The San Francisco BOS Declares The NRA a "Domestic Terrorist Group"

[BlindBoo]

Declaring the NRA a terrorist organization and then these declaring Democrats to be a Socialist, Statist Religion are both ridiculous.

Dear BlindBoo
The latter can be PROVEN to be a system of Beliefs.
For example, the Texas Democratic Party Platform clearly makes statements
IN WRITING such as
"We BELIEVE that health care is a right not a privilege"

Thus that is a political BELIEF.

Conservatives BELIEVE in Limited Govt.
So that is a political BELIEF.

In matters of personal beliefs, especially religiously held,
the First Amendment makes it clear that federal govt
cannot establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
And the Fourteenth Amendment extended the protection
of the laws to all persons under STATE jurisdiction as well,
not just federal. While the Civil Rights act expanded these
rights to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, in addition to State and Federal Govt.

Under Civil Rights laws there are policies against
DISCRIMINATION by CREED.

Are you telling me BlindBoo that
Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism and Constitutionalism
are not Creeds?

Liberal political beliefs such as "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." or "Government of the people by the people and for the people" Or Healthcare is a right" are simply not Religious Creeds and should not be conflated or treated as such.

 

[Penelope]

Since its not a God given right, felons are not allowed to have a gun. So its a man given right, a man can give it or take it away.

 

[emilynghiem]

Declaring the NRA a terrorist organization and then these declaring Democrats to be a Socialist, Statist Religion are both ridiculous.

Dear BlindBoo
The latter can be PROVEN to be a system of Beliefs.
For example, the Texas Democratic Party Platform clearly makes statements
IN WRITING such as
"We BELIEVE that health care is a right not a privilege"

Thus that is a political BELIEF.

Conservatives BELIEVE in Limited Govt.
So that is a political BELIEF.

In matters of personal beliefs, especially religiously held,
the First Amendment makes it clear that federal govt
cannot establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
And the Fourteenth Amendment extended the protection
of the laws to all persons under STATE jurisdiction as well,
not just federal. While the Civil Rights act expanded these
rights to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, in addition to State and Federal Govt.

Under Civil Rights laws there are policies against
DISCRIMINATION by CREED.

Are you telling me BlindBoo that
Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism and Constitutionalism
are not Creeds?

Liberal political beliefs such as "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." or "Government of the people by the people and for the people" Or Healthcare is a right" are simply not Religious Creeds and should not be conflated or treated as such.

Dear BlindBoo
Where ALL people AGREE on beliefs,
such as believing in the role of Federal Government in
providing Military Security and Defense for the whole nation,
that is not in dispute because we agree. They are still beliefs,
but not contested unless someone's beliefs are being violated.
(currently concerning immigration and the wall, yes, even those
beliefs are being disputed and contested because some people
do not consent to how policies are enforced or not enforced.)

It's where we don't all agree on beliefs, that it causes
conflicts from one party trying to impose their beliefs over
the others by majority rule or judicial rule through government.

For example:
* prochoice vs. prolife beliefs
* LGBT beliefs or Christian beliefs in conjunction with public schools
beliefs for or against the death penalty and euthanasia/assisted suicide
* and this whole liberal/conservative split between
people who put promoting general welfare on govt
more than civil liberties and due process; or enforcing
limits on govt and maximizing liberty of people to manage their own programs.

If we don't address the root issues of political beliefs,
we will forever fight over gun rights, voting rights,
marriage and abortion rights, Christian and LGBT policies
in schools, etc. etc. because we haven't established a
mutual agreement to respect each other's beliefs enough
to keep them out of govt, and ONLY establish "public laws"
WHERE EVERYONE AGREES MUTUALLY.

STICK TO JUST THE TERMS where people CONSENT,
and we can have consistent law and order through govt,
without any need to change beliefs or coerce anyone. (another
example BlindBoo, we all agree on laws treating MURDER
as illegal, even if some people believe in Buddhist laws or
Biblical laws or civil/criminal or natural laws that teach that
this is wrong. Those are still religious/moral codes we are
establishing, but because we AGREE then we don't contest it.
The concept of "equal justice" is faith based, not proven to
exist by science, yet because we AGREE on seeking "justice"
we allow laws and traditions in govt to cite "justice" which is
no different from a religious belief based solely on faith, not proven.)

Where we don't agree on beliefs, we should separate
funding of policies instead of imposing on each other.

Where we AGREE on roles and terms of government,
we won't fight because we will be in agreement. So that's
a huge clue as to what is constitutionally within govt
jurisdiction. While the RELIGIOUS beliefs that are not
govt's place to force people to change or compromise,
those areas where we will never agree aren't supposed
to be decided by govt in the first place. If we keep putting
that on govt to dictate one side or the other, that's why
the conflicts go in circles, back and forth, because it's
unconstitutional anyway to abuse govt to force beliefs
on others who don't consent. Taxpayers deserve equal
choice of funding where we have different beliefs, similar
to religious organizations that set up and run their own
programs and schools under the policies they subscribe to.

We wouldn't HAVE these problems if we kept social
programming that involve personal beliefs and decisions
out of govt jurisdiction and let people retain democratic
free choice instead of trying to mandate "one policy fits all."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since its not a God given right, felons are not allowed to have a gun. So its a man given right, a man can give it or take it away.

God did not give gun rights, but he did give rights for people to defend themselves and family from harm and evil. Now we have Democrats who want to empower those people instead.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They want to use this to label NRA members as terrorists.

Of course they do. The left can't come out and say they are against most Americans. That Deplorable thing didn't work out so well the last time. So they have this icon of gun owners which is the NRA. They really believe they don't insult all gun owners that way.

 

[Polishprince]

Their policy has helped arm many domestic terrorists.

Actually, you have it half ass backwards.

The NRA is against, and has always been against terrorism, domestic or otherwise.

Our Liberal Friends are becoming less and less tolerant of different opinions on issues of public import.

They are just so quick to condemn any heresy from Leftist orthodoxy as "hate" or "terror" or "worse than Hitler".

This really isn't American at all.

I can appreciate the fact that the opinion of San Fran's supervisors is that Law Abiders need to be disarmed and only the Trump Justice Department is trustworthy to have firearms. But holding the opposite opinion isn't "terrorism"

Their policy helped get rid of the assault weapons ban. Those are the weapons used in our worst mass killings. They have helped arm terrorists.

Well then from 2009 to 2011 Pelosi, Reid and Obama must have been domestic terrorists seeing they refused to pass a new ban!

Why did they fail the American people I ask you?

Before saying it is the GOP fault for their failure just remember you held the House, Senate and Oval Office during that period and yet no new Assault Weapons Ban or Immigration Reform...

It seem the Democrats only care when they can not do anything...

Exactly. The Obama Regime's first 2 years allowed them to do anything they wanted.

If the assault weapons ban was so important, they would have done it.

But the reason they didn't do it, was due to the fact it was unpopular as hell, and they thought it would cost them the 2010 midterms- which they lost anyhow.

 

[Polishprince]

They want to use this to label NRA members as terrorists.

Of course they do. The left can't come out and say they are against most Americans. That Deplorable thing didn't work out so well the last time. So they have this icon of gun owners which is the NRA. They really believe they don't insult all gun owners that way.

The NRA is just the members speaking. Millions and millions, and many more who aren't members but are sympathetic to the cause.

The idea that the NRA is just the leadership dictating policy is bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.

Allowed because it was worthless and an immoral infringement on the second amendment

Worthless? Tell that to all the victims families.

You can't stand the police yet you want to take guns away from people. Yo Boomhauer....Georgie is in his bed in the field burning in the Lake of Fire! Unity for da police! bwhahaa!

I love the police. You don’t. Police are rarely shot and killed in countries with strong gun control. Here they are killed regularly thanks to your policies.

Wrong.

Statistically few are killed. There are far more dangerous jobs.

Clearly you are the one who lies about everything

Your lies are growing:

But more civilians with guns, more cops getting killed. Since 2000, six U.K. cops have died from gunshots; in the U.S., 788. We have 11 times as many cops, but 130 times as many killed by guns. (The other two leading causes of police deaths are heart attacks and car accidents.)

They are not nearly diverse as us in the states. You can't blame guns for cop killings. Blame the people instead.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

They want to use this to label NRA members as terrorists.

Of course they do. The left can't come out and say they are against most Americans. That Deplorable thing didn't work out so well the last time. So they have this icon of gun owners which is the NRA. They really believe they don't insult all gun owners that way.

We have seven guns in our home and we're not NRA members. I appreciate the work the NRA does but owning our guns is our right. The NRA didn't establish that.

It was a dick move by San Freakshow and means nothing in the grand scheme.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They have no policy they are a civil rights group not a government agency.

The ban was a failure and an infringement on rights from day one which is why it was allowed to expire as all worthless laws should expire

Your claim is a baldfaced lie as they never helped to arm any terrorist whatsoever

NRA policy has made

They have no policy they are a civil rights group not a government agency.

The ban was a failure and an infringement on rights from day one which is why it was allowed to expire as all worthless laws should expire

Your claim is a baldfaced lie as they never helped to arm any terrorist whatsoever

NRA policy has made the weapons used in our worst mass shootings legal.

Outright lie from you.
They do they have no such policy and the government makes laws not civil rights lobbying groups like the NRA

You are lying. NRA lobbying dictates repub policy. They wanted really dangerous weapons legal. Terrorists have used them in our worst mass shootings.

You are an uneducated liar.

They did not write the assault weapons ban democrats did and they GAVE it an expiration date.

It was allowed to expire because it was a failure

Allowed because they told repubs to let it expire.

No, allowed to expire because of this:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All that being said, I have to think that, given all that is wrong within the City of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors must have better things to do than pass idiotic, misinformed, and toothless resolutions that are full of blatant lies...

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on Tuesday declaring that the National Rifle Association is a domestic terrorist organization. The officials also urged other cities, states and the federal government to follow suit.

The NRA thinks we all need guns to fight the government... how are they not a terrorist organization?

Being prepared for a tyrannical government and fighting the government are two different things.

 

[xyz]

The NRA certainly receives foreign money as well. Which doesn't make it a foreign organization, but terrorist organizations often receive foreign money.

Not sure it's a terrorist organization, but it's a sketchy organization.

They don't even protect black gun owners, like this one:

 

[Polishprince]

The NRA certainly receives foreign money as well. Which doesn't make it a foreign organization, but terrorist organizations often receive foreign money.

Not sure it's a terrorist organization, but it's a sketchy organization.

They don't even protect black gun owners, like this one:

Mr. Castile was unfortunately loaded on grass when he was pulled over, in violation of Minnesota's gun laws.

Why should the NRA defend that kind of behavior that reflects badly on law abiders?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They want to use this to label NRA members as terrorists.

Of course they do. The left can't come out and say they are against most Americans. That Deplorable thing didn't work out so well the last time. So they have this icon of gun owners which is the NRA. They really believe they don't insult all gun owners that way.

The NRA is just the members speaking. Millions and millions, and many more who aren't members but are sympathetic to the cause.

The idea that the NRA is just the leadership dictating policy is bullshit.

Even if they did, how is that anything different than what leftist support groups do?

Unions contribute big bucks to the Democrats come election time. So do trial lawyers. So do environmentalist groups:

Environment | OpenSecrets

 

[xyz]

The NRA certainly receives foreign money as well. Which doesn't make it a foreign organization, but terrorist organizations often receive foreign money.

Not sure it's a terrorist organization, but it's a sketchy organization.

They don't even protect black gun owners, like this one:

Mr. Castile was unfortunately loaded on grass when he was pulled over, in violation of Minnesota's gun laws.

Why should the NRA defend that kind of behavior that reflects badly on law abiders?

What if cops kill all Trumpist potheads?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The NRA certainly receives foreign money as well. Which doesn't make it a foreign organization, but terrorist organizations often receive foreign money.

Not sure it's a terrorist organization, but it's a sketchy organization.

They don't even protect black gun owners, like this one:

Mr. Castile was unfortunately loaded on grass when he was pulled over, in violation of Minnesota's gun laws.

Why should the NRA defend that kind of behavior that reflects badly on law abiders?

What if cops kill all Trumpist potheads?

If cops kill Trumpets potheads who don't listen to the order of a police officer, then they deserve it.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

The NRA certainly receives foreign money as well. Which doesn't make it a foreign organization, but terrorist organizations often receive foreign money.

Not sure it's a terrorist organization, but it's a sketchy organization.

They don't even protect black gun owners, like this one:

Mr. Castile was unfortunately loaded on grass when he was pulled over, in violation of Minnesota's gun laws.

Why should the NRA defend that kind of behavior that reflects badly on law abiders?

What if cops kill all Trumpist potheads?

If cops kill Trumpets potheads who don't listen to the order of a police officer, then they deserve it.

I feel like the cops don't shoot enough people. When I watch Live PD and a criminal is running, I'm always like, "just shoot him... take the shot... what if he kills someone 5 minutes from now... just shoot him"

 

[emilynghiem]

Since its not a God given right, felons are not allowed to have a gun. So its a man given right, a man can give it or take it away.

yes and no Penelope
1. people have a right to life that man is not supposed to take away.
but this happens all the time as a criminal violation.
likewise it is violating people's right of DEFENSE to
deprive them of THAT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

When you deprive people of life without due process,
but against their will and right of consent it's called murder.

When the Govt is abused to deprive people of liberty
by denying DUE PROCESS it's called Tyranny or Oppression
or abuse of political power.

The factor that makes a difference is CONSENT

2. so where people ABUSE guns or laws to VIOLATE CONSENT of others,
ie. for criminal intent including gun violence or gun crimes
by NATURAL LAWS you cannot claim rights to guns for CRIMINAL purposes.

That's part of God's laws also.

ONLY the CRIMINAL abusers are the ones who lose those rights
by abusing them!

It is NOT consistent with law to punish the LAW ABIDING
for the crimes of the ABUSERS.

By God's laws and man's laws BASED on natural laws of God,
only the GUILTY are supposed to be punished and suffer penalty.

Penelope I would AGREE with you if the solutions you propose
only target and affect the GUILTY CRIMINAL abusers.

Where the conflict is coming from is indirectly affecting the
LAW ABIDING citizens who haven't committed any wrongs
where Govt is not authorized to deprive such citizens of rights.

We do not punish drunk drivers by enforcing tighter restrictions
and background checks on all other drivers and car owners.

We target just the offenders and people endangering others.

There are better ways of screening out those dangerous sick
or addicted people instead of imposing laws on ALL PEOPLE
and thus COLLECTIVELY punishing innocent by depriving
them of rights and liberty because of the crimes of wrongdoers.

 

[iceberg]

DEPRIVED WITHOUT "DUE PROCESS OF LAWS"
that's not terrorism. Because Terrorists VIOLATE and BYPASS
"due process of laws" by acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner
with no democratic process to separate or check these powers from abuse.

Tell the poor that and while you are at tell Tramp who by the way is Above the Law, like a lot of rich are!!

BS on your god given right, you do not have a god given right to own a gun.

fuck off

 

[Brain357]

Worthless? Tell that to all the victims families.

You can't stand the police yet you want to take guns away from people. Yo Boomhauer....Georgie is in his bed in the field burning in the Lake of Fire! Unity for da police! bwhahaa!

I love the police. You don’t. Police are rarely shot and killed in countries with strong gun control. Here they are killed regularly thanks to your policies.

Wrong.

Statistically few are killed. There are far more dangerous jobs.

Clearly you are the one who lies about everything

Your lies are growing:

But more civilians with guns, more cops getting killed. Since 2000, six U.K. cops have died from gunshots; in the U.S., 788. We have 11 times as many cops, but 130 times as many killed by guns. (The other two leading causes of police deaths are heart attacks and car accidents.)

I am stating facts you are the one lying.

2018

Only 53 killed by gunfire last year.

Jesus you are truly one dishonest and ignorant POS

Only? That’s one per week. Way more than countries with strong gun control. They have single digits if any.