NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.foxreno.com/politics/5281949/detail.html)

SF Voters Pass Gun Ban; Oust Military Recruiters

POSTED: 3:56 pm PST November 8, 2005
UPDATED: 7:06 am PST November 9, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting on Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that "San Francisco voters support sensible gun control."

Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said "every life that's saved with Proposition H is a big win."

Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.

A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.

Davey Jones, chairman of the Committee to Oppose Handgun Ban, said a recent wave of gun violence in the city may have hurt his campaign, but opponents believe the right to possess handguns is necessary for self-defense.

"We focused our message to seniors and to women and to the gay community," Jones said. "Of course we're disappointed. We believe that we did not get the message out."

The military recruitment initiative also won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

Measure I, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

Instead, Proposition I encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, a College Not Combat activist, adding that the victory would help put pressure on the government to someday institute an actual ban on campus military recruiting.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that "San Francisco voters support sensible gun control."
:rolleyes: Yeah, it's "sensible" gun laws like these that make cities like D.C. so safe...oh wait...

And they didn't even put in a grandfather clause, I guess collectors better get out of the city before April:headbang:

Why is this not a sensible law?? (i'm a stupid Brit:) )

"We focused our message to seniors and to women and to the gay community," Jones said. "Of course we're disappointed. We believe that we did not get the message out."
Anyway are these now the targets for the gun lobby - old people, women and gays.
Handguns for Homosexuals !!

Why is this not a sensible law?? (i'm a stupid Brit:) )


Anyway are these now the targets for the gun lobby - old people, women and gays.
Handguns for Homosexuals !!

I'm a stupid Brit too.

Apparently our cities are constantly filled with murderers and rapists because we don't have guns.:rolleyes:

Many of us Americans like Boomsticks.

Apparently our cities are constantly filled with murderers and rapists because we don't have guns.:rolleyes:
Brits have an advantage of nationwide ordinances, though.
I can go to a Wyoming or another state with lax laws, fill the back of an SUV with shotguns, and then drive into San Fransisco and start a killing spree. Driving from Wyoming to Britain, however, would be slightly trickier.

I can see banning manufacture/sale, but how is it constitutional to take away a firearm already legally owned by someone?

I can see banning manufacture/sale, but how is it constitutional to take away a firearm already legally owned by someone?

Hmmmm...Were this anywhere else, I could see a court challenge.

...Davey Jones, chairman of the Committee to Oppose Handgun Ban, said a recent wave of gun violence in the city may have hurt his campaign...
Oh, oh you're kidding. That's almost TOO awesome to be coincidental.

Come on, if you were trying to get handguns banned, don't you think it would at least ENTER your mind to get a bunch of dudes together and go get into some gun-related crime? It's the PERFECT strategy!

Please tell me I'm not the only person who jumped to this conclusion....

well, congrats to san fran, then, they both sound like fine new laws you've chosen :D

Simonist']Oh, oh you're kidding. That's almost TOO awesome to be coincidental.

Come on, if you were trying to get handguns banned, don't you think it would at least ENTER your mind to get a bunch of dudes together and go get into some gun-related crime? It's the PERFECT strategy!
It'd be nice if it were true, but my experience is that such groups aren't generally that awesome. No, it probably was just a coincidence.

Hmmmm...Were this anywhere else, I could see a court challenge.

It should be challenged, simply because it allows the local government to totally violate 2nd Amendment rights. This goes way beyond simple gun control and establishes a pretty dangerous precedent by allowing the government to seize property that is legally acquired and protected by Federal law.

Compare Washington DC's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Washington&state=DC) crime rate with, for example, New York City's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+York&state=NY), which has much more "sensible" laws then outright bans.

It should be challenged, simply because it allows the local government to totally violate 2nd Amendment rights. This goes way beyond simple gun control and establishes a pretty dangerous precedent by allowing the government to seize property that is legally acquired and protected by Federal law.

I agree.

Pointless unless they go door to door and forcibly remove peoples guns and have border stations at the city's borders to take people's guns as they come in and give them back as they leave.

Not only that, the city should lose federal dollars for what they did to military recruiting.

It should be challenged, simply because it allows the local government to totally violate 2nd Amendment rights. This goes way beyond simple gun control and establishes a pretty dangerous precedent by allowing the government to seize property that is legally acquired and protected by Federal law.
They did it in New York City. Why should SF be any different? :mad:

They did it in New York City. Why should SF be any different? :mad:
My understanding was that NYC was actually a much more lax situation than outright bans and enforcing previous legal owners to give up their firearms. Is it actually the same?

They did it in New York City. Why should SF be any different? :mad:

They didn't confiscate guns from previously legal owners without their consent, at least as far as I know. That's the part I have the most trouble with.

And they didn't even put in a grandfather clause, I guess collectors better get out of the city before April:headbang:
Don't get your panties in a twist--it'll never hold up in court. Even Daly knows that--he's an extreme lefty in an already left-wing city and he's got a rep for making noise more than making sense. Nobody's going to lose their guns.

I'm a stupid Brit too.

Apparently our cities are constantly filled with murderers and rapists because we don't have guns.:rolleyes:

I think the change has to be more sweeping than just in cities. The whole country needs these sorts of reforms.
America needs to let go of its unhealthy dependence on guns.

Don't get your panties in a twist--it'll never hold up in court. Even Daly knows that--he's an extreme lefty in an already left-wing city and he's got a rep for making noise more than making sense. Nobody's going to lose their guns.

Isn't this a repost? Why are we having to explain this again?

I think the change has to be more sweeping than just in cities. The whole country needs these sorts of reforms.
America needs to let go of its unhealthy dependence on guns.

In order to get rid of guns, you'll have to have a Constitutional Amendment banning guns among the people.

I will tell you that won't fly.

Isn't this a repost? Why are we having to explain this again?
New thread--figured I'd pass along the local knowledge to a new group. This happens all the time--multiple threads on the same topic. You get used to it.

In order to get rid of guns, you'll have to have a Constitutional Amendment banning guns among the people.

I will tell you that won't fly.

Armed Revolution, anyone?

Okay i'll rephrase my question. Other than it being your constitutional right to bear arms (apparently not an issue with the 58% who favoured the ban) why do you feel the need to own a gun?

In order to get rid of guns, you'll have to have a Constitutional Amendment banning guns among the people.

I will tell you that won't fly.
Because no one can accept private citizens not being able to keep guns in their home in their sock drawer. If people knew more about taking care of guns than they did about where to buy one and that they should have one, we wouldn't have these problems.

Okay i'll rephrase my question. Other than it being your constitutional right to bear arms (apparently not an issue with the 58% who favoured the ban) why do you feel the need to own a gun?
Because it is useful for home defense, home entertainment and home repair.

Okay i'll rephrase my question. Other than it being your constitutional right to bear arms (apparently not an issue with the 58% who favoured the ban) why do you feel the need to own a gun?

We are talking about San Francisco. They DO NOT speak for all of America. Remember that.

As for me feeling the need to own a gun? To protect myself from the crooks who are armed with guns illegally.

Because no one can accept private citizens not being able to keep guns in their home in their sock drawer. If people knew more about taking care of guns than they did about where to buy one and that they should have one, we wouldn't have these problems.

This is so ignorant it isn't funny.

Compare Washington DC's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Washington&state=DC) crime rate with, for example, New York City's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+York&state=NY), which has much more "sensible" laws then outright bans.
Way to twist the facts!

D.C. - City Population: 563,384 / 8839 violent crimes = 1 crime for every 63 people.

N.Y. - City Population: 8,098,066 / 59448 violent crimes = 1 crime for every 136 people.

Hey, nice try though!

Okay i'll rephrase my question. Other than it being your constitutional right to bear arms (apparently not an issue with the 58% who favoured the ban) why do you feel the need to own a gun?
Because there's bears in the hills.....and mountain lions. and if you'd seen my neighbor's pigs, you'd understand why I don't exactly want a run-in with one of them either. Lions and piggies and bears....oh my.

Oh, you mean at HOME, don't you?

Sorry, still thinking in vacation-minded terms......I guess I'll go with "we don't have guns here".

We are talking about San Francisco. They DO NOT speak for all of America. Remember that.

As for me feeling the need to own a gun? To protect myself from the crooks who are armed with guns illegally.

This is one thing I'll never understand about America... if citizens don't have guns, criminals wouldn't need guns to rob you. There wouldn't have to be violent shoot outs. The police would actually be respected, rather than having to worry about any random person they pull over having a gun that they have the ability to use at any time. Whereas in non-gun-toting countries, if the police pull over someone, and they're angry about it, they may have to subdue the person in a fist-fight, which the police officer and partner will win most of the time. With someone being angry about being pulled over, if they have a gun, and it's their RIGHT to have and use that gun... God, that's just terrifying.
Guns don't solve problems. The first thought running through a person's mind should not be, "Should I shoot this person who's on my property?"
I can't even begin to imagine how anyone feels safe in America...

Intresting ... people are freaking out about the gun controll portion of this

Anyone else notice the baning of army recruters and such?

To me that has the wider ranging implications (maybe it is just me)

Why I want to keep my guns.
Last week, my neighbor had some drug dealer come to her house looking for her ex to kill him. The dude was high on crack, and people almost got hurt, from what I hear. Luckily, the door held up until the police arrived.(her doors are ALOT stronger than mine) It all happened 15 yards from my bedroom window.

Now tell me what I would do if the guy got the wrong house, and tried getting into MY home instead?

Give him a hug?

This is one thing I'll never understand about America... if citizens don't have guns, criminals wouldn't need guns to rob you. There wouldn't have to be violent shoot outs. The police would actually be respected, rather than having to worry about any random person they pull over having a gun that they have the ability to use at any time. Whereas in non-gun-toting countries, if the police pull over someone, and they're angry about it, they may have to subdue the person in a fist-fight, which the police officer and partner will win most of the time. With someone being angry about being pulled over, if they have a gun, and it's their RIGHT to have and use that gun... God, that's just terrifying.
Guns don't solve problems. The first thought running through a person's mind should not be, "Should I shoot this person who's on my property?"
I can't even begin to imagine how anyone feels safe in America...
But it's not their right to use the gun when they're pissed about a traffic violation. That would absolutely NEVER stand up in court. Also, there is a viable defence to shoot somebody who's unlawfully on your property, especially if you're so in fear that you have your gun out to begin with, ergo there really shouldn't be a lot of thought needed on that topic. Last of all, America as a whole doesn't have a gun problem. Like I already stated, the reason I know how to use them is simply the wild animals at our vacation property. It's primarily a problem with violent crimes and in inner-cities (which, amazingly enough, coincide a fair amount of the time). It's not a matter of "How could they feel safe in America", it's more "How can they feel safe in high-crime areas with no precautions taken".

Let's watch San Francisco's gun crime rate skyrocket... :(

This is so ignorant it isn't funny.
Sadly, it is neither ignorant nor meant to be funny.

This is one thing I'll never understand about America... if citizens don't have guns, criminals wouldn't need guns to rob you.

They'll still have the guns.

There wouldn't have to be violent shoot outs.

This will be true to a point. It won't be a shootout, it'll be a massacre.

The police would actually be respected, rather than having to worry about any random person they pull over having a gun that they have the ability to use at any time.

Actually, there fears will triple since the bad guys will always have guns.

Whereas in non-gun-toting countries, if the police pull over someone, and they're angry about it, they may have to subdue the person in a fist-fight, which the police officer and partner will win most of the time.

That's assuming if there isn't more than one guy in the car.

With someone being angry about being pulled over, if they have a gun, and it's their RIGHT to have and use that gun... God, that's just terrifying.

Actually, it is illegal to kill a cop. In most states, its the automatic death penalty.

Guns don't solve problems. The first thought running through a person's mind should not be, "Should I shoot this person who's on my property?"

Most of the time it isn't. But I can legally shoot a trespasser if I felt that he is a threat to me and my family.

I can't even begin to imagine how anyone feels safe in America...

I do because I know what the laws are.

Sadly, it is neither ignorant nor meant to be funny.

Sadly it is. Take care. It is apparent you know nothing about all the classes that are out there. Even at shooting galleries, they talk about gun safety to those that are new.

They'll still have the guns.

From where?

It is apparent you know nothing about all the classes that are out there. Even at shooting galleries, they talk about gun safety to those that are new.
Quoth you: "That is so ignorant it isn't funny."
Can you please cite a law that requires you to go to a shooting gallery when you get a gun? One that requires you to take a gun safety class? One that requires you to even know which end the bullets come out of?

Everyone does not know proper firearm handling. Even fewer know proper storage procedures.

From where?
From the age-old argument of "They're criminals, and guns are illegal, so of course they'll have guns". DUH :rolleyes:
Can't believe you didn't think through that one.... :p

Simonist']From the age-old argument of "They're criminals, and guns are illegal, so of course they'll have guns". DUH :rolleyes:
Can't believe you didn't think through that one.... :p

Cocaine is illegal, but criminals still have cocaine.

I hate to burst everyones liberal bubble here, but drugs are illegal, and people don't have a problem with getting them. Whats the difference with guns?

Cocaine is illegal, but criminals still have cocaine.
DAMNIT! you JUST beat me to it! :D

From where?
Well, minus a nationwide ban they could just get them in Wyoming or some other place where the laws are laxer, and even if you make a nationwide ban, then they'll just get here from Canada and Mexico.

Anyway, the US has a really poor history of banning things. Prohibition of Alcohol brought organized crime into the mainstream, and it stayed there even after booze was allowed to pour free again; The War on Drugs has done absolutely nothing to stop drugs; and I see no reason why guns would go any easier then drugs or beer.

Cocaine is illegal, but criminals still have cocaine.
I'm not saying they can't get guns. Please stop attempting to twist my words. All I'm saying is, you can't assume that ALL criminals will still have guns anymore than you can assume that ALL criminals have cocaine.

Simonist']I'm not saying they can't get guns. Please stop attempting to twist my words. All I'm saying is, you can't assume that ALL criminals will still have guns anymore than you can assume that ALL criminals have cocaine.
but if guns are illegal then everyone with a gun becomes a criminal

but if guns are illegal then everyone with a gun becomes a criminal
But that wasn't the apparent context of the original comment. The comment seemed to imply more that the current criminals will still all have guns, despite the fact that many of them currently probably don't.

Besides, technically I'm a criminal because I own some long-stolen property (I think 25 years ago, so statute of limitations is almost certainly up, but the point remains). I certainly don't have a gun or cocaine. Maybe I'm not going to the right meetings.

but if guns are illegal then everyone with a gun becomes a criminal

And the victims of crime have no way to defend themselves.

I hate to burst everyones liberal bubble here, but drugs are illegal, and people don't have a problem with getting them. Whats the difference with guns?
Lax border control and you can make or grow half of them.

Simonist']But that wasn't the apparent context of the original comment. The comment seemed to imply more that the current criminals will still all have guns, despite the fact that many of them currently probably don't.

Besides, technically I'm a criminal because I own some long-stolen property (I think 25 years ago, so statute of limitations is almost certainly up, but the point remains). I certainly don't have a gun or cocaine. Maybe I'm not going to the right meetings.

The people that this measure is affecting are not the criminals. Those criminals that already have guns will still have them and those who want them will still get them. Now they can walk into a home knowing that the residents have less capability of protecting themselves.

Lax border control and you can make and grow half of them.

And this same lax boarder control that couldn't stop the flow of people is to be expected to stop the flow of guns?

Lax border control and you can make or grow half of them.

Lax border control is a primary contributor to crime as a whole. You can also machine a usable firearm.

And this same lax boarder control that couldn't stop the flow of people is to be expected to stop the flow of guns?
Border control should be increased is the point. I recognize banning guns to common citizens is impossible right now.

And this same lax boarder control that couldn't stop the flow of people is to be expected to stop the flow of guns?

Well sure, passing a measure like this makes illegal guns magically disappear. Didn't you know that?

The people that this measure is affecting are not the criminals. Those criminals that already have guns will still have them and those who want them will still get them. Now they can walk into a home knowing that the residents have less capability of protecting themselves.
Well thanks for half-enforcing my own point, I certainly hope that wasn't an attempt at an argument.

When did I come off as being all for gun bans anyway? You people obviously like to twist whatever I attempt today. This isn't worth it, I'm going to work early. Better to be on the clock with co-workers I dislike than putting up with this rubbish one more moment.

Border control should be increased is the point. I recognize banning guns to common citizens is impossible right now.

1.Yes it should. I agree w/ you wholly there.

2. San Fran just did it. It is possible.

2. San Fran just did it. It is possible.
San Fran could pass a law saying that all people will turn into pumpkins by midnight, and that wouldn't make the law enforceable at all, the same thing with the gun ban. Writing things down on bits of paper is one thing, applying those things to the real world is different.

San Fran could pass a law saying that all people will turn into pumpkins by midnight, and that wouldn't make the law enforceable at all, the same thing with the gun ban. Writing things down on bits of paper is one thing, applying those things to the real world is different.

You know, It would be nice to get this to the Supreme Court. We would finnaly get an answer to weather or not the 2nd Amendment guarentees
gun ownership.

I'm a commie Canadian, and while I support regulation of guns, such as registration, purchase qualification, and/or waiting periods, I do not support the outright banning of guns. I could support the banning of certain kinds of guns (such as handgun or assault weapon bans), provided that collectors could get permits allowing them if they met certain standards.

And of course, law enforcement officials should be permitted to keep their business weapons.

You know, It would be nice to get this to the Supreme Court. We would finnaly get an answer to weather or not the 2nd Amendment guarentees
gun ownership.It won't get that far. It'll get smacked down in state court first, and then if it makes it to federal court, it'll get smacked down by the 9th Circuit, and if it's appealed past that, it'll be denied cert.

EDIT: And that's assuming that Gavin Newsom would appeal in the first place. He didn't support this thing to begin with, so he may be happy to let it die on itsown.

It won't get that far. It'll get smacked down in state court first, and then if it makes it to federal court, it'll get smacked down by the 9th Circuit, and if it's appealed past that, it'll be denied cert.

Your putting to much faith in the 9th. In reality, this case can get swatted at the state Supreme Court and from there go to the US Supreme Court.

Your putting to much faith in the 9th. In reality, this case can get swatted at the state Supreme Court and from there go to the US Supreme Court.
You know, the 9th has this rep as being a loose cannon, but it really isn't. It's not even the most overturned Circuit Court. And what's more important, this law is patently unconstitutional and everyone here, and more importantly, on the 9th Circuit Court, knows it.

Lax border control and you can make or grow half of them.
You may not be able to make a gun, but give me a little hobbiest machine shop in someones garage, and I'll make you a gun in under an hour.

Well, I think its a great idea, banning guns. The only problem with it is that it doesnt work, it simply forces guns onto the black market. And unless there is a need for a well-regulated militia in your state, bearing arms is not Constitutional. Somehow people always forget about that part of the Second Amendment.

Personally, I'm offended by the attempt to ban military recruiters from campuses. My college is will do it, too, if they can keep the federal funding. I think it is appalling. I mean, its not like the recruiters are gonna come to your dorm room and conscript you. Our armed forces are all volunteer, why not let the recruiters have their say?

Personally, I'm offended by the attempt to ban military recruiters from campuses. My college is will do it, too, if they can keep the federal funding. I think it is appalling. I mean, its not like the recruiters are gonna come to your dorm room and conscript you. Our armed forces are all volunteer, why not let the recruiters have their say?
I think offended is an odd choice of words, but okay. The reason some universities have sought to do this is because the military is still anti-gay, even with their "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and as such, is discriminatory. The argument follows that they don't allow other companies with discriminatory hiring practices to recruit on their campuses, and so they shouldn't allow the military for the same reason.

Well, I think its a great idea, banning guns. The only problem with it is that it doesnt work, it simply forces guns onto the black market. And unless there is a need for a well-regulated militia in your state, bearing arms is not Constitutional. Somehow people always forget about that part of the Second Amendment.

Since the first part of the 2nd is the preamble, it does not modify the second part. All males 17 to 45 are part of the militia by federal statute.

Personally, I'm offended by the attempt to ban military recruiters from campuses. My college is will do it, too, if they can keep the federal funding. I think it is appalling. I mean, its not like the recruiters are gonna come to your dorm room and conscript you. Our armed forces are all volunteer, why not let the recruiters have their say?

Agreed. This is a anti-military political ploy that will bite them in the rear. If you look at the Anti-recruiter websites, conscription is exactly what they want people to believe is happening.

I understand this, and I oppose the military's anti-gay policy, too. But I think that they offer college students great opportunities. And I don't think it infringes on the rights of anyone who is GLBT to allow in recruiters.

You may not be able to make a gun, but give me a little hobbiest machine shop in someones garage, and I'll make you a gun in under an hour.
Which is why all the criminals will never run out of guns. The obsessed pro-gun advocates will just make them for them.

Which is why all the criminals will never run out of guns. The obsessed pro-gun advocates will just make them for them.

So those who support the right to bear arms are now "obsessed" and actively provide criminals w/ guns?

Might want to check your tin hat.

The NRA is going to challenge the handgun ban in court.

All I can say is Thank you.

Compare Washington DC's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Washington&state=DC) crime rate with, for example, New York City's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+York&state=NY), which has much more "sensible" laws then outright bans.
New york city also has the highest # of police per capita in the US.

So those who support the right to bear arms are now "obsessed" and actively provide criminals w/ guns?

Might want to check your tin hat.
If you are willing to go to a machine shop and make a gun in order to have a gun, you tell me what you are. And would you at least reply in-context? We are speaking hypothetically. Don't insult people if you at least can't keep up with where the topic is.

You may not be able to make a gun, but give me a little hobbiest machine shop in someones garage, and I'll make you a gun in under an hour.
Tosh. I don't even need a machine shop. A hack saw, a drill, a bench grinder and some metal tubing is basically all I need to make a 9mm submachine gun. It's unbelievably easy (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI%24&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!1pAe7PHCtVOODaOYc9G_8dBg!174&_c=PhotoAlbum). Take away the guns and the CRIMINALS will be making (and importing... remember the little COSCO incident?) fully automatic weapons within days. (You think the Chinese will stop making them?)

Of course, we could always ban all the information/books about firearms too... :rolleyes:

If you are willing to go to a machine shop and make a gun, you tell me what you are.

That's not what you said, you stated that the "obsessed pro-gun advocates will just make them for them".

You clearly stated that you believe that those who support the right to self defense will purposely arm criminals.

And I did reply in context.

Move the goalposts some more why don't you.

No guns in San Francisco now Oakland can come across the bridge and rape San Francisco with no resistance, San Francisco will probably like it.

The NRA is going to challenge the handgun ban in court.

All I can say is Thank you.


*nod* This ban is unconstitutional . There just making a market that they cannot tax.

As for the kicking of military recruiters? Take away there federal dollars but I still think its good - they just shouldn't be funded.

Those who want to ban guns have repeatedly in the past made statements simialr to " The police support these bans so if you oppose them you're supporting criminals" et al. (and yes I can find quotes)

The SF police association opposed this ban so by common banner logic those who supported the ban are now supporting criminals.

I'm just waiting to see if the historical trend of cities that have banned handguns showing a reversal in local crime trends (from lowering to increasing) will hold true in SF as well. I'll put my money on it happening.

Way to twist the facts!

D.C. - City Population: 563,384 / 8839 violent crimes = 1 crime for every 63 people.

N.Y. - City Population: 8,098,066 / 59448 violent crimes = 1 crime for every 136 people.

Hey, nice try though!

You're also ignoring the fact that DC's murder rate per capita is nearly 6 times the national average, while NY with a larger pop. is actually less.

This is sad, and hits close to home. I fear gun control advocates in the bay area might become bolstered by the situation in San Francisco, and ban them here. Scary thought...

This is sad, and hits close to home. I fear gun control advocates in the bay area might become bolstered by the situation in San Francisco, and ban them here. Scary thought...

And since you are forced register handguns there, guess who will be the first ones to have thier doors knocked on? One hint for those who need it, it won't be people who actually have committed a crime.

But registration "never" leads to confiscation...

I'm a stupid Brit too.

Apparently our cities are constantly filled with murderers and rapists because we don't have guns.:rolleyes:

no, but you do have an increase in petty crime, home invasions, robbery, burglery, and the likes. But I guess you like having some weirdo go through your house and take stuff from ya.

Originally Posted by Randomlittleisland
I'm a stupid Brit too.

Apparently our cities are constantly filled with murderers and rapists because we don't have guns.

yeah what's wrong with you, not man enough to shoot somebody. poof eh? (in my best League of Gentlemen voice)

You know what I love about this stupid ban of recruters on college campuses? the military will have less people voluntarily join the military. Then they realize, "hey, we are not getting enough people here now!" So they say, "lets bring in the draft! that way we may not get the best quality troops which will make our military better prepared and run more smoothly, but at least we will have some fresh meat for the battlefield, and we will meet our quotas." Haha!!!!! these dumbasses in California are just getting their sorry asses ready for deployment! To any military recruiters that might be reading these forums, be sure to draft those dumbass fools first. They deserve it!! The purpose of voluntary signing up and recruitment is to be able to give people a chance to do something they would normally never do, and it will bring in better qualified people into the services. Look at Vietnam! They just started letting in any shmuck who was not even fit for civilian life to join the army and lessened the quality of the military as a whole!

And since you are forced register handguns there, guess who will be the first ones to have thier doors knocked on? One hint for those who need it, it won't be people who actually have committed a crime.

But registration "never" leads to confiscation...

Indeed. "Register firearms, we wont take them! We just want to know where they are!... Actually, how about we take things like SKS's with 30 round magazines, which we specifically said we wouldn't? And how about all the guns in San Francisco, too?"

You know what I love about this stupid ban of recruters on college campuses? the military will have less people voluntarily join the military. Then they realize, "hey, we are not getting enough people here now!" So they say, "lets bring in the draft! that way we may not get the best quality troops which will make our military better prepared and run more smoothly, but at least we will have some fresh meat for the battlefield, and we will meet our quotas." Haha!!!!! these dumbasses in California are just getting their sorry asses ready for deployment! To any military recruiters that might be reading these forums, be sure to draft those dumbass fools first. They deserve it!! The purpose of voluntary signing up and recruitment is to be able to give people a chance to do something they would normally never do, and it will bring in better qualified people into the services. Look at Vietnam! They just started letting in any shmuck who was not even fit for civilian life to join the army and lessened the quality of the military as a whole!

Like certain members of this forum?

(I kid, I kid!)

You know what I love about this stupid ban of recruters on college campuses? the military will have less people voluntarily join the military. Then they realize, "hey, we are not getting enough people here now!" So they say, "lets bring in the draft! that way we may not get the best quality troops which will make our military better prepared and run more smoothly, but at least we will have some fresh meat for the battlefield, and we will meet our quotas." Haha!!!!! these dumbasses in California are just getting their sorry asses ready for deployment! To any military recruiters that might be reading these forums, be sure to draft those dumbass fools first. They deserve it!! The purpose of voluntary signing up and recruitment is to be able to give people a chance to do something they would normally never do, and it will bring in better qualified people into the services. Look at Vietnam! They just started letting in any shmuck who was not even fit for civilian life to join the army and lessened the quality of the military as a whole!


Calling people "dumbasses" when you can't even make a coherent post doesn't make you look very good.

And they won't be able to bring back the draft. Support for the military would drop so quickly you wouldn't even believe it. They can't just "bring in the draft," it would have to be activated via an act of congress, and that's just not likely to happen. Besides, don't you think everybody from San Francisco knows how to pull off a convincing "flaming homo" impersonation and thus get out of joining the military?

People I know who joined the military joined for job security (pun not intended) and benefits.

So they don't want recruiters from a discriminatory organization on the grounds of their schools.

Indeed. "Register firearms, we wont take them! We just want to know where they are!... Actually, how about we take things like SKS's with 30 round magazines, which we specifically said we wouldn't? And how about all the guns in San Francisco, too?"

And guns that are too big, and guns that are too small, too cheap, to expensive, to accurate, not accurate enough, to fast, to scary looking, not good for hunting, too good for hunting, not good for home defense, to good for home defense, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

Those who want to ban guns have repeatedly in the past made statements simialr to " The police support these bans so if you oppose them you're supporting criminals" et al. (and yes I can find quotes)

The SF police association opposed this ban so by common banner logic those who supported the ban are now supporting criminals.

I'm just waiting to see if the historical trend of cities that have banned handguns showing a reversal in local crime trends (from lowering to increasing) will hold true in SF as well. I'll put my money on it happening.
I'll see you on that and raise you ten!
lol! These idiots who think banning guns will stop crime altogether must not be from this planet. apparently, (they think) that the criminals will give up their arms, and stop shooting people because the law says so. Yeah, those laws really have stopped gang bangers from shooting up people at random just because they look like they might be from a gang, and its really stopped those drug dealers from dealing weed, crank, meth, crack, coke, ex. Oh, wait, thats right, they are all still doing it regardless. I guess we should keep making laws against them until they decide to stop. Why make it harder for decent, respectable, hard working, law abiding citizens to buy a gun for self defense, and punish those who do?

Calling people "dumbasses" when you can't even make a coherent post doesn't make you look very good.

And they won't be able to bring back the draft. Support for the military would drop so quickly you wouldn't even believe it. They can't just "bring in the draft," it would have to be activated via an act of congress, and that's just not likely to happen. Besides, don't you think everybody from San Francisco knows how to pull off a convincing "flaming homo" impersonation and thus get out of joining the military?

People I know who joined the military joined for job security (pun not intended) and benefits.

So they don't want recruiters from a discriminatory organization on the grounds of their schools.

As long as they're willing to lose Federal funding, let them ban recruiters.

I'll see you on that and raise you ten!
lol! These idiots who think banning guns will stop crime altogether must not be from this planet. apparently, (they think) that the criminals will give up their arms, and stop shooting people because the law says so. Yeah, those laws really have stopped gang bangers from shooting up people at random just because they look like they might be from a gang, and its really stopped those drug dealers from dealing weed, crank, meth, crack, coke, ex. Oh, wait, thats right, they are all still doing it regardless. I guess we should keep making laws against them until they decide to stop. Why make it harder for decent, respectable, hard working, law abiding citizens to buy a gun for self defense, and punish those who do?

Because it creates a victim mentality and encourages dependency on the state.

Calling people "dumbasses" when you can't even make a coherent post doesn't make you look very good.

And they won't be able to bring back the draft. Support for the military would drop so quickly you wouldn't even believe it. They can't just "bring in the draft," it would have to be activated via an act of congress, and that's just not likely to happen. Besides, don't you think everybody from San Francisco knows how to pull off a convincing "flaming homo" impersonation and thus get out of joining the military?

People I know who joined the military joined for job security (pun not intended) and benefits.

So they don't want recruiters from a discriminatory organization on the grounds of their schools.

Ah you say that now, but why did the selective service branch get a pretty large fund increase for the next few years? Is it to keep the computer systems and draft equipment under a layer of dust, or is it for something else?

Ah you say that now, but why did the selective service branch get a pretty large fund increase for the next few years? Is it to keep the computer systems and draft equipment under a layer of dust, or is it for something else?

In case we need it against China. The last thing we need is to be unable to mobilize our nation in the event of a world war because our SSB is out of date.

Because it creates a victim mentality and encourages dependency on the state.

I heard that the police is not suppose to stop all crime and always be there for us anyway. I read about it in the newspaper once when they were talking about police responsiblity. It is not their main concern for the safty of the individual citizen.

I heard that the police is not suppose to stop all crime and always be there for us anyway. I read about it in the newspaper once when they were talking about police responsiblity. It is not their main concern for the safty of the individual citizen.

You are correct. By several SCOTUS decisions, the police have NO obligation to protect the individual. That includes those who have restraining orders even if legislation is present stating police HAVE to enforce them.

Isn't that special?

In case we need it against China. The last thing we need is to be unable to mobilize our nation in the event of a world war because our SSB is out of date.

You got there before I did.

But yes, this is the reason.

You are correct. By several SCOTUS decisions, the police have NO obligation to protect the individual. That includes those who have restraining orders even if legislation is present stating police HAVE to enforce them.

Isn't that special?

I feel so loved... :rolleyes:

Hmmmm...Were this anywhere else, I could see a court challenge.
And the Ninth Circuit will end up ruling on it, only to be reversed.

[edit]
Maybe this is the law that will establish an individual's right to firearm ownership and possession.

And the Ninth Circuit will end up ruling on it, only to be reversed.

[edit]
Maybe this is the law that will establish an individual's right to firearm ownership and possession.
I'll bet you, right here and right now, that if the Ninth Circuit has to rule on this, they'll overturn the damn thing themselves. What do you want to wager?

I'm not for any sort of gun laws. Nor can I imagine gun regulation will have a noticable efffect when it's not nation wide.

But there's no doubt in my mind that gun regulation prevents murders & accidents. Especially in a nation where social injustice is a virtue, and everyone is expected to make their own fortune or rot.

Guns & drugs can't be compared. Coke is a recreational drug. Makes you feel good. Improves your sexlife. Improves your ego. And it's the "gutsy" thing to use.

A criminal will only own a gun for two reasons. Protection, and as a means to get victims to do what s/he wants them to. And yea, protection also means protection from armed rent-a-cops, store-owners & other civillians.

People don't bring a gun when they plan on commiting a crime, unless there's an overwhelming possibility it'll be needed to accomplish the crime. Why would they? It may be spotted before the criminal ever gets to start commiting the crime, and it will result in a vastly worse scentence if s/he's caught.
And most criminals don't actually cherish the thought of shooting perfect strangers.

Try sit down & plot a crime. Whatever concerns you have are the same as those of any criminal. Unlike what Hollywood tells you, criminals are exactly the same as you. The only difference between you, is the criminal failed to abide by some text.

Take away armed society & your murder mentality, and criminals won't have to use guns. Guns are expensive, they get you killed, and they means lots & lots of jail time. Hell, people might even try to steal it from you & kill you in the process.
Guns aren't desirable. Unlike coke.

And the war on drugs? More like war on the American population & the country's economy, if you ask me. Has it accomplished anything - other than getting people killed & securing petty dictators? Don't think so.
Maybe you Americans should ask yourself what the objective is. PErhaps there's other ways to achive it. Like education, rehabilitation or perhaps even legalization. And maybe a bit more social equality, so people actually worry that they might be pissing away their lives by doing drugs.
If you stopped fighting that idiot war, you could use the money to fund proper rehabilitation for everyone. You'd even have money left to spare.
And you Americans have some of the most successful rehabilitation programs in the world. Only, you don't let the people who really need them take advantage of that.

I'll bet you, right here and right now, that if the Ninth Circuit has to rule on this, they'll overturn the damn thing themselves. What do you want to wager?
Geez, what kind of bets can we make on an anonymous forum that mean anything? I'm not shirking, the doldrums of my current assignment have just sapped my imagination. Suggest something, while I read the law that was actually passed.

Geez, what kind of bets can we make on an anonymous forum that mean anything? I'm not shirking, the doldrums of my current assignment have just sapped my imagination. Suggest something, while I read the law that was actually passed.
Shit, I don't know. What do we have of value on this forum? We could bet something like our signatures, but I suspect that by the time this gets to the 9th Circuit, if it gets there at all, we'd have long forgotten the bet.

The point I'm really trying to make is twofold: 1) the 9th Circuit is not the loose cannon it's made out to be by the right wing. It's not even the most overturned circuit court. 2) This law is so patently unconstitutional that even if the 9th Circuit was the loose cannon, the rogue court it's presumed to be, they'd still dump it.

And point 3, which I made earlier, and on another thread as well--the Mayor would have to authorize the appeals, I believe, and if that's the case, there won't be more than a token appeal. Newsom didn't like this bill, didn't campaign for it, and thinks the Supervisor who rammed it through, Chris Daly, is a loud-mouthed little turd who ought to be smacked (he is). No way will he spend city money on an appeal like this.

I'm not for any sort of gun laws. Nor can I imagine gun regulation will have a noticable efffect when it's not nation wide.

But there's no doubt in my mind that gun regulation prevents murders & accidents. Especially in a nation where social injustice is a virtue, and everyone is expected to make their own fortune or rot.

Guns & drugs can't be compared. Coke is a recreational drug. Makes you feel good. Improves your sexlife. Improves your ego. And it's the "gutsy" thing to use.

A criminal will only own a gun for two reasons. Protection, and as a means to get victims to do what s/he wants them to. And yea, protection also means protection from armed rent-a-cops, store-owners & other civillians.

People don't bring a gun when they plan on commiting a crime, unless there's an overwhelming possibility it'll be needed to accomplish the crime. Why would they? It may be spotted before the criminal ever gets to start commiting the crime, and it will result in a vastly worse scentence if s/he's caught.
And most criminals don't actually cherish the thought of shooting perfect strangers.

Try sit down & plot a crime. Whatever concerns you have are the same as those of any criminal. Unlike what Hollywood tells you, criminals are exactly the same as you. The only difference between you, is the criminal failed to abide by some text.

Take away armed society & your murder mentality, and criminals won't have to use guns. Guns are expensive, they get you killed, and they means lots & lots of jail time. Hell, people might even try to steal it from you & kill you in the process.
Guns aren't desirable. Unlike coke.

And the war on drugs? More like war on the American population & the country's economy, if you ask me. Has it accomplished anything - other than getting people killed & securing petty dictators? Don't think so.
Maybe you Americans should ask yourself what the objective is. PErhaps there's other ways to achive it. Like education, rehabilitation or perhaps even legalization. And maybe a bit more social equality, so people actually worry that they might be pissing away their lives by doing drugs.
If you stopped fighting that idiot war, you could use the money to fund proper rehabilitation for everyone. You'd even have money left to spare.
And you Americans have some of the most successful rehabilitation programs in the world. Only, you don't let the people who really need them take advantage of that.

Guns are used many more times a year in self defense than in murder and crime. 10k dead a year from guns, 600-700k crimes prevented with legally owned and used guns a year(using a low, pro-gun control statistic, the anti-gun control advocates give even higher statistics).

There is conjecture, and theory, and then there are the numbers. Its all good and well to guess what will happen, but looking at the numbers, shows me that civilian gun ownership is more useful in stopping crime than starting it.

Shit, I don't know. What do we have of value on this forum? We could bet something like our signatures, but I suspect that by the time this gets to the 9th Circuit, if it gets there at all, we'd have long forgotten the bet.

The point I'm really trying to make is twofold: 1) the 9th Circuit is not the loose cannon it's made out to be by the right wing. It's not even the most overturned circuit court. 2) This law is so patently unconstitutional that even if the 9th Circuit was the loose cannon, the rogue court it's presumed to be, they'd still dump it.

And point 3, which I made earlier, and on another thread as well--the Mayor would have to authorize the appeals, I believe, and if that's the case, there won't be more than a token appeal. Newsom didn't like this bill, didn't campaign for it, and thinks the Supervisor who rammed it through, Chris Daly, is a loud-mouthed little turd who ought to be smacked (he is). No way will he spend city money on an appeal like this.
It's started already. The NRA has filed a suit to repeal the law.

Compare Washington DC's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Washington&state=DC) crime rate with, for example, New York City's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+York&state=NY), which has much more "sensible" laws then outright bans.
While you are at it, perhaps you should throw in Richmond Virginia's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Richmond&state=VA)stats?

Interesting to note that Richmond from the gun happy State of Virginia has a higher murder rate than Washington D.C.

Also of note, is that 30% of crime guns in Washington D.C. come from.....you guessed it, Virginia.

While you are at it, perhaps you should throw in Richmond Virginia's (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Richmond&state=VA)stats?

Interesting to note that Richmond from the gun happy State of Virginia has a higher murder rate than Washington D.C.

Also of note, is that 30% of crime guns in Washington D.C. come from.....you guessed it, Virginia.

Not this shit again...

Not this shit again...
Same shit, just different piles.:D

It's started already. The NRA has filed a suit to repeal the law.
I'm not surprised--in fact, I'd have been surprised if they let it go 24 hours without filing one. They probably had it in the pipeline two weeks ago.

It should be challenged, simply because it allows the local government to totally violate 2nd Amendment rights. This goes way beyond simple gun control and establishes a pretty dangerous precedent by allowing the government to seize property that is legally acquired and protected by Federal law.

Protected by what federal law?

Protected by what federal law?

That would be the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

That would be the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

You mean the right to arm bears?? You know that Stephen Colbert ranks bears as the #1 threat to freedom, right?

Protected by what federal law?
You know, like wild life preserves and post offices.

That would be the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

LOL.

I was afraid that was to what the poster was referring.

BTW, mr. constitution, why does the 2nd Amendment apply to San Francisco?

It must be like this... S.F.? Gays? Guns? Being told they can't get married? There's logiv in there somewhere even if it is assinine logic. On a mental note, I've just rephrased a quote from Army of Darkness:

Good. Bad. I'm the gay with the gun.

Well, I think its a great idea, banning guns. The only problem with it is that it doesnt work, it simply forces guns onto the black market. And unless there is a need for a well-regulated militia in your state, bearing arms is not Constitutional. Somehow people always forget about that part of the Second Amendment.


Once again (as I posted on the last gun-control thread):

The 2nd amendment reads:

"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"

Now, lets break this down:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is simply the reasoning behind the rest of the amendment. It has absolutely no bearing over what the Amendment actually makes legal / illegal. It could very well read "Because we effin feel like it" and would not in any way change what the Amendment actually does.

The second half: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is the meat of the Amendmant. Changing any bit of this would alter the effect of the Amendmant. Say, for instance: "the right of the people to keep and bear bananas, shall not be infringed."

So now we have two different Amendments to look at:

1) "Because we effin feel like it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

2) "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear bananas, shall not be infringed."


Now, which one actually made a difference in what is legal and illegal? That's right kids, you guessed it. The first one did not change what legal or illegal. The second one, on the other hand, must be the meat of the Amendment because once changed with a single word, it altered the right protected by the Amendment.

If you're having trouble grasping this, well...tough cookies I suppose...



As for the recruiter ban, what upsets me the most about it is the lack of respect shown for the military that is there to protect the freedoms of the people who have kids in those schools. Many colleges visit to show what they have to offer, why can military recruiters not do the same? Simply because they talk to a teen does not mean that teen has to enlist - it's a voluntary force, those that join choose to join.

I'll bet you, right here and right now, that if the Ninth Circuit has to rule on this, they'll overturn the damn thing themselves. What do you want to wager?
In all honesty it depends on any judges involved. There are certainly judges who would uphold the ban on the 9th, but there are also ones who would strike it down.

LOL.

I was afraid that was to what the poster was referring.

BTW, mr. constitution, why does the 2nd Amendment apply to San Francisco?

Your the lawyer. You tell me.

BTW Aticle VI section 2: The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States whcich sall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or whcih shall be made, under the AUthority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any STate to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Same shit, just different piles.:D

Look, all your stats do is prove that criminals will find a way to acquire a handgun to commit crimes whether they're illegal or not.

They do NOT, I repeat do NOT, prove that gun crime will disappear. Nor do they prove that D.C. gun crime is directly related to being able to purchase handguns in Virginia. If not Virginia, then another state, or country, or the black market - which is exactly what happened in D.C. Criminals couldnt purchase guns in D.C., so they found a place they could acquire them - which they will do no matter how many laws you pass.

Guns are used many more times a year in self defense than in murder and crime. 10k dead a year from guns, 600-700k crimes prevented with legally owned and used guns a year(using a low, pro-gun control statistic, the anti-gun control advocates give even higher statistics).

There is conjecture, and theory, and then there are the numbers. Its all good and well to guess what will happen, but looking at the numbers, shows me that civilian gun ownership is more useful in stopping crime than starting it.
You're right of course. Unfortunately, I fail to see how those numbers are relevant. Or how any US statistics can be relevant. My argument isn't rock solid. It's only nominally supported by facts. However, counter-arguments, as far as I can tell, are nothing more than free fantasy. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you'll also be changing my mind. I have no ideological axe to grind here at all, as I'm against all forms of gun control.

As I started by pointing out, banning somthing in one street while making it perfectly legal in the adjoining one, is an exercise in futility. If it's not a nation-wide ban, then there's not much point in it, because a local ban simply makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens, without making it any harder or less desirable for violent criminals to own & use guns.

A couple of years ago, I did reveiw some crime statistics because I got dragged into a similar argument. It was overwhelmingly clear than increased gun control equals more dead law-abiding civillians.

But all that doesn't change the fact that modern ations with punitive gun control laws only suffers a fraction of the gun-related crimes that America does. And that's the only semi-valid statistical evidence you can consider, in relation to what I was arguing.

Whatever, I can't shake the feeling that gun control is only slightly related to gun crime. Sure, not having gun control will result in a hell of a lot more murders between family members & similar. But I doubt it's got much to do with crime rates.
The primary cause of skyrocketing crimerates is social injustice & poverty. America has a huge problem with this. So much, in fact, that it's often compared to developing countries. When there's that much difference between the have's & the have not's, it's hardly surprising a large number of people find it more appealing to live a life of crime - and sometimes are forced to do so.

So from where I'm sitting, this discussion is slightly absurd. We're debating legislating our way our of social injustice by increasing the number of criminals & taking away peoples' freedoms.

No words can adequately describe how thrilled I am not to be an American.

LOL.

I was afraid that was to what the poster was referring.

BTW, mr. constitution, why does the 2nd Amendment apply to San Francisco?
Because of the 14th amendment, and if you bring up cruikshank to refute, I'm gonna laugh my ass off.

Your the lawyer. You tell me.

BTW Aticle VI section 2: The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States whcich sall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or whcih shall be made, under the AUthority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any STate to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You shouldn't presume to know things you don't.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the states and local governments as incorporated through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not limit the states.

The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm
http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

You shouldn't presume to know things you don't.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the states and local governments as incorporated through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not limit the states.

The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm
http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

The 2nd Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land mr. Lawyer. I suggest you rethink that.

BTW: Don't use wiki. It isn't as accurate as you think it is.

Because of the 14th amendment, and if you bring up cruikshank to refute, I'm gonna laugh my ass off.

I agree.

Although you correctly recognize that SCOTUS has not incorporated the 2nd Amendment yet. To the contrary, they have said it is not.

You win the prize for at least understanding the topic.

You shouldn't presume to know things you don't.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the states and local governments as incorporated through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not limit the states.

The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm
http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23
And can you tell us the "reason" the 2nd has never been incorporated?

The 2nd Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land mr. Lawyer. I suggest you rethink that.

BTW: Don't use wiki. It isn't as accurate as you think it is.

You should read the NRA article I listed. I'm not just relying on wiki.

And can you tell us the "reason" the 2nd has never been incorporated?

SCOTUS really hasn't addressed the issue. I don't think there is a good reason.

EDIT: Although I am playing with Corny, I have significantly changed my view re gun control. So don't assume I am taking the position that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual rights. That is the current state of the law -- with lengthy precedent -- but I no longer am convinced it is entirely correct.

Corny likes to make sweeping statements about constitutional law when he doesn't know what he is talking about. That is to what I am responding.

Your the lawyer. You tell me.

BTW Aticle VI section 2: The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States whcich sall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or whcih shall be made, under the AUthority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any STate to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Aww c'mon! You can't tell me that arming bears is a good thing!

The 2nd Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land mr. Lawyer. I suggest you rethink that.
I found comment this extremely amusing.:)

You majoring in law these days too Corny?

I found comment this extremely amusing.:)

You majoring in law these days too Corny?

Just quoting Article VI of the US Constution.

I'm also thinking about going into law. Several people have inquired if I have thought about it. A few of those being professors that I respect.

Corny likes to make sweeping statements about constitutional law when he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Although he is much better with International laws. :rolleyes:

Just quoting Article VI of the US Constution.

I'm also thinking about going into law. Several people have inquired if I have thought about it. A few of those being professors that I respect.

Have you figured out why you were wrong yet?

Have you figured out why you were wrong yet?
If he has, it would likely be a first.

Still, hope springs eternal.

Just quoting Article VI of the US Constution.

I'm also thinking about going into law. Several people have inquired if I have thought about it. A few of those being professors that I respect.

So, will you become an advocate for bear's rights? Will you be arguing that the constitusion should also apply to bloodthristy grizzlies wanting to buy high-powered rifles with armor peircing bullets, or, god forbid, glazer rounds? The bears must be stopped!

You're right of course. Unfortunately, I fail to see how those numbers are relevant. Or how any US statistics can be relevant. My argument isn't rock solid. It's only nominally supported by facts. However, counter-arguments, as far as I can tell, are nothing more than free fantasy. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you'll also be changing my mind. I have no ideological axe to grind here at all, as I'm against all forms of gun control.

As I started by pointing out, banning somthing in one street while making it perfectly legal in the adjoining one, is an exercise in futility. If it's not a nation-wide ban, then there's not much point in it, because a local ban simply makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens, without making it any harder or less desirable for violent criminals to own & use guns.

A couple of years ago, I did reveiw some crime statistics because I got dragged into a similar argument. It was overwhelmingly clear than increased gun control equals more dead law-abiding civillians.

But all that doesn't change the fact that modern ations with punitive gun control laws only suffers a fraction of the gun-related crimes that America does. And that's the only semi-valid statistical evidence you can consider, in relation to what I was arguing.

Whatever, I can't shake the feeling that gun control is only slightly related to gun crime. Sure, not having gun control will result in a hell of a lot more murders between family members & similar. But I doubt it's got much to do with crime rates.
The primary cause of skyrocketing crimerates is social injustice & poverty. America has a huge problem with this. So much, in fact, that it's often compared to developing countries. When there's that much difference between the have's & the have not's, it's hardly surprising a large number of people find it more appealing to live a life of crime - and sometimes are forced to do so.

So from where I'm sitting, this discussion is slightly absurd. We're debating legislating our way our of social injustice by increasing the number of criminals & taking away peoples' freedoms.

No words can adequately describe how thrilled I am not to be an American.


Fair enough. I was simply throwing out, as you seem to agree, that there is no solid corrolation between gun control and crime, either way. I agree america has deep issues that go far beyond such simple arguments.

So, will you become an advocate for bear's rights? Will you be arguing that the constitusion should also apply to bloodthristy grizzlies wanting to buy high-powered rifles with armor peircing bullets, or, god forbid, glazer rounds? The bears must be stopped!

Have bears ever been denied a purchase of any type of gun?

Have you figured out why you were wrong yet?

Despite the fact that SCOTUS itself hasn't ruled about possession of firearms clause of the US Constitution, even though it is stated clearly that the people do have the right to bear arms....

Have bears ever been denied a purchase of any type of gun?

I don't think it's ever come up. Though there is a rumor that baretta is developing a new .41 caliber semi-auto with "bear-paw grip". And that can't be good.*



*that is a total fabrication, though I'm sure that if bears could actually shoot a gun with their massive, three-inch clawed, paws, they'd sieze on it in a heartbeat. Then, god help us all....

Look, all your stats do is prove that criminals will find a way to acquire a handgun to commit crimes whether they're illegal or not.
So IF they are going to acquire them, then might just as well make it easier for them by having less pervasive laws?

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in NYC is Virginia.

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in D.C. is Virginia.

$4,000,000 in firearms have been stolen in Virginia in the past 2 years.

Richmond Virginia now has more murders per 100,000 residents than Washington D.C..

Virginia needs to tighten up their gun laws?

So IF they are going to acquire them, then might just as well make it easier for them by having less pervasive laws?

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in NYC is Virginia.

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in D.C. is Virginia.

$4,000,000 in firearms have been stolen in Virginia in the past 2 years.

Richmond Virginia now has more murders per 100,000 residents than Washington D.C..

Virginia needs to tighten up their gun laws?

Seeing as you have been constantly reputed, throwing choice statistics into an argument do nothing for you. There is no corrolation between gun control and crime in america. There are cases where gun crime lowers when gun control raises. There are cases where gun crime lowers when the number of guns greatly rises, when CCP is allowed, etc.

I don't think it's ever come up. Though there is a rumor that baretta is developing a new .41 caliber semi-auto with "bear-paw grip". And that can't be good.*



*that is a total fabrication, though I'm sure that if bears could actually shoot a gun with their massive, three-inch clawed, paws, they'd sieze on it in a heartbeat. Then, god help us all....

Well, I have a .22 that my cat can operate(using a clever system of balancing it on its back, with the tail triggering it...)... so I wouldn't underestimate those clever, clever bears. With guns, they would catch so much more fish that they could multiply like the freaking chinese!

Well, I have a .22 that my cat can operate(using a clever system of balancing it on its back, with the tail triggering it...)... so I wouldn't underestimate those clever, clever bears. With guns, they would catch so much more fish that they could multiply like the freaking chinese!

OH NOs!!1 Then the next thing you know it'll be bomb delivery dolphins, trained by Al Qaida! I knew you couldn't trust those dolphins. They're holding a grudge because of those damn trolling nets...

OH NOs!!1 Then the next thing you know it'll be bomb delivery dolphins, trained by Al Qaida! I knew you couldn't trust those dolphins. They're holding a grudge because of those damn trolling nets...

Which means we will need to bears to find a reason to invade the pacific, take out their leader, and free the denizens of the ocean!

Even if its a completely inane scenario to attempt.

Which means we will need to bears to find a reason to invade the pacific, take out their leader, and free the denizens of the ocean!

Even if its a completely inane scenario to attempt.

YES! I believe we have achieved total derailment of this thread! Excellent work!

YES! I believe we have achieved total derailment of this thread! Excellent work!

Demeaning the point of a very serious, hard hitting thread that may have broad implications in the future for myself? High five!

I demand that the government respect my right to arm bears.

Have bears ever been denied a purchase of any type of gun?

If a bear walked into the gun-store you worked at, would you deny him a firearm? I sure as hell wouldnt...I mean...bears are on the Colbert Report's list of scary things...

Well, I have a .22 that my cat can operate(using a clever system of balancing it on its back, with the tail triggering it...)... so I wouldn't underestimate those clever, clever bears. With guns, they would catch so much more fish that they could multiply like the freaking chinese!
.22s are for Pussies.... then again, so are Glocks. :p
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/catgun.jpg

Protected by what federal law?

Interestingly enough, the new "protection" act specifically states that ownership is a right of the individual.

The Brady Bunch and thier ilk are taking it to court of course. What do you think will be the outcome?

So IF they are going to acquire them, then might just as well make it easier for them by having less pervasive laws?

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in NYC is Virginia.

The number one supplier for out of state crime guns in D.C. is Virginia.

$4,000,000 in firearms have been stolen in Virginia in the past 2 years.

Richmond Virginia now has more murders per 100,000 residents than Washington D.C..

Virginia needs to tighten up their gun laws?

Once again you're lying CH. DC gets more guns from hoplophobe MD than Virginia by the STATS YOU"VE POSTED and NY's guns come from 'gun tracing" not actual amount of firearms. You've been shown this before but still continue to lie w/ statistics.

OH NOs!!1 Then the next thing you know it'll be bomb delivery dolphins, trained by Al Qaida! I knew you couldn't trust those dolphins. They're holding a grudge because of those damn trolling nets...
We'll know if the dolphins get weapons because there will be a lot more shark carcasses floating around. Until then we don't have to worry.

I demand that the government respect my right to arm bears.
You'd have to keep the bear though, which would be rather messy.

We'll know if the dolphins get weapons because there will be a lot more shark carcasses floating around. Until then we don't have to worry.

Nah, the animal conspiracy clearly states that the animal kingdom (excluding humans) are really allies devoted to the subversion of the human race. Attaching lasers to dolphins would result in more piracy attacks against cruise ships...

Once again you're lying CH. DC gets more guns from hoplophobe MD than Virginia by the STATS YOU"VE POSTED and NY's guns come from 'gun tracing" not actual amount of firearms. You've been shown this before but still continue to lie w/ statistics.
You are going to call me a liar over a 1.3% difference between Maryland and Virginia as to the overall leading supplier of "crime guns" to Washington D.C.?

BTW, the leading supplier of "crime guns" to D.C. in the 17 or younger category is Virginia (37.2%).

And the leading supplier of out of State "crime guns" to Baltimore, Maryland is once again Virginia.

And the leading supplier of out of State and ALL "crime guns" to Newark, New Jersey is once again Virginia.

And the leading supplier of "crime guns" to Virginia (85.3%) is guess what? Yup Virginia!! Whereas, only 17.7 of all New York "crime guns" come from the State of New York.

Get the picture?

Here is a good article to follow up my previous point and which draws attention to the concerns that I have raised throughout these gun threads:

The gun pipeline (http://www.ntctroopers.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/11/3f958000b4746)

When a political rival gunned down Councilman James Davis on the chamber balcony of New York's City Hall in July, most North Carolinians probably didn't realize that the deadly rampage started right here in the Tar Heel State.

Othniel Askew , a 31-year-old Bertie County native, bought the Kahr MK40 handgun used to kill Davis from a gunshop in Sneads Ferry, N.C., two years ago.

Askew wasn't even supposed to own a gun.

But an order of protection issued against him in 1996 in New York state -- after he allegedly beat his former boyfriend with a hammer -- didn't show up during a mandatory background check in North Carolina. Under federal law, the order barred him from owning a firearm. And Askew, who was shot and killed by a police officer during the incident, did not have the permit required to carry his gun in New York.

The terrifying shooting at City Hall was caused by just one pocket pistol from a small Southern town. But recent studies show that thousands of guns are illegally transferred from the South to the Northeast each year. Some are stolen. Some come from dealers who don't do background checks. Others are sold to straw buyers, who use their clean records to make the purchase for a third party.

North Carolina was among the top five sources for handguns recovered from crime scenes in six cities along the Eastern Seaboard in 2000, according to the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Traffickers travel up Interstate 95 and dump the illegal firearms into major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, Richmond and Baltimore, the ATF said. The corridor -- also long favored by drug traffickers -- has been dubbed the "Iron Pipeline."

Local, state and federal authorities have joined forces during the past two years to attack gun trafficking along the pipeline and the violence that it spawns. So far, results have been mixed. Can trafficking be curbed without abridging Second Amendment rights? Today's Q looks at the debate about three strategies -- new laws, stricter enforcement of existing laws and litigation.

Copyright NTC Troopers

You are going to call me a liar over a 1.3% difference between Maryland and Virginia as to the overall leading supplier of "crime guns" to Washington D.C.?

BTW, the leading supplier of "crime guns" to D.C. in the 17 or younger category is Virginia (37.2%).

And the leading supplier of out of State "crime guns" to Baltimore, Maryland is once again Virginia.

And the leading supplier of out of State and ALL "crime guns" to Newark, New Jersey is once again Virginia.

And the leading supplier of "crime guns" to Virginia (85.3%) is guess what? Yup Virginia!! Whereas, only 17.7 of all New York "crime guns" come from the State of New York.

Get the picture?

So, in other words, if you make handguns illegal, criminals will find a way to get them?

So, in other words, if you make handguns illegal, criminals will find a way to get them?

Come now, playing dumb is unbecoming. The argument was that the fact that handguns aren't universally illegal spurs crime in areas next to states whereh they are legal.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but your smart-assed comment was unresponsive.