Originally Posted By Beaumandy Looks like the libs in Frisco think they can protect themselves from the bad guys with loaves of French bread instead of guns, and it looks like they once again show how much they hate the military. Maybe this town should just break away from the rest of America and become the Marxist haven it so longs to be. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051109/pl_nm/election_sanfrancisco_dc" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 51109/pl_nm/election_sanfrancisco_dc</a> San Francisco votes against guns, army recruiters Wed Nov 9, 3:41 PM ET SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Voters in famously liberal San Francisco overwhelmingly approved measures banning handguns and encouraging schools to keep military recruiters off campus, according to election results on Wednesday. ADVERTISEMENT With 100 percent of precincts reporting results from Tuesday's election, Measure H, which prohibits San Franciscans from owning handguns and bans the sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, passed with 57.9 percent of the vote. The National Rifle Association said the measure's passage would prove a "hollow victory" for gun control activists and that it would file a lawsuit challenging the measure. "Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense. We will fight this outrageous assault on the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans and I believe that we will prevail," association vice-president Wayne LaPierre said in statement. Measure I, a largely symbolic "declaration of policy that the people of San Francisco oppose the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military," passed with 59.7 percent of votes. The measure will have no effect on military recruiters as they are allowed on school grounds under federal law, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well, I gotta agree with you on this one, Beaumandy. (Of course, not all the Marxist rhetoric, but in being oppossed to this measure). But even Mayor Newsome, who supported this measure, has said it won't last after court challenges. This measure is just silly.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I apologize for calling San Francisco " Frisco ". I know you hate that. But man....this place is off the chart now. Why do I get this feeling you were a big time right winger until I came along and now your a moderate? LOL....
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<With 100 percent of precincts reporting results from Tuesday's election, Measure H, which prohibits San Franciscans from owning handguns and bans the sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, passed with 57.9 percent of the vote.>> I'd vote for that. I know it wouldn't stand up in court, but I'd vote for it to indicate my opposition to private ownership of handguns. P.S. Save your breath about self defense and all. I've gotten along just fine for 53 years without ever having a gun of any type. I really don't see how they are necessary.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I know it wouldn't stand up in court, but I'd vote for it to indicate my opposition to private ownership of handguns. >>> What part don't you think will stand up in court? Washington DC bans personal possession of handguns as well as unlicensed possession of ammunition even in the absense of a gun. It would seem that the SF ban doesn't go quite as far, at least from the quote above, in that it only bans the sale of ammunition, not possession. Not that I see any of the above doing any good. I think the results of the gun ban in DC provide ample proof that any localized ban of this sort accomplishes nothing other than restricting what ordinary people are able to do.
Originally Posted By itsme How is this any differeant then a gay marriage bill? If you vote against guns or gays. Didnt the people speak the same way, Why is it ok to now go to court on this. Btw, I own and support right to carry, guns and all that stuff, so dont go there that im some anti-gun freak.
Originally Posted By planodisney there is a story here, in the D/FW area, that occured yesterday where an elderly ladies house was broken into. She was home and was holding a hand gun when he came upon her. She told the man to not come any closer or she would shoot. He came towards her so she shot him in the leg and called the police. The police said the women was completely within her rights and will not be charged with any crime. Just because you dont want personal protection RoadTrip, doesnt meen that nobody needs or wants it. Do you think that this lady was appreciative of her right to bear arms?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That wasn't really a self defense situation, Plano. The man was hiding in her closet, trying to evade the police. She told him to stay down as she held the gun on him. He tried to flee and she shot him. You made it sound like she was attacked by him - but she sought him out and shot him as he was running away from her. Her life was not in danger. <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/111005dnmetbreakin.429fa217.html" target="_blank">http://www.dallasnews.com/shar edcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/111005dnmetbreakin.429fa217.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Just because you dont want personal protection RoadTrip, doesnt meen that nobody needs or wants it. Do you think that this lady was appreciative of her right to bear arms?>> Most handguns in homes thankfully are never used. But when they are, statistics show that they are 43 times more likely to be used against someone in the home or in a suicide than against an intruder. Even removing suicides from the data leaves 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. My source is a PRO_GUN column. The author tried to explain away the data, but it is what it is. Source: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ kopel/kopel013101.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Well RoadTrip, education is the key. As with everything else, those without any education, in this case how to handle a gun, are the ones who do stupid things. I have grown up around guns all my life. My father owns at least 10 and I own...well a few. At an early age I received a very strong education regarding guns and I have always handled the weapons with the respect due to them. Guns are a tool, and there needs to be proper training to handle the tool. Here in Texas they have a concealed handgun license that requires you to receive a great deal of education before you apply for the license. I think that is great. I feel sorry for San Fransicans as now only the people willing to break the law will have guns. If San Fransisco goes the way of that other shining beacon of anti-gun laws (Washington D.C.) it won't be any safer (much worse actually) and indeed will probably experience a hit on thier tourism. But that is in the future.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I feel sorry for San Fransicans as now only the people willing to break the law will have guns.<< Nope. This will never stand up to court challenges. It's far too extreme.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"declaration of policy that the people of San Francisco oppose the federal government's use of public schools to recruit students for service in the military,"<< And this one goes nowhere either, and will never come to pass.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What part don't you think will stand up in court? Washington DC bans personal possession of handguns...<< DC is its own political entity. San Francisco is part of the great state of California. The city passed a law that is in violation of state law, hence, it won't stand up in court.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The city passed a law that is in violation of state law, hence, it won't stand up in court. >>> Oh, I see. The article didn't mention that the legal challenge was based on state law. I had assumed that they were claiming a federal 2nd Amendment issue, which probably would be upheld based on precedent.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>As with everything else, those without any education, in this case how to handle a gun, are the ones who do stupid things.<< I have never understood how people understand that automobile ownership (which has far, far more practical application than gun ownership) requires training and licensing, but gun ownership does not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think it's because one is considered a privelidge, the other a constitutional right. But I agree that it's very stupid to get a gun and not learn how/when to use and store it safely.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I have never understood how people understand that automobile ownership (which has far, far more practical application than gun ownership) requires training and licensing, but gun ownership does not. >>> There are several answers to this question: - The state doesn't ask you why you want a driver license. - The state doesn't attempt in certain circumstances to judge if your reason for wanting one is good enough. - The state doesn't have a history of outlawing certain types of cars (some for purely cosmetic reasons) and using the registration process to confiscate them. - There isn't a large portion of the population that wants gov't to do all of the above with gun licensing and restrictions and that would do exactly that if left unchecked. Sorry if that sounds like it was copied from the NRA website - I assure you that it wasn't. And, I'm not arguing for or against any particular form of gun control. I'm simply answering your question as to why some people feel that gun licensing and automobile/driver licensing is different.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Don't apologize SuperDry. Your points are right on the money. I'm glad my NRA membership dues are going to such a good cause as providing those "talking points". (Tongue in cheek sarcasm, if your confused)
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I dont understand how anyone could vote against protecting themselves. Has self preservation been completely destroyed? Do people not want live anymore?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I dont understand how anyone could vote against protecting themselves. Has self preservation been completely destroyed? Do people not want live anymore?>> I certainly do want to live. And I have been very successful in doing so for 53 years without the use of a gun. I pay taxes so the police can do my shooting for me. Frankly, unless you are a drug dealer or have the misfortune of living in a really bad part of town, your chance of needing a gun to protect yourself is more remote than your chance of getting hit by lightening.
