SAN FRAN BAN: NO MORE GUNS IN YOUR HANDS WHEN ON THEIR LAND!!!

As well as what some had said about Vietnam and Iraq.

I'm sure all of the criminal types that have already purchased guns illegally will be beating down the doors of their local Police Precinct to turn in their handguns. The only people affected by this ban will be legal, registered gun owners. Are the San Fran Police going to start going house to house with a registration list to confiscate handguns? This is truly ridiculous. What possible purpose does this ban serve?

This is stupid. Everyone knows guns don't kill people, criminals do. A much more effective law would be to ban criminals.

Thinker, I like the way you think. In 1938 Hitler passed heavy gun restriction laws that effectivly disarmed Jews and other "non-citizens." Would the holocaust been as massive if the Jewish people had been armed?

The answer is obviously no. The Jewish people would have fought back!

Futhermore, after Kristallnacht Hitler forbad Jews to own any firearms.

In reality as good as any government seems they are never to be trusted.

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

-Ben Franklin

TRUST NO ONE

corndog

Handguns are not allowed in Chicago either, but it has not slowed anything down at all.

Who needs an assault weapon in their home? We have the freedom to bear arms as the citizens check against the government. What happens when we get someone who tries to become a dictator by controlling the army?

The full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires all states to recognize some basic laws from other states. That is why you can get married in TX, and still be married in NY.

See if you can follow the logic. A person who plans on committing a crime with a gun isn't really concerned about a law against guns. The person who pays because of this law is the decent, law abiding citizen who can no longer protect himself from that lawbreaker. Do you expect criminals to turn in their hand guns now since they realize they're breaking the law?! How stupid.

If criminals can't buy guns, where do they get them from?

Neuropsychiatrist wrote:

Who gives the NRA the right to go into San Francsico and impose THEIR GUN values on San Franciscans? How would Southern states feel if Gay and lesbian San Franciscans went into their states and starting demanding gay marriage be recognized?

I think they did, smart guy. Texas voted it down 3-1 yesterday.

max wrote:

Handguns are not allowed in Chicago either, but it has not slowed anything down at all.

i'm all for citizens owning guns, but this argument - and the similar one using DC as an example is phony for two reasons.

1. both DC and Chicago are cities that are surrounded by states where guns are readily available. and since the police aren't doing any border checks at the edges of the city, there is a free flow of guns into these cities. so the gun laws themselves don't have a direct effect on gun violence.

2. where gun laws DO have an effect is on the prosecutorial powers of the cities. if a gun is used in a crime, it's an added charge. and that's what this should be about - locking up criminals - right? so you're giving the law another tool to put the bad guys away. why argue with that?

As to point #2, since we already give criminals who use guns in their crimes more jail time who is going to be affected by a gun ban? A: Law-abiding citizens.

Being 'pro-guns' defies any kind of logic. If you had lived ina gun free society you would realsie taht your fears are totally unfounded, hell, our police don't even carry firearms. The problem is lack of education ona basic level, the government has people believe that they are always under threat, its crap, you ahve more chance of being killed by your own family than some crazy criminal... which other country in the world has regular school massacres, another one today in the news I notice?

The element of doubt is a curious thing, and if the law allows guns the law is siding with the aggressor, but as America is an aggressive nation in every shape and form I guess thats not so surprising.

corndog,

Exactly.

Personally, I am very liberal socially and an economic moderate, but gun control is another issue to me. In 99 out of 100 political conversations a Neo-Con would call me a pinko commie, but this is the only way I see gun control. I feel the violent crime problem in our country is a social phenomenon which gun control can not fix. I have no idea what can fix the problem, but I'm not about to give the government a blank check.

And to think that someone on this board would think that the general public of this country couldn't successfully revolt is just crazy. Over 300 million people in a vast country, as well as owning the large majority of the industrial complex. Just look at Vietnam or Iraq, a small force with the support of the public around them can be very difficult to defeat even with crude weapons. I think if things got bad enough (which is pretty bad) the American public could take down the government very quickly.

And what happens if a couple of muslims get electrocuted here and these radicals start pouring gasoline on us and burning our houses and even our families are we suppose to squirt them with a water hose and hope they stop? Maybe recite the koran in a hope that they listen to reason? Bulls***! you come on my property and start pouring gas on me and my family I want to be able to unload my clip, reload and keep shooting until the bastards are so filled with holes that they need medical records to identify them.

We live in a culture of fear. I know many people who live in the ritziest suburbs with a home alarm system but somehow are afraid an intruder will break in? So they have a handgun around "just in case". There's a 99% chance that this gun, if fired at someone, will not be used on a burglar or intruder, but on a family member (in malice) or by accident. Few people are randomly murdered.

It's even more likely that should someone break in, the gun will be stolen. Most breakins happen when people are not at home, of course, and guns are something that burglars look for. Why? They can easily be resold on the street. Because criminals can't buy guns, most guns come from "responsible gun owners" who's gun was stolen because they were either too stupid or too lazy to lock it up, hide it well, etc.

Does the 2nd amendment guarantee a right to bear arms? Yes.

Does the Supreme Court, or the court of public opinion, support a ban on personal ownership of nuclear weapons? You bet.

So the government is allowed to restrict the citizen's right to bear arms. We're just arguing over the details.

SFers also voted not to allow military recruiters into government run schools. I bet these are the same people who complain that not enough rich kids go into the military. What a bunch of schmucks.

As for the handgun ban, stupid. People need to be able to protect their homes and families from criminals. The police cannot stop a crime from happening (except for really rare almost dumb luck incidences).

I think the citizens of SF are going to find that SCOTUS will not allow this to stand since it seems a restriction of the Second Amendment.

Lastly, can you show proof of your claim that restaurant sales have increased since the smoking bans occurred and also proof of your claim that people are healthier? Even considered that if people eat out more, they expose themselves to eating more unhealthful food or get fat and develop diabetes and go blind? It could be trading one problem for another. (My issue there is that government is restricting a private business owner from using his property the way he/she sees best when the activity that is banned is not illegal and poses no proven risk--second hand smoke data is inconclusive at best).

I predict crime goes up. Not necessarily violent crime, but certainly property crime.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Luv2Run wrote:

I think the citizens of SF are going to find that SCOTUS will not allow this to stand since it seems a restriction of the Second Amendment.

They'll have to get them to overturn a decision by the Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeals, Silveira v. Lockyer (2002), which finds that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual rights.

"Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision."

Which might happen, since different circuits have ruled differently on this right, and the federal legislative and executive branches conflict with this ruling. But as far as the circuit court is concerned, SF is totally within its rights.