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>
>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>
>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory background checks and
>>> waiting periods as "gun freedoms". That's the kind of government
>>> double-speak
>>> Orwell would be proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>
>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>
>>> With one caveat:
>>>
>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does not, in fact,
>>> accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the so-called gun violence
>>> epidemic
>>> within five years, those four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily
>>> repealed,
>>> along with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, and all
>>> the BATF
>>> rules and regulations that stem from those Acts. (Which, of course,
>>> would be
>>> specifically itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>> know what
>>> happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>
>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>
>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of his amendment.
>>>
>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual journalism,
>>> one of our
>>> local reporters detached his mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long
>>> enough to
>>> ask him, "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>> safety when
>>> you signed a bill last year to remove the ability of local
>>> prosecutors to
>>> charge gun enhancements on a whole series of crimes so that people
>>> who use
>>> guns to commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>> someone who's
>>> really interested in gun safety (rather than just laying the
>>> groundwork for a
>>> presidential run with a political stunt like a constitutional
>>> amendment that
>>> will never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes rather than
>>> eliminate them?"
>>>
>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I almost expected
>>> Sith
>>> lightning to erupt from his fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not
>>> true"
>>> response, and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>
>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed gun
>>> enhancements on
>>> a whole slate of crimes. He *does* have a 'progressive'
>>> empty-the-prisons
>>> agenda, which the repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was
>>> concerned
>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>
>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so much else.
>>> Maybe Ron
>>> will bring this up in their debate where Newsom can't just say "we're
>>> out of
>>> time" and run away.
>>>
>>>
>> So the DeSantos/Newsom Debate is on? Last I heard, Newsom was still
>> hiding....
>>
>
> Man, you don't hear well, do you.  Newsom agreed to do it on Fox News,
> with Sean Hannity, of all people.
>
> But that wasn't enough for the righties... they wanted a full studio
> audience who could hoot and holler every time Newsom tried to make a
> point - and set off fireworks every time DuhSantis said the word "woke".
>
> How much is enough for you cowards to agree to a fair debate?

Wow, Rhino is as stupid as Pubie, and that's scraping the bottom of the
barrel. Even the fucking Republicans pretend DeSantos doesn't exist,
nobody give a flying shit about that loser.

On 8/21/23 6:09 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/21/23 2:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article<0001HW.2A93DCA30059458130EE0338F@news.giganews.com>,
>>   Pluted Pup<plutedpup@outlook.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:50:46 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>  From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>
>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to
>>>> end the
>>>> gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>
>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to
>>>> states
>>>> to step in.
>>>>
>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>
>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>
>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>
>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>
>>> So far as I know, Newsom's California already have
>>> these as law. So what need for an Amendment?
>
>> Newsom isn't content to just focus on California anymore. Every week he
>> injects himself into some issue that has nothing to do with California
>> because he's positioning himself for a run for national office.
>
> Unlike Ron DuhSantis, who never leaves his home state.  How come you
> haven't mentioned Governor Puddin' Fingers if that upsets you so?

Never leaves his home state? What about the throngs of air molecules he
addressed at the Iowa State Fair?

On 8/22/23 4:04 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/21/23 6:09 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 8/21/23 2:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article<0001HW.2A93DCA30059458130EE0338F@news.giganews.com>,
>>>   Pluted Pup<plutedpup@outlook.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:50:46 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to
>>>>> end the
>>>>> gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused. It's up to
>>>>> states
>>>>> to step in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety freedoms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>
>>>> So far as I know, Newsom's California already have
>>>> these as law. So what need for an Amendment?
>>
>>> Newsom isn't content to just focus on California anymore. Every week he
>>> injects himself into some issue that has nothing to do with California
>>> because he's positioning himself for a run for national office.
>>
>> Unlike Ron DuhSantis, who never leaves his home state.  How come you
>> haven't mentioned Governor Puddin' Fingers if that upsets you so?
>
>
> Never leaves his home state?  What about the throngs of air molecules he
> addressed at the Iowa State Fair?
>

Sarcasm... I doubt DuhSantis even remembers where his home state is.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

In article <mIZEM.142388$ftCb.122841@fx34.iad>,
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >>> From @GavinNewsom:
> >>>
> >>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
> >>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
> >>>
> >>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
> >>> It's up to states to step in.
> >>>
> >>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
> >>> freedoms:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
> >>>
> >>> 2) Universal background checks
> >>>
> >>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
> >>>
> >>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
> >>>
> >>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------
> >>>
> >>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
> >>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
> >>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
> >>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
> >>>
> >>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
> >>>
> >>> With one caveat:
> >>>
> >>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
> >>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
> >>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
> >>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
> >>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
> >>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
> >>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
> >>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
> >>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
> >>>
> >>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
> >>>
> >>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
> >>> his amendment.
> >>>
> >>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
> >>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
> >>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
> >>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
> >>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
> >>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
> >>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
> >>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
> >>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
> >>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
> >>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
> >>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
> >>> rather than eliminate them?"
> >>>
> >>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
> >>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
> >>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
> >>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
> >>>
> >>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
> >>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
> >>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
> >>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
> >>> about gun safety would never have done that.
> >>>
> >>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
> >>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
> >>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
> >>> away.
> >>>
> >> None of this will do anything than making it much more
> >> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
> >> Amendment rights.
> >>
> >> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
> >> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
> >> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
> >> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
> >>
> >> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
> >> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
> >> or even slow things down.
> >
> > If Newsom was a smarter man,

> You belong to the party of Trump

I actually don't belong to any party and I didn't vote for Trump in
either election, but thanks for making shit up like that. Just makes it
easier to illustrate to everyone else what an absolute null you are,
Hutt.

> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak
> > > BTR1701
> > >
> > > 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
> >
> > Sure, as long as we also raise the age for sexual "transitions" to 21.
> > Yeah, I didn't think so.
>
> Guns aren't medically necessary.

Which constitutional amendment guarantees the right of a kindergartner
to the "medical necessity" of shooting up female hormones and chopping
their dick off?

On 8/22/23 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <mIZEM.142388$ftCb.122841@fx34.iad>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
>>>>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
>>>>> It's up to states to step in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
>>>>> freedoms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
>>>>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
>>>>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
>>>>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> With one caveat:
>>>>>
>>>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
>>>>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
>>>>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
>>>>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
>>>>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
>>>>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
>>>>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
>>>>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>>>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
>>>>> his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
>>>>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
>>>>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
>>>>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>>>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
>>>>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
>>>>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
>>>>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>>>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
>>>>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
>>>>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
>>>>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
>>>>> rather than eliminate them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
>>>>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
>>>>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
>>>>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
>>>>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
>>>>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
>>>>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
>>>>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
>>>>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>> None of this will do anything than making it much more
>>>> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
>>>> Amendment rights.
>>>>
>>>> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
>>>> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
>>>> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
>>>> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
>>>>
>>>> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
>>>> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
>>>> or even slow things down.
>>>
>>> If Newsom was a smarter man,
>
>> You belong to the party of Trump
>
> I actually don't belong to any party and I didn't vote for Trump in
> either election, but thanks for making shit up like that. Just makes it
> easier to illustrate to everyone else what an absolute null you are,
> Hutt.

Wait, are you telling me you don't identify as a right wing asshole.
And that you expect anyone to believe who you, a known and constant
liar, voted for?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <mIZEM.142388$ftCb.122841@fx34.iad>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
>>>>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
>>>>> It's up to states to step in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
>>>>> freedoms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
>>>>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
>>>>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
>>>>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> With one caveat:
>>>>>
>>>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
>>>>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
>>>>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
>>>>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
>>>>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
>>>>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
>>>>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
>>>>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>>>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
>>>>> his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
>>>>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
>>>>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
>>>>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>>>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
>>>>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
>>>>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
>>>>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>>>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
>>>>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
>>>>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
>>>>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
>>>>> rather than eliminate them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
>>>>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
>>>>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
>>>>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
>>>>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
>>>>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
>>>>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
>>>>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
>>>>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>> None of this will do anything than making it much more
>>>> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
>>>> Amendment rights.
>>>>
>>>> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
>>>> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
>>>> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
>>>> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
>>>>
>>>> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
>>>> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
>>>> or even slow things down.
>>>
>>> If Newsom was a smarter man,
>
>> You belong to the party of Trump
>
> I actually don't belong to any party and I didn't vote for Trump in
> either election, but thanks for making shit up like that. Just makes it
> easier to illustrate to everyone else what an absolute null you are,
> Hutt.
>

I’d have voted against Biden if I could but the USPS stole my ballot.
Despite all the whack jobs, claiming that that didn’t happen.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 8/22/23 1:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <mIZEM.142388$ftCb.122841@fx34.iad>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
>>>>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
>>>>> It's up to states to step in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
>>>>> freedoms:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
>>>>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
>>>>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
>>>>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> With one caveat:
>>>>>
>>>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
>>>>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
>>>>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
>>>>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
>>>>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
>>>>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
>>>>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
>>>>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>>>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
>>>>> his amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
>>>>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
>>>>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
>>>>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>>>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
>>>>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
>>>>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
>>>>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>>>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
>>>>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
>>>>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
>>>>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
>>>>> rather than eliminate them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
>>>>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
>>>>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
>>>>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
>>>>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
>>>>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
>>>>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
>>>>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
>>>>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>> None of this will do anything than making it much more
>>>> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
>>>> Amendment rights.
>>>>
>>>> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
>>>> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
>>>> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
>>>> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
>>>>
>>>> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
>>>> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
>>>> or even slow things down.
>>>
>>> If Newsom was a smarter man,
>
>> You belong to the party of Trump
>
> I actually don't belong to any party and I didn't vote for Trump in
> either election, but thanks for making shit up like that. Just makes it
> easier to illustrate to everyone else what an absolute null you are,
> Hutt.
>

Sure Oathkeeper. We all know you're not a Republican because you gave
your cult a 4 year pass, even though you and everybody in your party
KNEW what this man was, and what he was doing.

Nothing says "not a member" like doing everything possible to act like
one. Your lies don't fool anyone.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/22/23 4:58 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/22/23 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <mIZEM.142388$ftCb.122841@fx34.iad>,
>>   trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/21/23 12:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <ubvoko$1tp4f$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>    Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   From @GavinNewsom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional
>>>>>> Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The American people want action. Congress has refused.
>>>>>> It's up to states to step in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Right to Safety will enshrine four gun safety
>>>>>> freedoms:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Universal background checks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) A waiting period for gun purchases
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288?s=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it amusing the way Gavvy defines mandatory
>>>>>> background checks and waiting periods as "gun freedoms".
>>>>>> That's the kind of government double-speak Orwell would be
>>>>>> proud of. Restrictions = freedom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm actually half-tempted to let him have his amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With one caveat:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That self-same amendment goes on to state that if it does
>>>>>> not, in fact, accomplish its stated purpose and *end* the
>>>>>> so-called gun violence epidemic within five years, those
>>>>>> four "gun safety freedoms" are summarily repealed, along
>>>>>> with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act,
>>>>>> and all the BATF rules and regulations that stem from
>>>>>> those Acts. (Which, of course, would be specifically
>>>>>> itemized with mind-numbing particularity because we all
>>>>>> know what happens if there is even a hint of ambiguity.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your move, Hair-Gel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course Gavvy also refuses to address the hypocrisy of
>>>>>> his amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a refreshing and increasingly rare display of actual
>>>>>> journalism, one of our local reporters detached his
>>>>>> mouthparts from Gavvy's backside long enough to ask him,
>>>>>> "Governor, how can the public take you seriously on gun
>>>>>> safety when you signed a bill last year to remove the
>>>>>> ability of local prosecutors to charge gun enhancements on
>>>>>> a whole series of crimes so that people who use guns to
>>>>>> commit crimes won't go to prison for as long? Wouldn't
>>>>>> someone who's really interested in gun safety (rather than
>>>>>> just laying the groundwork for a presidential run with a
>>>>>> political stunt like a constitutional amendment that will
>>>>>> never pass) have enhanced gun enhancements for crimes
>>>>>> rather than eliminate them?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gavvy gave the guy a look of such unbridled hatred, I
>>>>>> almost expected Sith lightning to erupt from his
>>>>>> fingertips. He gave a vague "that's not true" response,
>>>>>> and then said they were out of time and he had to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it *is* true. Newsom *did* sign a bill which repealed
>>>>>> gun enhancements on a whole slate of crimes. He *does*
>>>>>> have a 'progressive' empty-the-prisons agenda, which the
>>>>>> repeal was pursuant to, and anyone who truly was concerned
>>>>>> about gun safety would never have done that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Newsom is full of shit on guns just like he is on so
>>>>>> much else. Maybe Ron will bring this up in their debate
>>>>>> where Newsom can't just say "we're out of time" and run
>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>
>>>>> None of this will do anything than making it much more
>>>>> difficult for LEGAL owners to exercise their Second
>>>>> Amendment rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of those gangbangers in Chicago who regularly
>>>>> go out in search of someone to shoot go through the
>>>>> bother of filling out forms, attending safety classes,
>>>>> and having places to lock their weapons up? ZERO!
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiple that by all of the other cities with regular
>>>>> shooting sprees, and it still won't do a thing to stop
>>>>> or even slow things down.
>>>>
>>>> If Newsom was a smarter man,
>>
>>> You belong to the party of Trump
>>
>> I actually don't belong to any party and I didn't vote for Trump in
>> either election, but thanks for making shit up like that. Just makes it
>> easier to illustrate to everyone else what an absolute null you are,
>> Hutt.
>
>
> Wait, are you telling me you don't identify as a right wing asshole. And
> that you expect anyone to believe who you, a known and constant liar,
> voted for?

I'm not a Democrat, a liberal, or a progressive, either I guess.

Thanny keeps perpetuating his ignorance, and pretends not to understand
that acting like all the other Republicans means YOU are one too.

He isn't a Republican because of what his voter registration affiliation
card says... he's a Republican because he talks, thinks and acts like one.

One does not have to sign an "I'm an Asshole" pledge card to be, in
fact, an asshole.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/22/23 4:51 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> FPP
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>> BTR1701
>>>>
>>>> 1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21
>>>
>>> Sure, as long as we also raise the age for sexual "transitions" to 21.
>>> Yeah, I didn't think so.
>>
>> Guns aren't medically necessary.
>
> Which constitutional amendment guarantees the right of a kindergartner
> to the "medical necessity" of shooting up female hormones and chopping
> their dick off?
>

You don't. Who said you did?
And the Supreme Court says no rights whatsoever are absolute.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0