CobrayCommando
Moderator
Well the law of the land according to the Supreme Court says that the 2nd doesn't guarantee individual ownership.
San Francisco Bans Handguns
- Thread starter Gary H
- Start date
- Status
Does anyone remember Morton Grove, IL? The Supremos didn't hear that one when it came before them, in effect allowing that prohibition to stand...This is the same institution that recently gutted the 5th Amendment (eminent domain...seizing private property for private development if there is a "public" interest).
Look people, most of you know that the basics:
The Constitution is a rulebook that outlines the duties and powers (not rights) granted by the people, to the federal gubbmint. WHAT IT MAY DO.
It includes an attachment, just to make sure the gubbmint understands, that outlines the inalienable (not granted by gubbmint, or even this paper itself) rights not to be MESSED WITH. WHAT IT MAY NOT DO.
It should be obvious that our rights do not depend on who gets elected to office or appointed to a bench...those people are merely servants, obligated to follow the rule book.
What if an umpire at a baseball game started making up his own rules? Look, both teams agree to abide by his decisions by MUTUAL CONSENT. But if the bum tosses the rule book, the only proper response is to fire his ass.
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
Though many "well-educated" people proclaim the contrary every day (you have to wonder at their motivation), our rights are not dependent on a poll or popularity contest. If a radical group of fundamentalist right-wing Christians were voted into office in a small town, and in the interest of improving decency, enacted strict laws limiting what you could say or do, THOSE LAWS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM. The only proper response would be to fire their asses.
If a radical group of extreme left-wing San Franciscans were voted into office in a small town, and enacted strict laws limiting what guns you could own, THOSE LAWS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM. The only proper response would be to fire their asses.
But the reality is that in America today, you will go to jail in either scenario.
The two organized crime families, oops, "Parties," play people off each other like the pimps they are.
They have an interest in controlling who gets put up for election.
They have an interest in controlling every aspect of our elections.
They have an interest in making people ignorant and dependant.
They have a HUGE INTEREST in an unlimited source of money for their schemes.
Don't depend on them to correct this situation.
Don't depend on the Supreme Court to correct this situation.
If you had a servant in your house who started to violate his contract, breaking your stuff, stealing your money, and abusing you, would you then turn to HIM and ask him to fix the situation? The only proper response, is to ask nicely, once, for him to stop, and if he does it again, to FIRE HIS ASS!
How much longer before the only proper response is...Let's Roll?
Look people, most of you know that the basics:
The Constitution is a rulebook that outlines the duties and powers (not rights) granted by the people, to the federal gubbmint. WHAT IT MAY DO.
It includes an attachment, just to make sure the gubbmint understands, that outlines the inalienable (not granted by gubbmint, or even this paper itself) rights not to be MESSED WITH. WHAT IT MAY NOT DO.
It should be obvious that our rights do not depend on who gets elected to office or appointed to a bench...those people are merely servants, obligated to follow the rule book.
What if an umpire at a baseball game started making up his own rules? Look, both teams agree to abide by his decisions by MUTUAL CONSENT. But if the bum tosses the rule book, the only proper response is to fire his ass.
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
Though many "well-educated" people proclaim the contrary every day (you have to wonder at their motivation), our rights are not dependent on a poll or popularity contest. If a radical group of fundamentalist right-wing Christians were voted into office in a small town, and in the interest of improving decency, enacted strict laws limiting what you could say or do, THOSE LAWS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM. The only proper response would be to fire their asses.
If a radical group of extreme left-wing San Franciscans were voted into office in a small town, and enacted strict laws limiting what guns you could own, THOSE LAWS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO OBEY THEM. The only proper response would be to fire their asses.
But the reality is that in America today, you will go to jail in either scenario.
The two organized crime families, oops, "Parties," play people off each other like the pimps they are.
They have an interest in controlling who gets put up for election.
They have an interest in controlling every aspect of our elections.
They have an interest in making people ignorant and dependant.
They have a HUGE INTEREST in an unlimited source of money for their schemes.
Don't depend on them to correct this situation.
Don't depend on the Supreme Court to correct this situation.
If you had a servant in your house who started to violate his contract, breaking your stuff, stealing your money, and abusing you, would you then turn to HIM and ask him to fix the situation? The only proper response, is to ask nicely, once, for him to stop, and if he does it again, to FIRE HIS ASS!
How much longer before the only proper response is...Let's Roll?
azredhawk44
Moderator
+1,111,111 to mjolnir!!!!
"Remember a while back that town that required every house to have a gun?
They ought try that instead."
Kennesaw, Ga. It is just a bit north of here, the next 'burb out.
Yes, that is the more correct thing to do, look at the respective crime rates.
And yes, it is long past time for the honest citizens of SF to either stand up to the anti's, or to just pack up and leave. Let their fleeing talents and tax dollars do the talking. Short of armed insurrection, I think that's the only thing that will eventually work -- starving them out.
They ought try that instead."
Kennesaw, Ga. It is just a bit north of here, the next 'burb out.
Yes, that is the more correct thing to do, look at the respective crime rates.
And yes, it is long past time for the honest citizens of SF to either stand up to the anti's, or to just pack up and leave. Let their fleeing talents and tax dollars do the talking. Short of armed insurrection, I think that's the only thing that will eventually work -- starving them out.
An ouright ban-thats sensible.:barf:
1.I truly hope 100,000 handgun owners give em the bullets first!
2.I truly hope that violent crime soars in San Francisco!
3.I truly hope that the losers who supported this are the direct victims (hopefully fatally) of their votes.
4.All future trips to San Francisco for me are over---the boycott is on!
Wildalaska
Moderator
There is no valid statitical anyhting to be drawn by comparing the crme rates of San Fransillico and kennesaw
WildthatsanonworkingoneAlaska
SF did not just ban handguns. They banned sale, manufacture, and transfer of ALL firearms and ALL ammunition. Residents already owning handguns are required to turn them in under threat of force.
That jackass that proposed the law Chris Daly said it was 'sensible gun control'. So now you have it, the liberals finally came out and said it:
SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL = Complete ban on all firearms and ammunition.
The liberal rash needs to stomped out of existence in this country. If Bush would just issue an executive order that says anyone that shoots a liberal automatically gets a presidential pardon I'm sure there are plenty of people that would take up the offer.
That jackass that proposed the law Chris Daly said it was 'sensible gun control'. So now you have it, the liberals finally came out and said it:
SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL = Complete ban on all firearms and ammunition.
The liberal rash needs to stomped out of existence in this country. If Bush would just issue an executive order that says anyone that shoots a liberal automatically gets a presidential pardon I'm sure there are plenty of people that would take up the offer.
This is Great! California is yet again taking steps to ensure its place as the "don't let that happen here" State to the rest of the USA. California is already one of the most attractive places for violent criminals since at worst their likely to only do a few years for a murder or a rape. Now SF is looking to disarm the law abiding people so the predators can be even more confident in their pursuits. I bet right now all sorts of rapists, murderers, and robbers are packing their bags to relocate to SF - I would be if that was my cup of tea.
Not only are we going to see violent crime skyrocket in SF but the rest of the country will also watch as California becomes the first State to file for bankruptcy since the average moron Californian voted to reject fixing any of their fiscal issues as well. Exactly who is going to pay the endless tax burdens imposed by their refusal to have fiscal responsibility? Rich people are moving out of California left, right, and sideways while they still have some money that hasn't been stolen by the government yet. Businesses are taking an "anywhere but California" attitude when looking to relocate. Are all the illegal aliens supposed to support California's massive bureaucracies? Have fun California! I managed to escape and have been so enjoying watching you self-destruct ever since!
I have not bought one single thing from a California business in the four years since I left there. Too bad so many people are apathetic about things like this because the rest of the country could very easily totally break liberal California's back if even just a small percentage of us chose to boycott all things California in origin.
Not only are we going to see violent crime skyrocket in SF but the rest of the country will also watch as California becomes the first State to file for bankruptcy since the average moron Californian voted to reject fixing any of their fiscal issues as well. Exactly who is going to pay the endless tax burdens imposed by their refusal to have fiscal responsibility? Rich people are moving out of California left, right, and sideways while they still have some money that hasn't been stolen by the government yet. Businesses are taking an "anywhere but California" attitude when looking to relocate. Are all the illegal aliens supposed to support California's massive bureaucracies? Have fun California! I managed to escape and have been so enjoying watching you self-destruct ever since!
I have not bought one single thing from a California business in the four years since I left there. Too bad so many people are apathetic about things like this because the rest of the country could very easily totally break liberal California's back if even just a small percentage of us chose to boycott all things California in origin.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
He may have been talking about Atlanta compared to Kennesaw (A suburb of Atlanta). When they banned guns in Atlanta crime rates skyrocketed, when they required them in Kennesaw crime rates... err.. groundrocketed I guess...
When you look at their two crime rates, the difference is clear.
http://kennesaw.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://atlanta.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
LOL
Here is another:
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
It's true that its not fair to compare a city and its suburb concerning crime rates.
How do the liberals do it, to prove that guns are bad? No matter what there will be variables.
When you look at their two crime rates, the difference is clear.
http://kennesaw.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://atlanta.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
LOL
Here is another:
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
It's true that its not fair to compare a city and its suburb concerning crime rates.
How do the liberals do it, to prove that guns are bad? No matter what there will be variables.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Yeah, well its been going on since the early 1900's, and you have extremist Christians, a stupid public and feminists to thank for that. The banning of recreational drugs, prohibition of alchohol and restriction of fully automatic firearms were just stepping stones.
It will probably stick. They will appeal the law at state level, then after that fails they will go to the Federal appeals court, than to the 9th Circus which will uphold the ban and then to the SCOTUS which will refuse to take the case. Even if they do, and Alito(sp?) is confirmed by then, the court is still 5 / 4 not in our favor.
Of course, I have been called a pessemist before
.
Wayne
Of course, I have been called a pessemist before
.Wayne
He must not realize that THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT IN CALIFORNIA thanks to the Ninth's ruling in Hickman and later, in Nordyke, which the Supreme Court refused to hear.
Where do you think the whole "collective right" nonsense came from?
California needs to amend its constitution - see http://www.tacr.us/ for how it can be done.
progunner1957
Moderator
Hopefully, the socialist scumbags that voted in this law will be among the first to be brutalized. They deserve a good dose of the medicine they just forced down the throats of everyone else. We cas rest assured that the socialist city politicians of S.F. will be escorted 24/7/365 by a security detail that is armed to the teeth.
If I lived in California:barf: , I would pack up and move to Texas - no job, no home, no anything is worth losing my right to arms as an American over.
+1+1+1 to that!!
It's a crime to carry openly in Texas. Try New Hampshire.
- Status