That’s one of the best things i have heard in a very long time .
Ditto. I use to live near San Francisco at Dillon Beach and I have always loved San Francisco’s progressive politics. The City Board calling the NRA " A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION"? How brilliant! Too bad Congress would never follow San Francisco’s lead.
considering All of the years i lived in marin county and SF , i still had to look up where dillion beach was . Oh well , that was over 55 years ago . yikes !
38 miles north of San Francisco.
Now that’s progressive politics at work for the people.
And yet SF keeps returning anti-progressives Pelosi and Feinstein to D.C. to “represent” them. “Curiouser and curiouser,” as Alice would say.
Too many old farts voting for a name rather than the politician’s record.
Mindless support is the cornerstone of Duopoly politics.
nice work SF even if it is only a resolution. Sadly, the right-wing gun zealots will use it to run against San Francisco as the right wing has used that location to demonize Nancy Pelosi (the most progressive speaker we ever had)
Pelosi loves San Francisco too, morons. Get your act together.
You seem to be level headed about what guns, in and of themselves, can or can not do.
But why the affiliation with the NRA? They are political, and support right-wing ideology up and down the board.
Whatever good they may do for sportsmen and self defense, they lose at the policy end of all other issues by supporting the republican party.
The worst example was their multi-millions spent in the run up to the “92” election.
Meanwhile in Texas, Beto wants owners of semi-automatic rifles to sell them to the government. Great. How long would it be before all the honest, peaceful people become unarmed, and all the crooks and destructive people still have theirs. If that sounds like a good idea I am saddened by the gross naivety.
In response to post #10 by Jdblan:
" They have basically criminalized anyone supporting the 2nd amendment…"
Somebody who supports the 2nd amendment doesn’t necessarily support the NRA.
Has every terrorist been ticketed for speeding? If so, then your lack of tickets would prove that you’re not a terrorist, otherwise it proves nothing.
Chemical weapons have never killed, the people using them are the killers. Chemical weapons are just a tool.
Since criminals break the law, we shouldn’t make any new ones? We should allow everyone easy access to military weapons?
If cars were banned (and the ban enforced), then there would be no drivers. No drivers means no drunk drivers and so nobody gets killed by drunk drivers.
Although your banning cars argument is weak, it is actually dangerous because it implies that “we” want to get rid of the 2nd amendment. “We” want gun CONTROL, but “you” always act like this means take away ALL guns.
My opposition to this has nothing to do with guns or the NRA. Labeling groups inside the US as terrorist organizations, is a really bad idea. As this grows, so will the Surveillance Security State, and the noose around average everyday Americans. More money will be allocated to the SSS, like they don’t have enough now, and the people will lose more freedoms.
People are upset at Pelosi because she represents ‘money’ to the Democrat party; she does NOT seem to care about representing the human beings in her district or in the country. As the ‘Speaker’, she represents all of us and she is FAILING at that job.
Great point. Putting citizens in the position of determining who is a patriot, and who is a terrorist could be dangerous.
The present breakdown of our rights and freedoms only serve those that would control us.
Here we are again, watching fear mongering as a tool, be used against us supposed free people.
We might want to recall a line from the movie “Shooter,” by the corrupted senator played by Ned Beatty.
“There are no republican and democrats, no left and right, only the haves and the have-nots.” So true.
Thanks. And the ramifications/fallout of that failure will be far-reaching–electorally, legislatively, you name it.