San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

[TheBear]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL

 

[Billnew]

Ah the road of good intentions.

Criminals are rampant, so lets take away all the legal guns.

And this will prevent crime?

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.

They want to reduce crime, so they want to ban guns?
Why don't we ban criminals?

 

[butterfoot]

This is the discussion that always happens. Gun Rights against Anti-gun activist.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

That statement says it all.

But other than that if you take guns away from law abiding citizens the crime rate will only go up because the only ones who will have weapons will be police and criminals.

Bad Idea San Fran


-CW

 

[BlessedMan]

If they had a huge gun-sucking magnet that they could hang over the U.S. to get everybody's gun than I might begin to consider gun control. But the fact that the only people you're really affecting are the law-abiding citizens doesn't work for me.

P.S.-Why does every unusual story come out of San Francisco? I was there this summer and I came out okay! (no comments on that please! )

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Hmm, obviously we can't ban all guns. The constitution was written to the national government but amendments and court decisions have extended the protection to states and local governments. Since other countries with guns have much fewer gun crimes, something else causes it. Something about American culture causes us to have a much higher rate of violent crimes. It isn't guns, other countries have them. It isn't "immoral culture," as some call it, because other countries are far more liberal in what they accept and have the same types of entertainment with sex and violence. I don't understand why America has this problem thta others don't.

 

[TheBear]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

 

[Billnew]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

pefect place to post that.

 

[butterfoot]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

Very good article. To me most of that was common sense and looking at historical data everytime gun laws get more restrictive violent crimes go up. HMMMMM


-CW

 

[MKalashnikov]

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people.

Yep, and Criminals and Tyrants alike, fear armed citizens more than anything else.

 

[lucid42day]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL

That's a moderately terrible idea. I am open to considering some forms of firearm control, but not a one of that article's reasons were particularly convincing for banning personal weapons.

The thing that bugs me most about this is that people paid money for these firearms in the first place. I don't know what they cost, but they cost enough to make their uncompensated loss a crime, I'm sure. I could go either way with some forms of gun control, but I'm much more certain about theft.

 

[TheBear]

That's a moderately terrible idea. I am open to considering some forms of firearm control, but not a one of that article's reasons were particularly convincing for banning personal weapons.

The thing that bugs me most about this is that people paid money for these firearms in the first place. I don't know what they cost, but they cost enough to make their uncompensated loss a crime, I'm sure. I could go either way with some forms of gun control, but I'm much more certain about theft.

I agree.

There are over 20,000 firearms laws on the books now - helloooo?

 

[Redneck]

I wonder if anyone in the San Francisco government has heard of Washington D.C.? There's a model for them.

 

[charmtrap]

This proposal is staggeringly stupid; even for that august body of chowderheads. Fortunately, the state has long had a law prohibiting local governments from regulating firearms.

 

[TheBear]

I wonder if anyone in the San Francisco government has heard of Washington D.C.? There's a model for them.

Isn't DC the only area in the country with such breaches of liberty and freedom? Nobody in DC is allowed to own, transport, possess, buy or sell any handgun. Doesn't DC have the highest per-capita murder rate in the nation?

Hmmmm.....

 

[Redneck]

This proposal is staggeringly stupid; even for that august body of chowderheads. Fortunately, the state has long had a law prohibiting local governments from regulating firearms.

Which statute is that?

Isn't DC the only area in the country with such breaches of liberty and freedom? Nobody in DC is allowed to own, transport, possess, buy or sell any handgun. Doesn't DC have the highest per-capita murder rate in the nation?

Hmmmm.....

It makes you think, doesn't it.

The politicians are just trying to do a feel good thing instead of doing something that actually might make a difference.

 

[Vylo]

Well if anyone is looking for easy people to rob or murder, now they know an easy target........

 

[Redneck]

Sorry, I just had to...

 

[TheBear]

Well if anyone is looking for easy people to rob or murder, now they know an easy target........

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[charmtrap]

Which statute is that?

Upon researching, I find that I am wrong. Local governments can impose tighter restrictions than the state, or close loopholes in state laws.

California - State law allows cities to enact local gun laws to regulate firearms that are stronger than state law or that fill loopholes in state law and many state laws began as city or county ordinances. But local governments are restricted in "licensing" or "registering" firearms.

Although that comes from the Brady people, so I'm not vouching for it's accuracy.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ca

 

[Sors]

ahhh.....San Fransisco

Nobody respects the constitution anymore do they.