San Francisco and guns

scaeagles · 11-09-2005, 08:50 AM

If I lived in San Francisco, as of April 1, 2006, I would be a criminal.

By a vote of 58-42, the residents of SF voted to require every person in SF to turn their hand guns over to the city government. Every gun shop will be required to close. As an added bonus, there will be no compensation to the gun owners or the business owners. This includes any antiques weapons that have great collector value.

Looking at what has happened in France recently, there is no way I would be turning my gun in to anyone. Period.

I'm certain every criminal in SF is going to be turning in their hand guns.

I certain guns will be less available on the streets.

I'm certain SF will be a safer place after April 1, 2006.

The old adage "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" should be the new city motto.

I certainly hope that this is challanged early and quickly overturned as unconstitutional.

Morrigoon · 11-09-2005, 08:56 AM

And our constitutionally-guaranteed rights are further chipped away by the so-called liberals.

I hate big government.

Californians are now ruining Nevada with their politics (by moving there). Vegas just passed a law that goes into effect about now, saying that all dogs MUST be spayed or neutered UNLESS the owner has a special "pet fancier's" license. In order to get the license, you must allow government inspections of your home. Yep, you MUST neuter your dog OR allow the government the right to inspect your home! I *hate* being dictated to over things in which I should have free will. Even though I understand the reasoning behind the laws, they smack of big government and I don't like it ONE BIT.

Alex · 11-09-2005, 10:14 AM

So the only thing preventing you from being a criminal, scaeagles, is a fear of someone other than the police shooting you? That doesn't speak very well of you.

Otherwise, I agree. Lani and I have argued over this because I won't let her keep guns in the house (I don't have a problem with guns, I just think the risk of keeping guns in private homes outweighs the unlikely benefits) but that is a personal choice. I can't imagine it will pass legal muster, though; but we'll see.

scaeagles · 11-09-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So the only thing preventing you from being a criminal, scaeagles, is a fear of someone other than the police shooting you? That doesn't speak very well of you.

I'm not quite sure of how you got this from my post. I'm not even sure I understand what you mean. I just said I'd be a criminal in SF after that date.

There are probably several ways I would become a criminal. If someone harmed my wife or children (assuming I was not present to protect them at the time), I would most likely take the law into my own hands.

Alex · 11-09-2005, 10:32 AM

I was being ridiculous, but you pointed out a system and said that if you changed one thing (whether anybody other than police are allowed to have guns) then you would become a criminal. Since that is the only thing about San Francisco necessary for you to choose a life of crime in that city, then it is the only thing keeping you from being a criminal in that city. I would like to think that such things as decency and respect for others plays a restraining role as well.

But really, I was just teasing.

Alex · 11-09-2005, 10:33 AM

Christ. Now I see what you were saying and how I was misreading it.

Well, I'll leave the post above this as it explains how I was reading your sentence.

tracilicious · 11-09-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Californians are now ruining Nevada with their politics (by moving there). Vegas just passed a law that goes into effect about now, saying that all dogs MUST be spayed or neutered UNLESS the owner has a special "pet fancier's" license. In order to get the license, you must allow government inspections of your home. Yep, you MUST neuter your dog OR allow the government the right to inspect your home! I *hate* being dictated to over things in which I should have free will. Even though I understand the reasoning behind the laws, they smack of big government and I don't like it ONE BIT.

HOOORAY!!!!!! If all states did this we wouldn't be killing millions of animals each year. Thank god the state stepped in to save the animals.

katiesue · 11-09-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Otherwise, I agree. Lani and I have argued over this because I won't let her keep guns in the house (I don't have a problem with guns, I just think the risk of keeping guns in private homes outweighs the unlikely benefits) .

This is my opinon as well. I don't care if others keep guns. I just don't want them in my house. It's more likely to be used against you rather than you using it against anyone else. And I have a child in my home, no matter what locks, security you put on one - kids will figure out a way if they really want to. And in all honesty - I'm not sure I could actually shoot someone anyway, not that I'm not an excellent shot, killing somone is another matter entirely.

I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns. My Jr. High even offered Hunters Safety as an elective class. I have no problem with sport shooting and hunting. I just don't think I need to have one in my house. But I do think that if others feel the need, then they do have the right. And no matter what you do, criminials will have guns and get more.

alphabassettgrrl · 11-10-2005, 12:38 PM

Looting party to SF, anyone? It's going to be much safer soon to break into houses and rob people.

Watching what happens in a disaster, I'm not likely to give up my gun. My husband and I talked about the disaster zones, and we decided the guns would be part of the disaster kit. Bad guys got 'em, I just want to even the odds.

Bad things happen when people get scared. Giving power to the gov't is only one of those bad things. The problem is, it's difficult to take back that power when you realize what you just did.

Gah. I think I want to buy my own private island.

Capt Jack · 11-10-2005, 02:06 PM

they've already stated, even those who wrote the damn thing in the first place that the courts would dump it pretty quickly. they've already overturned substantially less ludicrous laws concerning firearms simply by citing that no localities can enact laws that supercede the standing state and federal regulations.

and yes, I too would be joining you in criminal-dome...erm...criminality...criminalness......being a badguy under such a law. "...from my cold dead fingers" to many is more than a trite saying. they're words to live by and die by if necessary.

mi dos centavos

11-09-2005, 08:50 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	San Francisco and guns If I lived in San Francisco, as of April 1, 2006, I would be a criminal. By a vote of 58-42, the residents of SF voted to require every person in SF to turn their hand guns over to the city government. Every gun shop will be required to close. As an added bonus, there will be no compensation to the gun owners or the business owners. This includes any antiques weapons that have great collector value. Looking at what has happened in France recently, there is no way I would be turning my gun in to anyone. Period. I'm certain every criminal in SF is going to be turning in their hand guns. I certain guns will be less available on the streets. I'm certain SF will be a safer place after April 1, 2006. The old adage "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" should be the new city motto. I certainly hope that this is challanged early and quickly overturned as unconstitutional.
	Submit to Quotes

11-09-2005, 08:56 AM	#2
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	And our constitutionally-guaranteed rights are further chipped away by the so-called liberals. I hate big government. Californians are now ruining Nevada with their politics (by moving there). Vegas just passed a law that goes into effect about now, saying that all dogs MUST be spayed or neutered UNLESS the owner has a special "pet fancier's" license. In order to get the license, you must allow government inspections of your home. Yep, you MUST neuter your dog OR allow the government the right to inspect your home! I hate being dictated to over things in which I should have free will. Even though I understand the reasoning behind the laws, they smack of big government and I don't like it ONE BIT. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

11-09-2005, 10:14 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	So the only thing preventing you from being a criminal, scaeagles, is a fear of someone other than the police shooting you? That doesn't speak very well of you. Otherwise, I agree. Lani and I have argued over this because I won't let her keep guns in the house (I don't have a problem with guns, I just think the risk of keeping guns in private homes outweighs the unlikely benefits) but that is a personal choice. I can't imagine it will pass legal muster, though; but we'll see.
	Submit to Quotes

11-09-2005, 10:32 AM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I was being ridiculous, but you pointed out a system and said that if you changed one thing (whether anybody other than police are allowed to have guns) then you would become a criminal. Since that is the only thing about San Francisco necessary for you to choose a life of crime in that city, then it is the only thing keeping you from being a criminal in that city. I would like to think that such things as decency and respect for others plays a restraining role as well. But really, I was just teasing.
	Submit to Quotes

11-09-2005, 10:33 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Christ. Now I see what you were saying and how I was misreading it. Well, I'll leave the post above this as it explains how I was reading your sentence.
	Submit to Quotes

11-10-2005, 12:38 PM	#9
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	Looting party to SF, anyone? It's going to be much safer soon to break into houses and rob people. Watching what happens in a disaster, I'm not likely to give up my gun. My husband and I talked about the disaster zones, and we decided the guns would be part of the disaster kit. Bad guys got 'em, I just want to even the odds. Bad things happen when people get scared. Giving power to the gov't is only one of those bad things. The problem is, it's difficult to take back that power when you realize what you just did. Gah. I think I want to buy my own private island. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

11-10-2005, 02:06 PM	#10
Capt Jack check your head Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,174	they've already stated, even those who wrote the damn thing in the first place that the courts would dump it pretty quickly. they've already overturned substantially less ludicrous laws concerning firearms simply by citing that no localities can enact laws that supercede the standing state and federal regulations. and yes, I too would be joining you in criminal-dome...erm...criminality...criminalness......being a badguy under such a law. "...from my cold dead fingers" to many is more than a trite saying. they're words to live by and die by if necessary. mi dos centavos __________________ a clear conscience is a sure sign of a fuzzy memory
	Submit to Quotes