OnTheRocks Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 SF Bans Handguns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 great...nuts in california and kansas democracy at work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 This is interesting too. I suppose this is something that is happening a lot more. It is interesting that when the media doggs the current administration that recruitment is down as some sort of added failure in Iraq...they fail to mention this. San Francisco voters also supported Prop. I, a symbolic measure that makes it city policy to oppose, but not forbid, military recruiting in public schools. Fifty-nine percent of voters approved the measure, while 41 percent rejected it. What is the difference between Opposing and Forbidding? Does having the right to oppose mean you have the right to forbid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 This is interesting too.I suppose this is something that is happening a lot more. It is interesting that when the media doggs the current administration that recruitment is down as some sort of added failure in Iraq...they fail to mention this. What is the difference between Opposing and Forbidding? Does having the right to oppose mean you have the right to forbid? 498714[/snapback] That's fine. Perhaps the Federal Government should pull their funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 SF Bans Handguns 498701[/snapback] That should really help. Now the people willing to break the law to murder and rob people with guns will have to think - and I mean really think - about if they really want to risk breaking the law by ignoring that handgun ban to do it. Hard to resist the urge to go to SF and become a criminal when the city has so much money and is so ripe for the picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Next time I go to SF, instead of shooting them, Ill just have to beat down all the homless who are "permitted" to acost me for loose change with a stick....or a bat. But knowing SF, they will probably ban "Louisville Slugger" because that name has some kind of racist connotation or something. Then Ill have to beat them down with an aluminum bat. But that probalby wont work, becuase SF will probably ban Easton from selling goods in the city, because of the ban on Sheena Easton music or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 But knowing SF, they will probably ban "Louisville Slugger" because that name has some kind of racist connotation or something. Then Ill have to beat them down with an aluminum bat. But that probalby wont work, becuase SF will probably ban Easton from selling goods in the city, because of the ban on Sheena Easton music or something. 498901[/snapback] damn that slippery slope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1 Huh? Did I miss something, or did the population of San Fransisco just suspend the Second Amendment? I have got to believe that this was proposed only to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court. There's no WAY anyone with half a brain would think this goes unchallenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Huh? Did I miss something, or did the population of San Fransisco just suspend the Second Amendment? I have got to believe that this was proposed only to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court. There's no WAY anyone with half a brain would think this goes unchallenged. 498938[/snapback] I don't see how this is in line with the 2nd Amendment either. Any criminal with half a brain will buy his gun in Oakland, take it to SF, use it, and then plant it in someone's house (who will then be arrested for owning a gun). And this helps society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't see how this is in line with the 2nd Amendment either. Any criminal with half a brain will buy his gun in Oakland, take it to SF, use it, and then plant it in someone's house (who will then be arrested for owning a gun). And this helps society. 499030[/snapback] Hell...buy it in Oakland, take it to SF, and keep it in their house. It's not like the SFPD will trace the gun, considering they'll have NO records of ownership since "no one" owns guns within the city limits... Yeah, THAT will cut down on crime... Did the whole country just go COMPLETELY stupid while I was asleep or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Did the whole country just go COMPLETELY stupid while I was asleep or something? 499156[/snapback] Have you ever lived in/visited San Francisco? It's been "Dawgged" for a LONG time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I can imagine Dianne Feinstein was vehemently opposed to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The people voted for the ban, and the article states that similar bans exist in DC and Chicago. I just don't see the big deal. As for the Second Amendment, I thought, and I may be wrong, that one interpretation is Governement (federal or state) could not infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms. However, in this case, it is the will of the people by a majority vote, not the government. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The people voted for the ban, and the article states that similar bans exist in DC and Chicago. I just don't see the big deal. As for the Second Amendment, I thought, and I may be wrong, that one interpretation is Governement (federal or state) could not infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms. However, in this case, it is the will of the people by a majority vote, not the government. What say you? 499201[/snapback] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IMO, neither the people nor the government can infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IMO, neither the people nor the government can infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. 499220[/snapback] Was the original intent simply to limit the power of a government from infringing on a person's right to bear arms, or is it implying that it is the right of the people to make the choice? All that sentence states is that the governing body can not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about interpreting the will of an informed public. If the will of the people is to ban arms by a majority vote, then the right of the people is not being infringed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 This sh-- will continue on until The Supreme Court determines whether the amendment protects only a right of state governments against federal interference with state militia and police forces or a right of individuals against the federal and state government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Was the original intent simply to limit the power of a government from infringing on a person's right to bear arms, or is it implying that it is the right of the people to make the choice? All that sentence states is that the governing body can not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about interpreting the will of an informed public. If the will of the people is to ban arms by a majority vote, then the right of the people is not being infringed. 499234[/snapback] if i lived in SF and somehow passionately desired to stay there even after this vote, you can beleive there would be another ruby ridge on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The people voted for the ban, and the article states that similar bans exist in DC and Chicago. I just don't see the big deal. As for the Second Amendment, I thought, and I may be wrong, that one interpretation is Governement (federal or state) could not infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms. However, in this case, it is the will of the people by a majority vote, not the government. What say you? 499201[/snapback] Problem with that interpretation is that even if the people of SF voted that directly, the Constitution itself should still take precedence. One of the points of the Bill of Rights is that it takes precedence over EVERY other law in the land...otherwise you'd have wacky things like Florida raising the voting age to 50 or Alabama passing laws to locally repeal segregation. Now, I realize the supremacy of the Constitution nowadays is occasionally honored in its breach rather than its keeping (Kerry's position(s) on DOMA and a marriage amendment is a VERY good example. Gun control's another. Even freedom of speech occasionally.) But that doesn't mean I personally think its right. By any current standard of law, SF's gun ban (and DC's, for that matter), shouldn't stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 if i lived in SF and somehow passionately desired to stay there even after this vote, you can beleive there would be another ruby ridge on your hands. 499263[/snapback] So what if this happens? The day comes along when all the guns are supposed to be turned in and I don't do it. Do the cops come to my house to collect my gun? And what if I just say "I can't turn it in because I lost it." Do they get a court order to search the house for my gun? My office? My backyard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 So what if this happens? The day comes along when all the guns are supposed to be turned in and I don't do it. Do the cops come to my house to collect my gun? And what if I just say "I can't turn it in because I lost it." Do they get a court order to search the house for my gun? My office? My backyard? 499441[/snapback] The ban already exists in DC and Chicago. How was it handled in those two cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts