Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Pure, unadulterated, complete lunacy...

I should be stunned, but I'm not. It appears that our ever-enlightened friends on the left coast have managed to pass a ballot referendum, banning private ownership of guns within the city limits of San Francisco. Yes, friends, once again, the feelings crowd strikes.

This is the liberal, anti-gun nut's wet dream. The complete abolition of private firearm ownership. Now, some of you out there might say, 'Hey there SAWB, if people ain't got them none of them shootin' irons, then there won't be no shooterin's!' Yeah, there won't be any more shootings by legally-armed, law-abiding citizens. However, there will still be a very well-armed contingent of gang-bangers, crack-heads, and other general low-life scum, ready, willing, and able to relieve you of your life, liberty, and property from the end of their barrel.

Notice, also, that the exemptions in the bill include police officers, active military personnel, and SECURITY GUARDS. This is important, because this loophole allows those people who feel that they are somehow more important than you and I, to hire large, well armed, security guards to ferry themselves back and forth. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Rosie O'Donnell, I'm looking directly at you.

Now, getting back to the article, the feel-gooders have also passed an initiative that limits the presence of military recruiters in the public schools of San Francisco. Fantastic. According to the article, the supporters hope that this ballot initiative will give the anti-war/anti-recruiter crowd the 'moral authority' to tell the recruiters, who are there legally, to shove off.

Can we get a collective hobby for the voters of San Francisco...


Dante said...

I definately see an increase in the number of security guards in the SF area soon. If they tried to pass something like that in my neck of the woods, me and a few of my neighbors and the guy down the street that starts every morning off with target practice would form our own little "Security" firm.

patsbrother said...

I see that you conveniently neglected to add, SAWB, that the ban applies only to handguns, otherwise known as a criminal's firearm of choice. Do you pine for the days when sawed-off shotguns were legal? Were you first in line at the gun-nut convention for one of the class of semi-automatics that came back into play once Brady ellapsed? No. If San Fransisco wants a ban on a particular type of firearm, let them have it. Don't want this type of ban here? Vote against it, should it ever appear here. 80 some-odd senators voting for a $250 million bridge to nowhere is lunacy; a ban on a specific class of firearms is not.

S.A.W.B. said...

You are aware, patsbrother, that the Brady bill never banned any automatic weapons that weren't previously banned. Essentially, the Brady bill banned extended magazines, i.e. you couldn't have a 25 shot magazine for your 9mm pistol, you could only use the standard 15 shot magazine.

Furthermore, handguns are also oddly enough the law-abiding citizen's gun of choice for a number of reasons. They are compact, light, easy to aim, easy to fire, and relatively inexpensive. I know that were I to pack heat in my house, on my person, or in my vehicle, it would be a handgun, not a rifle, not a sawed-off shotgun, not a regular shotgun.

I don't particularly care what sort of firearm is legal, so long as it remains legal for me to possess and operate a firearm of similar caliber and build. As the bumper sticker says, "An armed society, is a polite society."

Patrick Armstrong said...

Actually, as ruled by the SCOTUS on few occasions, States and Cities do have the ability to do just this sort of thing because of something in the way the 2nd and 10th Amendments act when together. I'll have to ask the Pops for the actual cases. Or maybe the Sprout can just look it up.

With the exception of Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, there appears to have been much lunacy: The Lone Star State is so worried about the possibility of homosexuals getting married that they may have inadvertently outlawed marriage as an institution altogether. That's taking the King Solomon approach too far, IMHO. They didn't actually do it, but they wrote their law that way, and folks approved it, semantics be damned.

France in flames, San Francisco outlawing guns, Texas not paying attention to the English language? The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)

Dante said...

Oh my, SAWB is whipping out the wisdom of bumper stickers, where we can learn such nuggets of information as "Charelton Heston is My President," "Free Milton County," and my personal favorite "My other Jeep is a Jeep."

For the record, "gun-nut conventions" are a terrible place to get guns nowadays. The guns often way overpriced. The vendors also tend to sell a higher number of damamged guns hoping the customer buys before they notice a problem. Pawn shops and sporting goods stores carrying used firearms are the way to go.

Personally, I don't like handgun bans because then criminals will easily spot who has a gun and who doesn't out in public. I'd rather they have to wonder.

Pat, when aren't the 2nd and 10th Ammendments together? I'm really not sure what you're getting at there. Besides, I don't see anyhting in SAWB's argument that leads me to belive that he thinks SF can't do this. He seems to merely be arguing that they shouldn't do this.

Patrick Armstrong said...

I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth: SAWB doesn't say that SF can't do this. I'm just sayin' that there are precedents here. While I think this kind of thing is a little bit loony, it ain't unprecedented.

As far as the 2nd and 10th Amendments working together (and I'll admit that I may be thinking of the 2nd, 9th and 14th) what I'm talking about are matters of specific laws upheld on grounds pertaining to those amendements.

I don't know them, but they come into play when the 'several states' come into conflict directly with tenets of the Bill of Rights.

Which is why Kevin's the one in law school, and I ain't.

patsbrother said...

No, Sprout does not have time to just look stuff up. Sadly however, Sprout does make time to read and post on blogs.

Though SAWB did not insinuate San Fran Can't Ban, the article his post links to mentioned that the local guns' rights advocates (because guns have rights, like abortions) intend to petition California, arguing only the State can impose such a ban.

paT: I have not taken Const. Law and will not until Fall 2006. I have nothing but a general recognition that the 9th Amendment extends to the States what abilities the Federal government does not reserve for itself. The 14th Amendment is that wonderful thing that requires due process of law within the States as well as the Federal government.

ruby booth said...

For once, I agree with both SAWB and dante. I was looking out the window for this one; so I'm coming in late, but a big ol' liberal that I am, damn, even I think this is dumb.

Have you folks read the Proposition? Madness. (Not surprising madness, considering SanFran, but still.)
"Of all firearms used to cause injury or death, 67% were handguns." Well yeah. But surely we don't think those people would have thrown up their hands, "Shucks, I couldn't possibly kill the wife with this shotgun, and I turned my handgun in. The bitch'll just have to live."

And tourists can bring their guns. Now, that's the biggest problem right there, as anyone from St. Simons will know. Man, if they could have guns and we couldn't, we'd have to kill them all by hand. Screw that.

Patrick Armstrong said...

The single most misleading figure when talking about gun-related deaths as a public safety issue neglect in mentioning that between 1/3 and 1/2 of handgun deaths are suicides.