Newsom Hints At Texas-style Law on Guns Used in Crimes

[ProfX]

The only other tool probably as effective for mass killing is to crash a car or truck into a crowd of people.

We do what we can about that - license plates so we can track down the vehicle, and hopefully find the driver. If they were somehow able to leave the scene under their own power.

Note, however, Americans are still extremely reluctant to register their guns. (The functional equivalent of a "license plate".)

[sam lefthand]

The California results between Kerry and Bush in 2004 wasn't close; Kerry won by 9.94 percentage points. Kerry received 6,745,485 votes to Bush's 5,509,826 votes. Whatever Newsom's stance on gay marriage didn't make the election close.
US Elections Atlas

In 2004 that issue morphed and became a national issue just before the election, it was not limited to just California. A considerable hue and cry was made of it and since it wasn't organized, and our national leaders were unprepared for it coming to the forefront so suddenly it didn't help with that very important campaign.



My problem with Gavin Newsom is that he's shown himself to be a loose cannon who unleashes wild shots at random, he doesn't have that team discipline that it take in my mind to become Presidential material and lead a party.

[carmenjonze]

Remarkable, argument:

someone might be able to kill more than one person without using guns, someday

therefore

lets not remove guns that have no practical use other than slaughter of human beings

Do not advocate for your own equality. Ever!

Because that might make white-is-right rightie uncomfortable for a couple minutes!

Sam Lefthand will never lecture these freaks about their own so-called incivility. People who don't put our heads down for conservative bigots make him very nervous. MLK had his number a generation ago.

[Number6]

In 2004 that issue morphed and became a national issue just before the election, it was not limited to just California. A considerable hue and cry was made of it and since it wasn't organized, and our national leaders were unprepared for it coming to the forefront so suddenly it didn't help with that very important campaign.

But apparently, it had little affect on the outcome of the election in California. In other parts of the country, the gay marriage issue may have had an effect but I don't think Newsom issuing marriage licenses to gays in San Fransisco had much impact in other states.

My problem with Gavin Newsom is that he's shown himself to be a loose cannon who unleashes wild shots at random, he doesn't have that team discipline that it take in my mind to become Presidential material and lead a party.

I won't say that but I think he has an image problem outside of California.

[sam lefthand]

The only other tool probably as effective for mass killing is to crash a car or truck into a crowd of people.

We do what we can about that - license plates so we can track down the vehicle, and hopefully find the driver. If they were somehow able to leave the scene under their own power.

Note, however, Americans are still extremely reluctant to register their guns. (The functional equivalent of a "license plate".)

Very few murders go unsolved. Registration would help some I suppose, but I wouldn't hold out hope that it would factor as a major solution because it does nothing until after the fact.

And you're correct crashing a car or truck into a crowd is very effective.



Crashing huge jetliners filled with fuel into tall buildings is even more effective as was the lesson learned from 9/11.

[gounion]

In 2004 that issue morphed and became a national issue just before the election, it was not limited to just California. A considerable hue and cry was made of it and since it wasn't organized, and our national leaders were unprepared for it coming to the forefront so suddenly it didn't help with that very important campaign.



My problem with Gavin Newsom is that he's shown himself to be a loose cannon who unleashes wild shots at random, he doesn't have that team discipline that it take in my mind to become Presidential material and lead a party.

What bullshit. Gay marriage WAS an issue, but it was because the Bush campaign put gay marriage on the ballot in many states where gay marriage wasn’t popular. But it wasn’t gay marriage that caused Kerry to lose. Mostly it was the stuff about his service. Kerry was behind pretty much the whole way. it’s harder than hell to beat an incumbent, and Kerry was going to lose.

But it’s funny when you deny you made such an argument, and turn right around and make it again.

[carmenjonze]

In 2004 that issue morphed and became a national issue just before the election, it was not limited to just California. A considerable hue and cry was made of it and since it wasn't organized, and our national leaders were unprepared for it coming to the forefront so suddenly it didn't help with that very important campaign.

Correction: it "morphed and became a national issue just before the election" because it was part of a long-term calculated strategy by the RNC.

If you're in doubt, see Ken Mehlman's own account of being the mastermind behind the strategy.

At the time, Mehlman was a closeted gay man.

Strategist Out of Closet and Into Fray, This Time for Gay Marriage - NYT

“I have a happy life today, and I had a happy life before,” he said. Freed of the burden of secrecy, he lives in the gay-friendly Chelsea neighborhood and summers in the Hamptons. Another friend called him “more and more comfortable in his skin.” He dates, but said he was not ready to marry.

He will not talk about any guilt he might feel for serving as the 2004 campaign manager, when Mr. Bush, courting Christian evangelicals, called for a federal ban on same-sex marriage and conservatives marched to the polls. Mr. Mehlman was rewarded with the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, a job he held until 2006.

Some who once taunted him now praise him, saying coming out is difficult and anyone can change. “If you’re going to have an epiphany, do it like Mehlman,” said John Aravosis, a gay blogger.

Others are still furious. “I doubt Ken Mehlman will ever be anything more than a bitter footnote in the history of our movement,” said another blogger, Joe Jervis.

And in Ohio, where Mr. Bush’s re-election coincided with voter approval of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Mr. Mehlman is persona non grata, said Eric Resnick, a gay journalist who in 2005 confronted the party chairman about his sexuality at a dinner. (Mr. Mehlman ducked the question.)

“Ken Mehlman did a lot of damage in Ohio,” Mr. Resnick said. “He has not come back to Ohio and said, ‘I’m sorry for what I did to you.’ ”

Despite or perhaps because of this past, Mr. Mehlman has carved a rare niche as a go-to Republican in the overwhelmingly Democratic gay advocacy world.

:problem:

Anyway. The strategy was a losing one because of us. Had D's stayed trapped in your mentality around "gay marriage" and everything else LGBTQ-related, samesex marriage and a host of other LGBTQ rights would also be trapped in 2004. Glad it isn't.

Read some LGBTQ history before trying to speak with any kind of credibility on the topic.

You have a trans kid, and yet don't know j.s. wth you're talking about.

My problem with Gavin Newsom is ...

Who gives a crap.

[sam lefthand]

I won't say that but I think he has an image problem outside of California.

I hope so.



He won't get my vote in a primary if it ever comes to that.

[carmenjonze]

I hope so.



He won't get my vote in a primary if it ever comes to that.

who cares? Dems don't need your vote.

Go vote Republican, where you belong.

[carmenjonze]

This is the article where Ken Mehlman came out and acknowledged he was on board with the Rove strategy of putting antigay legislation on ballots to get the bigots to the polls.

It's why I keep referencing this era in these discussions about CRT and 1619, because Republicans are again doing the same thing re: race that they pulled in the mid-00s.

Bush Campaign Chief and Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman: I’m Gay - The Atlantic

This is how dumb Sam Lefthand and his Republican bigot friends think we are, as if nobody can recognize the same old worn out Wille Horton Briggs Initiative Lavender Scare Southern Strategy: curtail social rights and keep inequality the national mandate, then blame the minorities for making the conservative whites angry when we advocate for those rights.

And hey, why wouldn't they use it. The conservative whites they're votebanking for the past 150 years will fall for it, every time.

[ProfX]

Crashing huge jetliners filled with fuel into tall buildings is even more effective as was the lesson learned from 9/11.

I left off that example, because it's relatively much harder to pull off, than renting a car or truck, finding a parade, and hitting the gas.

And hoping you can smash through all barricades and obstacles and anything else in the way.

The third method, BTW, is bombs. (See: Boston). Once again, as GoU pointed out, it's why C4 is not sold at Wal-Mart, and we make it very hard to obtain legally.

[gounion]

It's idiotic that Sam is making the "don't do anything to upset the right" argument. If we don't do anything, then we can't get OUR folks out to vote.

And the right will ALWAYS vote against us. We win when we take a stand.

And the anti-gay vote isn't what it was. And that didn't happen because the gay community tried to stay quiet so as not to upset the right. It was because they WERE out, and so many people came out, and people found out their relatives and friends were gay. I mean, when Dick Cheney's daughter came out, it sure changed Cheney. Her sister didn't care so much, but Dick Cheney stood by his daughter, in the end.

Now putting things like gay marriage on the ballot HURTS the GOP, so they've moved on to attack trans people. Hate still works there.

Sorry, Sam is wrong, wrong, wrong. We win when we strongly STAND for something.

And as for Newsome's plan, Sam don't get it. Newsome isn't planning on implementing such a law. The law will never go into effect. This is about illustrating to the country how stupid the Texas law is. Sam don't understand political theater at all. What Newsome is doing is GENIUS.

[sam lefthand]

I left off that example, because it's relatively much harder to pull off, than renting a car or truck, finding a parade, and hitting the gas.

And hoping you can smash through all barricades and obstacles and anything else in the way.

The third method, BTW, is bombs. (See: Boston). Once again, as GoU pointed out, it's why C4 is not sold at Wal-Mart, and we make it very hard to obtain legally.

All that's moot in this thread because we're not talking about sustainable law. Nothing about that so called Texas law is sustainable.



We're talking about Gavin Newsom showboating, again.

[gounion]

All that's moot in this thread because we're not talking about sustainable law. Nothing about that so called Texas law is sustainable.

You would be correct if we had sane justices on the Court. We don't.

We're talking about Gavin Newsom showboating, again.

No, we're talking about a canny political move. Wrong again!

It's going to make a lot of conservatives think twice about their plan. It's an "oh shit" moment.

But we can figure Sam's buddy Green Grass will show up and defend Sam!

[Bludogdem]

“ While it is difficult to know exactly how many guns civilians own around the world, by every estimate the US, with more than 390 million, is far out in front. The latest figures from the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss-based leading research project, are for 2018.”

“ There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Not the problem people think it is.

[gounion]

“ While it is difficult to know exactly how many guns civilians own around the world, by every estimate the US, with more than 390 million, is far out in front. The latest figures from the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss-based leading research project, are for 2018.”

“ There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Not the problem people think it is.

Do you think people won't read your link? Yeah, it's a problem. You made my point.

[Libertas]

Anyone who looks at all this and doesn't advocate for massive reduction of guns is an irresponsible asshole.

[Number6]

“ While it is difficult to know exactly how many guns civilians own around the world, by every estimate the US, with more than 390 million, is far out in front. The latest figures from the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss-based leading research project, are for 2018.”

“ There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Not the problem people think it is.

Bombas, here's some of the countries with the highest and lowest gun-related homicides in 2021.

United States:
Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year: 12.21
Homicide rate per year: 4.46
Suicide rate per year: 7.32
Total death number per year: 40,175

Brazil:
Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year: 21.9
Homicide rate per year: 20.7
Suicide rate per year: 0.5
Total death number per year: 46,215

Mexico:
Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year: 7.64
Homicide rate per year: 6.34
Suicide rate per year: 0.44
Total death number per year: 9,745

Germany:
Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year: 0.99
Homicide rate per year: 1.01
Suicide rate per year: 0.02
Total death number per year: 826

Sweden:
Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year: 1.6
Homicide rate per year: 0.32
Suicide rate per year: 1.23
Total death number per year: 160

World Population Review
Except for Canada, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana the countries in the Americas and South Africa have high gun-related homicides.

[ProfX]

Weird, context also applies to data. As in, it needs to be comparatively contextualized.



Houston, I would say we have a problem.

[sam lefthand]

Weird, context also applies to data. As in, it needs to be comparatively contextualized.



Houston, I would say we have a problem.

Remove the firearm context, look at this nation ranking when the context is intentional homicides. I think knives matter as well.



The source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

[carmenjonze]

Do you think people won't read your link? Yeah, it's a problem. You made my point.

yes but chicago, tho

[ProfX]

Knives may matter. If you're trying to kill one person, there really are a variety of methods. Poison, stabbing, choking, hitting them with a hammer, dropping a piano on them ... shit, if I keep going I might attract some negative attention. (NSA: this is all hypothetical). Ever seen any one of those cheesy "Final Destination" movies? Holy fuck are there interesting ways to die.

As a tool for mass murder or massacre, they are very ineffective. What is very effective, as I said earlier, other than two other accessible methods, is use of certain kinds of guns. I agree with Ted and Chris Rock to deal with that problem, focus first on ammo control, but it doesn't solve the entire issue.

[marindem01]

Think the families of people killed in the 101-California mass shooting. Think of every school shooting we have had in California. This law needs to enacted. Think of every unarmed African-American murdered by Police in California. I totally support this law.

Governor Newsom is acting in best interest of People of California.

[gounion]

Think the families of people killed in the 101-California mass shooting. Think of every school shooting we have had in California. This law needs to enacted. Think of every unarmed African-American murdered by Police in California. I totally support this law.

Governor Newsom is acting in best interest of People of California.

It's very true that the right has absolutely zero solutions for our gun massacre problems. None. Their thing is to just live with them, no matter how horrific. The ONLY children they are concerned about are zygotes.

Hell, most of them don't even believe Sandy Hook actually happened. They think it was faked, and there were no children killed.

[ZoWie]

I like Newsom's reductio ad absurdum approach to the Republican notion that it's OK for states to legitimize local resistance and for the SCOTUS to ignore stare decisis after centuries of it being the de facto law of the land. Targeting sacred Republican gun "rights" in this manner will certainly get their attention, then when they do their usual media faux horror at such a radical violation of American ideals, the Democrats can legitimately say, well, you started it.