Handgun Ban passes in San Francisco

[NineseveN]

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).

So says the guy living in Texas. With all due respect, I don't think we, as gun owners, can so easily dimsiss something based on logic or common sense or even the Bill of Rights, because most of the gun control in this country, even the small stuff in places like Texas defy those very things with great success.

Is better to be the guy who said "no big deal" and have a calamity happen anyway, or to be the guy that gets nervous and rallies the troops only to have it not happen at all?

 

[rgs1975]

This state honestly disgusts me, turns my stomach. There was a time I was pround to be a native Californian, that time is long gone. Common sense went out the window years ago and I fear all that is left is a morally inept $hithole.

 

[LAR-15]

I'm pretty sure DC's handgun defintion does not include federally defined antiques but a seperate 1932 carry law forbids carry of any concealable weapon w/o permit

 

[Lonestar.45]

I have read a few news stories where antis were quoted as saying this was done to "make a point", as they know it will be overturned.

My thought on that is, damn what a disservice to the taxpayer, who will have to fork out all the $$ for the city to defend this idiotic ordinance, when they supposedly know going into it that it will be overturned.

I guess the cost of living just isn't high enough in San Francisco, they want taxes to go up to cover costs for crap like that, eh?

 

[jsalcedo]

San Francisco! Another criminals utopia!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found this:

Author anonymous:


Rapists, Murderers, Armed Robbers, and Criminals of all Persuasions: Tired
of cold winters and the same old routine with the same old scenery in
Chicago and Washington, D.C? Well, you're in luck. A whole new vista of
unarmed victims are just about ripe for you're picking.

San Francisco voters are on the verge of creating another criminals utopia
by voting to eliminate their residents ability to defend themselves. Just
think, millions of victims ripe for the picking without any ability
what-so-ever to defend themselves which as we all know create occupational
risks to those who try to make a dishonest living by taking what isn't
theirs.

While you are in the process of a sexual assault are you tired of being
surprised by your 'date' suddenly pointing a gun at you? Don't you hate it
when what you thought was an easy mark who is carrying your days salary
unexpectedly displays a gun and puts an end to your ability to earn a
dishonest days wages? Well, the City by the Bay has put an end to those
surprising annoyances by voting to disarm each and every law abiding citizen
in the city of San Francisco.

Just think, even off duty police officers will have no more ability to
defend themselves than the average pedestrian who is just waiting to be
dragged into an alley and beaten senseless.

You have the opportunity to play a part in making San Francisco "Murder
Capitol of the United States". Washington, D.C. has held this title for far
too long. With a little effort and minimal risk you can bring that title to
the west coast. Wouldn't you be proud to say, "I helped San Francisco earn
that title". Of course, it would be unfair to fail to recognize the part
that San Francisco voters played in earning that title by assuring your
safety. After all, if they hadn't disarmed every law abiding citizen in town
you would have run the risk of being stopped in your tracks but not now!

So start packing. In 90 days the city of San Francisco will be a risk free
haven for all of you who put in a dishonest days work for a dishonest days
wage.

Isn't it good to see a city like San Francisco show some empathy towards the
un-law abiding while so many other communities just continue to pass
legislation that adds risk after risk to an already hazardless occupation?

It would be nice to think that San Francisco voters were thinking of you but
honestly, nobody knows what San Francisco voters are thinking.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's like the animal-rights activists that get state laws passed prohibiting the killing of cougars

Did you know that California now kills more cougars than it did when we could (for a fat fee) get tags for them? Now, though, Fish and Game has to PAY people to hunt them when they pose a threat to, or actually kill, humans, rather than collecting tag money to use for conservation, and having hunters kill a few a year at no cost to the state.

This law is not only bad for ranchers, hikers, joggers, backpackers, etc. It's bad for cougars, since more get killed, and it's bad for the state, which loses money on the deal.

Animals rights people are idiots; serious conservationists think so, too.

 

[bg]

Wonder what Dirty Harry is thinking..

 

[rsilvers]

The question is how will the SFPD know who has handguns or not? I don't know if the state is going to cooperate with them. Second, most of the FFLs in the city are now gone, if not all of them. So how they are going to know who has handguns or not is beyond me. The state might have this power, but I am guessing the city is going to have a harder time at it.

But that is the sad part. People who obey the law will give up their handguns. Only criminals will be left with guns. I would never keep a handgun against the law.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is better to be the guy who said "no big deal" and have a calamity happen anyway, or to be the guy that gets nervous and rallies the troops only to have it not happen at all?

Rallying the troops AFTER the election is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left isn't it? Numbers aren't going to help San Francisco gun owners now; they need good lawyers and a state preemption clause. Luckily for them, they have both.

 

[Selfdfenz]

All this reminds me of a picture that appeared often in the American Rifleman showing a front end loader bucket full of confiscated firearms in Australia.

I really will hate to see that re-enacted in SF.

S-

 

[NineseveN]

Rallying the troops AFTER the election is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left isn't it? Numbers aren't going to help San Francisco gun owners now; they need good lawyers and a state preemption clause. Luckily for them, they have both.

I wasn't rallying for California, they dug their own grave. I wanted others to keep this in mind, cause it can happen elsewhere. For the longest time, gunowners in California blamed politicians, now they get defeated on Prop H. I am sure every SF gunowner did not vote on the big H, and that's the problem, now isn't it?

 

[QuickDraw]

I'm confused.
A third of the posters want California to fall in the ocean.
The other third say "move".
The final third say"Don't move here commie."
I've been thinking hard about moving,but when I
read "Californians have ruined my state,don't come here" threads,maybe I'll just say I'm from Canada!

QuickDraw

 

[Geno]

Give California back to Mexico!

Oh, wait a minute! If possession is 90% of the law, it already belongs to Mexico! No...wait...then, the commies who live there would move here! Oh what to do?!?!

Doc2005

 

[boofus]

KA doesn't have to sink into the ocean to make me happy.

Maybe it can just break off and drift away. Preferably to off the coast of Africa where they can enjoy the fruits of 'social justice' and other liberal schemes gone awry.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Topics that bring out the worst in THR discourse

This thread serves to remind me how amazed I am by the civility of 80% of the discourse on THR, and how frustrating the overblown 20% can be.

I surf Democratic Underground, Free Republic, and other boards, and the namecalling ("Democrats", "RepubliPukes"), tired-out ad-hominems (O'Donnell's weight, Heston's Alzheimers), childish mockery, etc. are sickening.

I'd like to think that the values of Individualism and Liberty can hold their own against Marxist Authoritarianism by the sheer Truth alone, so I do appreciate all the folks on THR that crunch numbers and check facts rather than engage in knee-jerking. Especially those who are willing to support the rights of those that they do not personally agree with.

On a minor sidenote: the anti-recruiter laws are a blatant example of Marxist paternalism. The kids can't sign a contract without parental co-signage until age 18. If they're 18, they're free to sign up for the Marines, marry a heroin addict, or buy a 1998 Mustang on a 30-year payment plan as they see fit.

I attended an anti-war event on the UT campus recently (not because I'm necessarily anti-war, but because Mr. Suarez de Solar was the guest speaker, and I was in LCpl Suarez de Solar's company when he died, and wanted to offer my condolences). I was annoyed by the kids they had there to demand anti-recruiter laws: if I were in highschool, and anti-recruiter, I'd encourage everyone I knew to "shun" military personnel in school by turning one's back to them. But instead of supporting a individual, grass-roots response to a perceived problem, these kids are conditioned by the system to go to the Authorities and cry "the recruiter is coming up to talk to me at lunch, make him stop!"

Minor rants on basic concepts of Individualism, Liberty, and moral consistency...

-MV (who had to go to the Yellow Pages to find a Marine recruiter in 1999)

 

[Mr.V.]

Boofus--

Ever wonder why gays are anti-gun? Ask one... I did (actually I asked several...not a scientific sample, but each one gave me the same reason).

They aren't afraid of getting mugged on the street or burglaries going up 11%. Lot's of countries have way more muggings than we do and yet lower murder rates.

They're afraid of the bigotry that exists in law-abiding citizens like the ones who pass banning gay marriage in Texas. They're afraid of all the “law-abiding” guys who beat them up in school because they were different. And they don't want people who think like that to have arms. They couldn't care less about "criminals" when they are way more afraid of...well...YOU.

It's funny that you can read the 2nd amendment and demand that courts follow that law to the 'T' but when you read the 14th which states

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

And without batting an eye say "that's true except for gay people".

Just as the gun grabbers should say to themselves "I think gun violence is the wrong solution to the problem, but the 2nd amendment exists and I'll accept it" you should say to yourself "My religion and personal views regarding a certain groups of people is that they are wrong/sinning/etc, but the US is a free society based on laws that I shouldn't abridge even if two dudes getting it on makes me ill..."

 

[Minnesota Shooter]

This is depressing.

I'm a Boot, just graduated out of MCRD on the 21st of october. I've been working with the USMC recruiters for the past half month or so.

It's no crap hard work! Not to mention the fact that people for some odd

reason hate us.

I've been called a Nazi, been yelled at every way possible, and genuinely disrespected by a broad cross section of the people of this state.

Oh well, I'm not trying to complain, but its completely rediculous that they are trying to ban us from going into colleges, like we are some sort of evil people.

Bootcamp was the best thing that I could have done for myself, both physically and mentally, and all Im trying to do is spread the word around, but apparently some people dont believe that it should happen.





San Fran is heinous, just watch and see what happens.

 

[Mr.V.]

Minnesota Shooter--

I think the truly sick thing about it all is literally what the law says is that a college student...someone who is supposed to think for him or herself...cannot handle actually doing so. I'm a bit less sympathetic for the fight to go into high-schools where there are plenty of much younger kids around...but come on...Banned from A COLLEGE...it's beyond my understanding.

As long as there is no deception involved, if someone doesn't want to join the military, they should just move along without harrassing you guys. As a civilian who didn't join the military, I apologize for my fellow civies who don't, at the very least, show respect for what you guys do.

 

[GunNutty]

So, help me understand this. If I am really into my cousin, and they are into me....then...ok. I get it.

It is a insult to residents of this forum to think that just becuase many of us disagree with your viewpoint, does not make us either incapable of handling our firearm nor does it make us a threat to you nor vice versa.

Boofus--

Ever wonder why gays are anti-gun? Ask one... I did (actually I asked several...not a scientific sample, but each one gave me the same reason).

They aren't afraid of getting mugged on the street or burglaries going up 11%. Lot's of countries have way more muggings than we do and yet lower murder rates.

They're afraid of the bigotry that exists in law-abiding citizens like the ones who pass banning gay marriage in Texas. They're afraid of all the “law-abiding” guys who beat them up in school because they were different. And they don't want people who think like that to have arms. They couldn't care less about "criminals" when they are way more afraid of...well...YOU.

It's funny that you can read the 2nd amendment and demand that courts follow that law to the 'T' but when you read the 14th which states
And without batting an eye say "that's true except for gay people".

Just as the gun grabbers should say to themselves "I think gun violence is the wrong solution to the problem, but the 2nd amendment exists and I'll accept it" you should say to yourself "My religion and personal views regarding a certain groups of people is that they are wrong/sinning/etc, but the US is a free society based on laws that I shouldn't abridge even if two dudes getting it on makes me ill..."

 

[The-Fly]

Wonder what Dirty Harry is thinking..

he had to turn in his model 29, then was killed by a car jacker the next day.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Mr GunNutty: I don't believe Mr V. is implying that members of the board can't be trusted with guns, but is instead portraying the (possibly incorrect) viewpoint of some homosexuals.

If it does turn out that homosexuals tend to be against guns because they are afraid of violence from "reactionaries", then the High Road response would be to explain to them that
a) the kind of people that would beat someone to death over a religious/cultural dispute won't be stopped by gun control
b) widely-available CCW would allow members of disliked niche groups (homosexuals, Unitarians, Sikhs-mistaken-for-Muslims) to effectively defend themselves from legally unjustifiable assault.

Regarding the (hypothetical cousin): if you're both really into each other and over 18, enjoy your Life, Liberty, and Property. The rest of us will be for it or against it as our beliefs dictate, but if you want to sign over power of attorney and will all your property to your cousin, it's certainly not my business. -MV

 

[Mr.V.]

GunNutty-- It's nice that you can compare homosexuality to incest. However, I'll try to keep this discussion on track. You still haven't addressed the problem I brought up regarding the hypocrisy of those who get incredibly inflamed when one constitutional amendment (2nd) is violated and then speak with pride about denying certain individuals another (14th).

I'm not really sure what "viewpoint" you are referring to. I'm not insulting anyone. I'm stating that a fear exists among gay people. And that fear occurs when a majority of people can both express their right to bear arms and simultaneously deny others their right to the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

I think that gays feel that if you are going to be denying individuals their rights and privileges because they enjoy opera and interior decorating, you may as well not be armed while you're abridging the US constitution anyways...EDIT-- I think MatthewVanitas understands what I mean. I think that infinging the 2nd amendment is a misguided view by those individuals I polled (again not a scientific poll, just a few of my neighbors. I live in West Holllywood...it's easy to find gay people =).

As for me...I have a wife (female ) and two children. I support the US constitution. I support the right to bear 'arms' (at least including machine guns...I'm not so sure about dirty bombs) and I support equal protection under the law.

It's a shame if some individuals find that insulting...

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Guys it's San Francisco; 99% of the populace gets all their knowledge of firearms from the movies and TV, and 100% of their firearms laws from the poiticians and popular media. It was bound to pass. Oh sure I had a little hope at the end when the Gavin Newsome stated that it was doomed to fail in the courts, when the SF Chronicle advised a 'no vote' saying that it would cost the city millions in the courts to try and fight the inevitable court battles that would ultimately fail.
Hell, even the SFPD POA came out against it as completely unenforceable and I checked the weirder ‘alt.news’ sites and even the freakin’ local anarchist and communist wackos said it was a bad idea and advised against it. Ok, yeah, their reasoning was that when the inevitable revolution came, they needed to be armed against the police state, but what the hell.

Ok so it passed. Big deal. It won’t become law until April 2006. State law over rules the city and I’m totally unconcerned.

Sure it looks bad, but honestly it won’t come to mean anything.
Let me wax a little Shakespeare at ya:

“..this is a tale told by an idiot, full of noise and fury, signifying nothing.”

And that’s what this will ultimately be.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Mr V:

Because I view the core essence of marriage to be the enduring, committed bond of one to another, and because the very nature of that bond is transcendent, I don't find myself motivated to split hairs over what marriage is and isn't, and find your personal take on the matter to be reasonable.

There is something that needs pointing out, however concerning the people who hold the views you described.

They're bigots.

True, they may have suffered for their differences at various points in their lives, and while this may inform and explain their viewpoint, it does not justify it.

They have been wronged, and their complaint is with those who wronged them.

They're bigots operating from fear, advising policy based on stereotype and prejudice.

I'm hard pressed to see the difference between them and those who, having been mugged by a minority on some occassion earnestly cite the inherent criminal nature of that minority as justification towards curtailing their liberty.

Unfortunately, pain distorts clear vision, and the liberal polity tends to unquestioningly vouchsafe the views of any who can claim (certain) aggrieved victim status, and thus their own counter bigotry will go largely unchallenged.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Mr GeekWithA.45: debatably a stretch of the term "bigot", but let's say you're right: homosexuals who lump "gun owners" in the same category as "people who beat/kill homosexuals for legally unjustifiable reasons" can fairly be called "bigots."

(Setting aside momentarily the perception that the stereotypical "gay basher" and stereotypical gun owner have many similarities in the American popular imagination)

So, given, say 1 million plus homosexual "bigots" who have votes and money, and many non-homosexual friends who share their same political views, are we better off squaring off for a culture war over who-sleeps-with-whom, or convincing them that their views on gun ownership are incorrect and self-defeating?

And then moving on to convince them that a society founded on minimal government intervention, Life/Lib/PursHapp is best off for all parties involved, etc. etc.?

-MV