good ban or bad ban?

[bushsucks]

Proposed San Francisco Gun Ban a Bad Idea
By Alan Gottlieb
MichNews.com
Aug 24, 2005




Banning the lawful possession of anything has never stopped people from getting it, and it should be a no-brainer in the City of San Francisco, where citizens are well-educated and intelligent, that the proposed ban on the sale or manufacture of firearms and possession of handguns will not prevent criminals from arming themselves.

The idea is evidently so bad that at least one of the original sponsors of the measure, City Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, has withdrawn her name from the ballot measure. Why the others continue to push this measure makes little sense, because a similar ban more than 20 years ago was struck down by the courts after the Second Amendment Foundation sued the city and then-mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Gun bans are purely a form of making a social statement, because only a raving lunatic could ever seriously believe that disarming law-abiding citizens, thus making them even more vulnerable to crime, would ever remove guns from the hands of criminals. By their very nature, criminals ignore existing law, and legislation t hat would make their victims easier prey can only make these thugs happier.

In recent years, legislation passed in Sacramento has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Democrat majority in California's Legislature wants the GoldenState to be as unfriendly to firearms owners as possible. Alas, all the emotional rhetoric used to support such legislation has yet to prevent a single crime. Bans on semiautomatic rifles have not stopped gang bangers in the Los Angeles area. They haven't stopped crime in San Francisco, either, or anywhere else in the state for that matter.

What have these laws accomplished? Only to make it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to fight back; to burden honest gun owners with onerous regulations designed more to trip them up on technicalities and discourage them from owning firearms than to curb crime.

Proponents of the San Francisco ban – now formally titled Proposition H – have evidently grown up in a fairy tale worl d where good intentions invariably trump real life tragedies.

Proposition H does not pass the smell test for a city with the history of San Francisco. While banning the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the city, and banning possession of all handguns, there is an exemption for "any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers" as defined by the California Penal Code.

Translation: Police and a selection of other elites can have handguns in a city where the citizens are disarmed. For generations, the good citizens of San Francisco have created an image and lifestyle diametrically opposed to the concept of a police state where only cops have guns, but now comes Proposition H, which literally creates a police state environment, and far too many people are acting like lemmings, rushing to dive over that precipice, into a polit ical and social abyss.

Perhaps the greatest fraud perpetrated on San Francisco, and the rest of the country, over the past several years is the notion that gun violence is some kind of health epidemic. This is a colossal prevarication, as if gun crime might be removed by minor surgery on the Constitution, or an application of salve to reduce swelling and itching.

The preamble to Proposition H even alludes to a report on gun crime from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. This explains a great deal about the grossly wrong-headed approach to crime that the sponsors of Proposition H have adopted.

We're talking about crime here, not some malady that can be healed by rubbing it with an over-the-counter medication. Backers of this measure are confusing Proposition H with Preparation H.

Preparation H gives relief, but Proposition H will give San Franciscans nothing but grief from people who, it is painfully evident, have taken a rather an al approach to fighting violent crime. At this point in its history, the last thing San Francisco needs is another hemorrhoid.



Copyright by Alan Gottlieb

[BrandonWhat]

Banning you = good ban.

[Oscuro]

I don't think taking away the guns will solve the problem.

IMO

[Import]

does bushsucks not realise that the color thing doesn't work? I might be more inclined to read his posts if they didn't look so messy.

[Satchel]

I think it is a good idea in the sense of an experiment. I'm not for the banning of guns nationwide, but I think we need to recognize that there is a serious gun problem in this country. If nothing else perhaps something will be learned.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Satchel

I think it is a good idea in the sense of an experiment. I'm not for the banning of guns nationwide, but I think we need to recognize that there is a serious gun problem in this country. If nothing else perhaps something will be learned.

the problem isn't guns - its assholes putting them to criminal use

we don't ban items because of the potential for harm (otherwise cars, swimming pools, boats etc etc would be illegal) we ban bad acts - things done by people with nasty intent.

A new law restricting ownership with be very effective at disarming law abiding citizens and absolutely ineffective at disarming those who would use a gun to commit crimes.

There are many many more guns in the US than people.....

Left in the middle are those who use a gun for suicide or heat of passion reaction to events.....

given the above.... legisltion to restrict ownership would effect a seriopus change only in the law abiding citizens ability to use a gun to defend himself or herself....


and then of course there's that nasty and embarassing notion of a seond amendment

end rant................. for now

[kit'n]

Originally Posted by xian

the problem isn't guns - its assholes putting them to criminal use

we don't ban items because of the potential for harm (otherwise cars, swimming pools, boats etc etc would be illegal) we ban bad acts - things done by people with nasty intent.

A new law restricting ownership with be very effective at disarming law abiding citizens and absolutely ineffective at disarming those who would use a gun to commit crimes.

There are many many more guns in the US than people.....

Left in the middle are those who use a gun for suicide or heat of passion reaction to events.....

given the above.... legisltion to restrict ownership would effect a seriopus change only in the law abiding citizens ability to use a gun to defend himself or herself....


and then of course there's that nasty and embarassing notion of a seond amendment

end rant................. for now

i agree with this 100%

[Satchel]

Oh I agree also. It will no doubt be a failed experiment. I still think a lot can be learned. The anti-gun crowd really needs to shift it's focus to smaller battles that actually have merit.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Satchel

Oh I agree also. It will no doubt be a failed experiment. I still think a lot can be learned. The anti-gun crowd really needs to shift it's focus to smaller battles that actually have merit.

wow - really shocked ........

there does need to be discussion and reasonable refinement of what the 2nd means....

[HarveytheRabbit]

There is no point in restricting guns in just a city, or even state....what's to stop a criminal from bringing in a gun from the next town over and knocking off a store or whatever.

I am in favor of gun control....no reason for a hunter, or collector, or sport shooter, or whatever to have a machine gun....BUT there is no way I support only the authorities being allowed to have any gun at all. Like everyone else said, it won't do anything but make the bad guys stronger.

[Satchel]

Originally Posted by xian

wow - really shocked ........

there does need to be discussion and reasonable refinement of what the 2nd means....

Oh I'm in full support of the right to bear arms. I just think it should be considered a privilege, not an unencumbered right.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Satchel

Oh I'm in full support of the right to bear arms. I just think it should be considered a privilege, not an unencumbered right.

which is to say you're ni favor of a privilege not a right....

teasing....

there are modern advances that require addressing the 2nd head on

[bushsucks]

I am in favor of gun control....no reason for a hunter, or collector, or sport shooter, or whatever to have a machine gun....

really.

so what is the 2nd admend for then?

it is the right to bear arms to defend our country from threats outside the us as well as inside the us.


what army(ours,china's, or even iran's) could the us population stop with 357's,38's, and 9mm's?

if our government turned on us and our armed force's.

how could we stop them with a 38?

or even a 12 gauge?


the people of america feared more then ANYTHING else, a standing army.

they wanted the same arms as the standing army, or else like you will come to find out if it ever happens, the 2nd admend means nothing now.

[bushsucks]

Originally Posted by Satchel

I think it is a good idea in the sense of an experiment. I'm not for the banning of guns nationwide, but I think we need to recognize that there is a serious gun problem in this country. If nothing else perhaps something will be learned.

how about you look at chicago's gun ban.


any good things comming out of it?


didn't think so.

[djetaine]

i own an m4, but that doesnt mean im gonna go shoot up some motherfuckers cuz my hamburger was wrong. What a stupid idea.