Turkey Creek
Member
Doesn't matter- we'll stop them cold at the Rockies and the Appalachians- Wolverines!
Handgun Ban passes in San Francisco
- Thread starter Len_in_Phoenix
- Start date
- Status
Ezekiel
Member
Turkey Creek said:
"Damn, that was a good movie, a paradigm of its day."
Gordon Fink
Member
Well, this morning just gets better and better. 
I love California, but I fear my family will soon become political and economic refugees. Otherwise, we’ll be homeless criminals.
~G. Fink
I love California, but I fear my family will soon become political and economic refugees. Otherwise, we’ll be homeless criminals.
~G. Fink
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
But Gordon, if you go criminal, you can go to SF...
A gun free work environment... Fun and Profit!
A gun free work environment... Fun and Profit!
Well, I won't be spending a dime in SF.
What's interesting, though, if you read the text of the law, is that I can have a handgun in SF. That's right. It only applies to residents! A gangbanger from Oakland can have a handgun in SF, and as long as he doesn't do anything illegal with it, that's okay. But a San Francisco jewelry store owner can't have one.
Though I disagree with such laws, I can perhaps begin to understand the logic of, say, New York, where they specifically target those who bring guns into the city. Of course, the laws are worse than ineffective, but at least their INTENT makes some semblance of sense, I guess.
But to prohibit only the residents of the city from having defensive guns? That strikes me as completely insane, even if you support gun control!
I guess SF commentator Michael Savage is right: liberalism is a mental disorder.
On a related note, Prop I also passed. It forbids military recruiting in SF high schools.
I guess the liberals up there think that they can make nasty things like crime, terrorism, and war just go away, if they pretend they don't exist.
WRT what we can do here in San Diego? I did what I could. I support and volunteer for various organizations (pro-gun and political) that fight these sorts of things, and I won't spend a penny up there. But we vote VERY differently down here. What else, exactly, can one do?
Actually, we're probably going to leave the state. Let the liberals pay for their socialism with their freedom and their money; let THEM pay for illegal aliens that fill the schools, jails and hospitals. Let them go to hell in their own handbasket. Otherwise, I am forced to support them with my taxes.
SF is an echo chamber of moonbat idiocy. They pay homeless people to be up there, making the once-beautiful city a filth-pit, with dirty drunk people and excrement on the sidewalks. But they don't allow smoking on said sidewalks.
What's interesting, though, if you read the text of the law, is that I can have a handgun in SF. That's right. It only applies to residents! A gangbanger from Oakland can have a handgun in SF, and as long as he doesn't do anything illegal with it, that's okay. But a San Francisco jewelry store owner can't have one.
Though I disagree with such laws, I can perhaps begin to understand the logic of, say, New York, where they specifically target those who bring guns into the city. Of course, the laws are worse than ineffective, but at least their INTENT makes some semblance of sense, I guess.
But to prohibit only the residents of the city from having defensive guns? That strikes me as completely insane, even if you support gun control!
I guess SF commentator Michael Savage is right: liberalism is a mental disorder.
On a related note, Prop I also passed. It forbids military recruiting in SF high schools.
I guess the liberals up there think that they can make nasty things like crime, terrorism, and war just go away, if they pretend they don't exist.
WRT what we can do here in San Diego? I did what I could. I support and volunteer for various organizations (pro-gun and political) that fight these sorts of things, and I won't spend a penny up there. But we vote VERY differently down here. What else, exactly, can one do?
Actually, we're probably going to leave the state. Let the liberals pay for their socialism with their freedom and their money; let THEM pay for illegal aliens that fill the schools, jails and hospitals. Let them go to hell in their own handbasket. Otherwise, I am forced to support them with my taxes.
SF is an echo chamber of moonbat idiocy. They pay homeless people to be up there, making the once-beautiful city a filth-pit, with dirty drunk people and excrement on the sidewalks. But they don't allow smoking on said sidewalks.
Being a San Francisco resident I say AMEN to that...
This new ban will make ordinary people criminals and the real criminals would still have their guns because a short drive to the south bay, oakland, or the north bay would supply them with all they need.
I'm disgusted with our mayor, first gay marrige, now gun bans? Im not sure if hes behind the ban or not but hes certainly letting it happen.
Maybe in this new utopia we'll all be so happy and peaceful and tree-huggin that we wont hear the gunshots.
Thank the Lord I'm moving to Arizona!
-Dev
Gordon Fink
Member
Mongo the Mutterer said:
True, but welfare recipients have all their money tied up in junk food, cheap booze, and satellite TV.
~G. Fink
Camp David
member
Does anyone know how SF is going to enforce this ban? I mean... bust down the door searches? Metal detectors? How?
I doubt anyone open carries in SF, so how are private handguns going to be detected if they are illegal?
This kind of reminds me of the District of Columbia, where handguns are illegal yet they exist today in great numbers, mostly in the hands of criminals, and in great prominence!
Simply amazing!
I doubt anyone open carries in SF, so how are private handguns going to be detected if they are illegal?
This kind of reminds me of the District of Columbia, where handguns are illegal yet they exist today in great numbers, mostly in the hands of criminals, and in great prominence!
Simply amazing!
Last edited by a moderator:
Arch said:That makes me sick to my stomach to see that sort of idiocy occuring in a country where your rights are protected by law. We are being squeezed by a misunderstandig, illogical world of emmotional do-gooders.
If they want to make us criminals to fufull some deluteded fantancy about what a legitamate gun owner free would would be like, I say let's resist, lets say bugger em, lets not comply.....or perhaps we can all pool our money together and buy a country
A minor nit-pick: Our rights are protected by the Constitution and destroyed by laws.
Regarding the SF ban, I say fine! Let them do it! Let them waste millions of their own dollars fighting this in the courts, and hopefully they will lose like a similar ban lost in the past.
If by some freak of nature it stays in place, I truly hope the streets of san francisco run with blood and the crime rate skyrockets.
Then I hope they further restrict long guns and the crime rate continues to soar.
Then I hope the San Andreas fault blows up and shears the left coast clean off of California.
Ok, I think I'm going to sit down now....
Kjervin
Member
I'm not sure that the whole "as California goes, so goes the country" thing is as true as it used to be any more then the "what's good for GM is good for america" is as true as it used to be. At least politically, it has always seemed to be propagandy onthe part of californians and liberal media types. Of course all the wacko liberal ideas start in california; it's one of the few states that that mess has a chance to pass. I do think, however, that the rest of the country is not buying it anymore. Cali was wrong on the last couple of presidential elections. It's senators are viewed, more then ever, as being outside the mainstream and not taken that seriously. California emissions controls are, by and large, consigned to california (though some states have toughened up their emissions controls). It's certainly not looked up to as a bastion of fiscal responsibility. So apart from what hemlines will be doing, I'm not sure california is as much of a barometer of coming trends as it has been in the past. I think the liberals have gotten so far away from the rest of the country that the rest of look at it and say,".........naw, I don't think so....." and the lunacy dies from lack of nourishment. In the past, California exported it's "new idea" through the court system, and that pipeline is drying up. It also used the mass media and that's being diffused by all the new outlets. If all the nonlooneys moved out of state, they would lose so many congressional districts/ electoral college votes that they wold have as much pull as Rhode Island come the next census. I say move out of Cali and send the congressional districts to states that know how to use them for the good of the people and not pet projects. I bet Louisiana loses at least one congressional district in the next cansus due to its little emergency. I think it's only fair if Cali does the same.
Kj
come on to NC, we need the congressional districts!!
Kj
come on to NC, we need the congressional districts!!
To me hand gun bans to criminals are like a parent telling a young girl she can't go out on the weekends. She will be pissed off, sneak out, and do something stupid just to get back at the parents. If they just let her go out she would have most likely had sum innocent fun and come home on time without any problems. Now I know most criminals dont have the same mind-set as young girls, but the point is were all human. If there were no gun bans what-so-ever in America, nobody would think of robbery when they know the average old lady owns a snub nose .357, or that every liquor store had an arsenal ready to go at the clerks disposal.
Obviously people will alway commit crimes, but the rate could realistically be lowered in my opinion by making it easier for them to do it.
-Dev
fun and come home on time without any problems. Now I know most criminals dont have the same mind-set as young girls, but the point is were all human. If there were no gun bans what-so-ever in America, nobody would think of robbery when they know the average old lady owns a snub nose .357, or that every liquor store had an arsenal ready to go at the clerks disposal.Obviously people will alway commit crimes, but the rate could realistically be lowered in my opinion by making it easier for them to do it.
-Dev
I dunno, smoking bans started exactly in the area of CA where I'm sitting right now back in the 80's, and since that ball got rolling...
Delaware
Florida
New York
Maine
Connecticut
Idaho
Washington State
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Montana
New South Wales
Scotland
Ontario
Northern Ireland
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Australia
Republic of Ireland
Norway
New Zealand
Sweden
Vietnam
Italy
(nonsmoker who cares about all freedoms)
.
If this becomes law, and the rate of violent crime skyrockets in SF (see also Washington DC), they will have served as an example of what not to do at their own cost. A life lost is tragic. But if a lesson is going to be learned, at least the students will be the people that made the mistake, and not those living elsewhere in the country.
The only way this could be worse is if the people in "safe areas" of CA passed the law state-wide. In that case, they would have taken away the rights of people living in "dangerous" areas to protect themselves.
It's like the animal-rights activists that get state laws passed prohibiting the killing of cougars or the disruption of the spotted owls' habitat. The people creating the laws don't have the cougars killing their livestock, or farmland that can't be used because the owls moved in.
SF voted for the measure, and SF will reap its outcome.
The only way this could be worse is if the people in "safe areas" of CA passed the law state-wide. In that case, they would have taken away the rights of people living in "dangerous" areas to protect themselves.
It's like the animal-rights activists that get state laws passed prohibiting the killing of cougars or the disruption of the spotted owls' habitat. The people creating the laws don't have the cougars killing their livestock, or farmland that can't be used because the owls moved in.
SF voted for the measure, and SF will reap its outcome.
Camp David
member
Colt said:
Precisely!
Michelle Malkin is on the case: http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm
She understands problem with SF law!
We need to get Heraldo Rivera involved too...
Kaylee
Member
I repeat.
DO NOT turn this into a homosexual not-homosexual thing. We've had too many flame wars over that in the past, and we're not playing that again.
-K
DO NOT turn this into a homosexual not-homosexual thing. We've had too many flame wars over that in the past, and we're not playing that again.
-K
NineseveN
member
Some interesting reads:
From 11/08
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a82l6tNgMpFQ&refer=us
From 11/09
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-san-francisco-measures,0,3554422.story
OMG. I know the tin-foil hat crowd is loving this. I'm not one of them, but why do I feel like I'm watching a science project unfold before my eyes?
If this floats, is anyone gonna refuse and force a stand off? I wonder.
From 11/08
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a82l6tNgMpFQ&refer=us
From 11/09
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-san-francisco-measures,0,3554422.story
OMG. I know the tin-foil hat crowd is loving this. I'm not one of them, but why do I feel like I'm watching a science project unfold before my eyes?
If this floats, is anyone gonna refuse and force a stand off? I wonder.
Kjervin
Member
torpid said:
I admit that being from NC, and being a non-smoker, I tend to forget about the smoking ban thing. My Bad. But I think my point remains. I a m not saying they have no influence, just that the air of inevitability it not there like it once was. California is no longer seen as being culturally, politically, or intellectually ahead of the rest of the country. More and more national candidates realize that they have to play to "Fly-over country" as well as New York and California. But every bad idea tried out in CA no longer automatically gets foisted onthe rest of the country. The other states have learned to say, "you can do what you want in your state, but we ain't buying it." Texas proved that.
In response to a different post. At the end of the day, both SanFran and Texas passed laws/whatever that were of the "I don't do this/ I don't like you doing this/ I have the political power, so I'm gonna ban it" type. I tend to be against that whole part of the world unless there is a some greater compelling interest (please don't explain the compelling interest to me - I know the arguments and am not convinces). My point is, even in those situations where one thinks society is better off with a behavior (smoking, guns, marriage, talking on cellphones while driving) or could make a safety claim (compelling or not) I think people are too ready to outlaw behaviors they do not partake of themselves or that they find personally unsettling and don't take into consideration that just because they can outlaw something they don't like, maybe they shouldn't. Sonetimes, if you cannot convince others to change, you should let them live their lives as they choose. Even if you don't want them to have guns, cigarettes, or the other thing I am puposely not mentioning beause it is off topic and inflamatory.
Kj
(edited to add: sorry Kaylee, I was writing this as you post was being written. I only mean to point out the issue of people who want to ban things because they have a visceral dislike for them like people have a visceral dislike for guns. no offense meant).
sm
member
I didn't see the definition of "handgun" or "ammo" , so forgive me if I missed it.
Asking if Black Powder Revolvers / Cap & Ball are included or except from this SF ban?
Granted I hope this thing is fought and tossed out...still...
I cannot recall how DC and Chicago defined these either.
Just something to consider if one has to stay in SF and all handguns and ammo are sent out of state for safekeeping...
Asking if Black Powder Revolvers / Cap & Ball are included or except from this SF ban?
Granted I hope this thing is fought and tossed out...still...
I cannot recall how DC and Chicago defined these either.
Just something to consider if one has to stay in SF and all handguns and ammo are sent out of state for safekeeping...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
San Francisco isn't going to enforce the ban. It will be overturned by the state courts just like the last two bans were. This was purely an effort by local politicians to get their base out to vote on other issues on the ballot (much like gay marriage is used to mobilize voters in more conservative states).
- Status