San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

User avatar
CVX
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by CVX »

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.

"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," he said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession," Paredes said. "People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."

Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."

If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.

Five supervisors on Tuesday submitted the proposed ban directly to the Department of Elections, one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters. The next election is scheduled for November 2005, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has talked about calling a special election before then.

Besides Daly, the sponsors include Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Matt Gonzalez, the outgoing president of the 11-member Board of Supervisors. Consisting of four Democrats and a Green Party member, the group is nonetheless considered "ideologically diverse" by San Francisco standards, Barnes said.

How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business. Only 10 people in San Francisco have been issued concealed weapons permits allowing them to carry guns and the city has only three licensed gun dealers, Barnes said.

Washington, D.C. is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco officials are remiss to use the District of Columbia's experience as a model.

"If gun control worked, Washington, D.C. would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States," Arulanandam said.

Penalties for violations have not been set, but would be recommended by the mayor in consultation with the police chief, the sheriff and the district attorney, according to language in the measure.

Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.

"We'll see when and if it's litigated," he said.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.

But....

Sandra O'conner is now retired. Maybe AFTER GW appoints a new justice will all this foolishness finally go away.
MicahLorain
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by MicahLorain »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.

But....

Sandra O'conner is now retired. Maybe AFTER GW appoints a new justice will all this foolishness finally go away.


Hopefully you do too.
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Jives »

Hmmm...get rid of guns and gun crimes wil go down. That makes sense.

As a matter of fact it's a great idea....and it will never happen. Americans are too much in love with their guns. (See" "Bowling for Columbine")
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Jives wrote: Hmmm...get rid of guns and gun crimes wil go down. That makes sense.

As a matter of fact it's a great idea....and it will never happen. Americans are too much in love with their guns. (See" "Bowling for Columbine")


A ten year study by the Center for Disease Control says something else.

After 2 million dollars and an examination by social scientist, statisticians, doctors, and scientist something else other than what you posted.

"Centers for Disease Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence that gun-control laws reduce violent crime" - http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/w ... 220911.asp

What is 'makes sense' really is a very prejudiced and unscientific political opinion based on loose facts from the street and what people 'hear'.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.


california is in the ninth circuit, not the tenth.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Jives »

It's funny that this topic comes up occasionally. Here is one of my experiences with guns.

Once, when I was a teenager, I went rabbit hunting with 6 of my friends. We had been drinking all day and split into two groups. Our first mistake. My friend and I circled around to the East and the other group went West. As my friend and I poked our heads over a hill to spot a rabbit, a bullet ricocheted off the sand between our heads and sprayed sand on both our faces.

I looked up to see the other group about 40 yards away laughing like crazy. We yelled, 'You almost killed us you idiots!" but they only laughed more, so I yelled, "Now I'm going to kill all of you!" and raised my rifle to fire. I wasn't really going to kill them, so I waited for them all to dive behind a nearby rock, then I stiched the ground above the rock 6 or 7 times.

They, mysteriously, got mad and yelled back, 'Hey We almost shot you on accident, you're trying to shoot us on purpose!" and then they shot back at us. Now they didn't really want to kill us either, but both sides were now engaged in a macho head trip.

We ran around for two hours, shooting at each other with live ammunition. At one point as I stood behind a very skinny tree, I could hear the bullets hitting the other side, whack! whack! I looked around to see a friend of mine running from tree to tree and I shot at his heels to make him "dance". Well, one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and went right up his arm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a burn trail all along it.

That was enough, we stopped and realized just how stupid we were being. Besides, nobody wanted to tell the other guy's mom he was dead, and we didn't think just leaving a dead guy there was a good idea, so we were at a loss as to what to do if one of us actually got killed.

But later that night, we came across a car full of other teenagers passing us in the wash as we drove around looking for a party in the hills. I'm not quite sure to this day, who said what, but before you know it all 7 of them and all 6 of us were out of the cars and fighting on the dirt roadway.

As I polished off the guy I was fighting, I looked to see my best friend, fallen and unconscious. As I watched, a big kid gave him a vicious kick to the face. His head snapped back at a crazy angle and I instantly knew for a fact that he was dead.

In my even more intoxicated state than I had been earlier, I immediately decided that since they had killed my friend, it was my duty to kill all of them. I went to the trunk of the car and got my Marlin Model 60 semi-automatic, 16 shot .22 rifle out and drew down on the bunch of them.

I screamed, "I'm gonna kill every one of you sons of b***hs!!" But in the last second before I pulled the trigger, a little voice whispered "Don't do it." So I pulled off and shot into the air. Needless to say, the other boys jumped into their pickup as fast as possible and, during the time they spent trying to get it started, I walked around it, shooting their headlights, tailights and fenders off.

As they pulled away, my friend on the ground woke up and said, "What happened? Did we win?" He wasn't dead after all, so I almost annihilated seven men.....

for absolutely nothing.

I decided I wasn't responsible enough to have a gun, and went to sell it. Another friend of mine came to my house to buy it. He said, "let me hold it", to which I replied, "OK, but not the gun and the clip at the same time." since he was so dense that light bent around him. But he kept whining that he could buy it if he didn't know how to use the clip. so I finally showed him and gave him the clip, but told him not to insert it.

In two seconds he had the clip in, the bolt pulled back, and since he ws holding the trigger, when the bolt closed, the gun fired.

The bullet bounced off the hardwood floors, shot through the wall into the next apartment where two young children were playing. Luckily, by the Grace of God himself, no one was injured, although they said that their cat lost one of it's nine lives.

So you can see that I have the attitude that guns seem to cause more trouble than they're worth, that they often are seen as a solution to a problem that does not need that kind of a solution, and that nothing but bad luck and trouble seems to come from owning one.

To this day I still don't own a gun, and I've never needed one. Now that I'm 40 years older, I have debated buying one, to protect mysef and my wife while traveling or from burglars.

But I never seem to get around to buying it, I guess because I still remember that ill-fated day when I was 17.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

anastrophe wrote: california is in the ninth circuit, not the tenth.


Thanks for the correction. I think you got the point though? Don't you agree that the 9th basically is the laughing stock of the court system?
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Jives wrote: It's funny that this topic comes up occasionally. Here is one of my experiences with guns.

Once, when I was a teenager, I went rabbit hunting with 6 of my friends. We had been drinking all day and split into two groups. Our first mistake. My friend and I circled around to the East and the other group went West. As my friend and I poked our heads over a hill to spot a rabbit, a bullet ricocheted off the sand between our heads and sprayed sand on both our faces.

I looked up to see the other group about 40 yards away laughing like crazy. We yelled, 'You almost killed us you idiots!" but they only laughed more, so I yelled, "Now I'm going to kill all of you!" and raised my rifle to fire. I wasn't really going to kill them, so I waited for them all to dive behind a nearby rock, then I stiched the ground above the rock 6 or 7 times.

They, mysteriously, got mad and yelled back, 'Hey We almost shot you on accident, you're trying to shoot us on purpose!" and then they shot back at us. Now they didn't really want to kill us either, but both sides were now engaged in a macho head trip.

We ran around for two hours, shooting at each other with live ammunition. At one point as I stood behind a very skinny tree, I could hear the bullets hitting the other side, whack! whack! I looked around to see a friend of mine running from tree to tree and I shot at his heels to make him "dance". Well, one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and went right up his arm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a burn trail all along it.

That was enough, we stopped and realized just how stupid we were being. Besides, nobody wanted to tell the other guy's mom he was dead, and we didn't think just leaving a dead guy there was a good idea, so we were at a loss as to what to do if one of us actually got killed.

But later that night, we came across a car full of other teenagers passing us in the wash as we drove around looking for a party in the hills. I'm not quite sure to this day, who said what, but before you know it all 7 of them and all 6 of us were out of the cars and fighting on the dirt roadway.

As I polished off the guy I was fighting, I looked to see my best friend, fallen and unconscious. As I watched, a big kid gave him a vicious kick to the face. His head snapped back at a crazy angle and I instantly knew for a fact that he was dead.

In my even more intoxicated state than I had been earlier, I immediately decided that since they had killed my friend, it was my duty to kill all of them. I went to the trunk of the car and got my Marlin Model 60 semi-automatic, 16 shot .22 rifle out and drew down on the bunch of them.

I screamed, "I'm gonna kill every one of you sons of b***hs!!" But in the last second before I pulled the trigger, a little voice whispered "Don't do it." So I pulled off and shot into the air. Needless to say, the other boys jumped into their pickup as fast as possible and, during the time they spent trying to get it started, I walked around it, shooting their headlights, tailights and fenders off.

As they pulled away, my friend on the ground woke up and said, "What happened? Did we win?" He wasn't dead after all, so I almost annihilated seven men.....

for absolutely nothing.

I decided I wasn't responsible enough to have a gun, and went to sell it. Another friend of mine came to my house to buy it. He said, "let me hold it", to which I replied, "OK, but not the gun and the clip at the same time." since he was so dense that light bent around him. But he kept whining that he could buy it if he didn't know how to use the clip. so I finally showed him and gave him the clip, but told him not to insert it.

In two seconds he had the clip in, the bolt pulled back, and since he ws holding the trigger, when the bolt closed, the gun fired.

The bullet bounced off the hardwood floors, shot through the wall into the next apartment where two young children were playing. Luckily, by the Grace of God himself, no one was injured, although they said that their cat lost one of it's nine lives.

So you can see that I have the attitude that guns seem to cause more trouble than they're worth, that they often are seen as a solution to a problem that does not need that kind of a solution, and that nothing but bad luck and trouble seems to come from owning one.

To this day I still don't own a gun, and I've never needed one. Now that I'm 40 years older, I have debated buying one, to protect mysef and my wife while traveling or from burglars.

But I never seem to get around to buying it, I guess because I still remember that ill-fated day when I was 17.


What gun business you should do for youself is your business. What I do about my gun business that does not violate the rights of others is my business and mine alone. Until a lawful gun owner breaks the law with his/her gun activity, any activity is thier business alone and none of mine. Once someone breaks the law, that is between a judge and jurry. What you did is criminal. What you did, you are the sole responsible party and not me or millions of gun owners. I am highly offended by the fact that anti-gunners can connect some kind of political idealism that can pass the criminal responsibility from someone else to me. I don't know what common law doctrine or political ideas they use to be able to blame me for someone elses criminal activity, but they are doing it.
Tomi
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:39 am

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Tomi »

Jives wrote: It's funny that this topic comes up occasionally. Here is one of my experiences with guns.

Once, when I was a teenager, I went rabbit hunting with 6 of my friends. We had been drinking all day and split into two groups. Our first mistake. My friend and I circled around to the East and the other group went West. As my friend and I poked our heads over a hill to spot a rabbit, a bullet ricocheted off the sand between our heads and sprayed sand on both our faces.

I looked up to see the other group about 40 yards away laughing like crazy. We yelled, 'You almost killed us you idiots!" but they only laughed more, so I yelled, "Now I'm going to kill all of you!" and raised my rifle to fire. I wasn't really going to kill them, so I waited for them all to dive behind a nearby rock, then I stiched the ground above the rock 6 or 7 times.

They, mysteriously, got mad and yelled back, 'Hey We almost shot you on accident, you're trying to shoot us on purpose!" and then they shot back at us. Now they didn't really want to kill us either, but both sides were now engaged in a macho head trip.

We ran around for two hours, shooting at each other with live ammunition. At one point as I stood behind a very skinny tree, I could hear the bullets hitting the other side, whack! whack! I looked around to see a friend of mine running from tree to tree and I shot at his heels to make him "dance". Well, one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and went right up his arm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a burn trail all along it.

That was enough, we stopped and realized just how stupid we were being. Besides, nobody wanted to tell the other guy's mom he was dead, and we didn't think just leaving a dead guy there was a good idea, so we were at a loss as to what to do if one of us actually got killed.

But later that night, we came across a car full of other teenagers passing us in the wash as we drove around looking for a party in the hills. I'm not quite sure to this day, who said what, but before you know it all 7 of them and all 6 of us were out of the cars and fighting on the dirt roadway.

As I polished off the guy I was fighting, I looked to see my best friend, fallen and unconscious. As I watched, a big kid gave him a vicious kick to the face. His head snapped back at a crazy angle and I instantly knew for a fact that he was dead.

In my even more intoxicated state than I had been earlier, I immediately decided that since they had killed my friend, it was my duty to kill all of them. I went to the trunk of the car and got my Marlin Model 60 semi-automatic, 16 shot .22 rifle out and drew down on the bunch of them.

I screamed, "I'm gonna kill every one of you sons of b***hs!!" But in the last second before I pulled the trigger, a little voice whispered "Don't do it." So I pulled off and shot into the air. Needless to say, the other boys jumped into their pickup as fast as possible and, during the time they spent trying to get it started, I walked around it, shooting their headlights, tailights and fenders off.

As they pulled away, my friend on the ground woke up and said, "What happened? Did we win?" He wasn't dead after all, so I almost annihilated seven men.....

for absolutely nothing.

I decided I wasn't responsible enough to have a gun, and went to sell it. Another friend of mine came to my house to buy it. He said, "let me hold it", to which I replied, "OK, but not the gun and the clip at the same time." since he was so dense that light bent around him. But he kept whining that he could buy it if he didn't know how to use the clip. so I finally showed him and gave him the clip, but told him not to insert it.

In two seconds he had the clip in, the bolt pulled back, and since he ws holding the trigger, when the bolt closed, the gun fired.

The bullet bounced off the hardwood floors, shot through the wall into the next apartment where two young children were playing. Luckily, by the Grace of God himself, no one was injured, although they said that their cat lost one of it's nine lives.

So you can see that I have the attitude that guns seem to cause more trouble than they're worth, that they often are seen as a solution to a problem that does not need that kind of a solution, and that nothing but bad luck and trouble seems to come from owning one.

To this day I still don't own a gun, and I've never needed one. Now that I'm 40 years older, I have debated buying one, to protect mysef and my wife while traveling or from burglars.

But I never seem to get around to buying it, I guess because I still remember that ill-fated day when I was 17.


All you have really proved is that YOU certainly should not have any access to firearms. Your drunken teenage antics are ample proof of that.

As for your second story, there are a few puzzling points. First of all, a Marlin Model 60 doesn't have a detachable "clip." (I believe you are referring to a box magazine, which is often erroneously called a "clip.") The Model 60 has a tubular magazine that is permanently mounted below and parallel to the barrel, and into which rounds must be loaded one at a time. So either your indoor incident was with another gun, or you are mistaken about which model you owned.

Second, if your friend's argument was that he needed to know how to "use the clip," why would you expect that he would heed your warning not to insert it? Also, if it is necessary to practice insertion and removal of a box magazine, this can be done with an empty magazine. There was no reason to hand your untrustworthy friend a magazine that was loaded with cartridges. You exercised very bad judgement and share in the responsiblity for the negligent discharge of your gun.

You may be a fine person, but in the situations you describe you behaved like a dangerous fool. No, you should not possess firearms.
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Captain Ray »

First of all, a Marlin Model 60 doesn't have a detachable "clip." (I believe you are referring to a box magazine, which is often erroneously called a "clip.") The Model 60 has a tubular magazine


Are you sure about that? I am not sure.. but if memory serves me.. The Model 60 from marlin, like the modell 99 is magazine fed.. not tubular.. I could be wrong, but thats just off the top of my head...

I have a model 25 Glenfield that I thought was more or less like the Marlin model 60.. As near as I can remember.. the only diference between the model 99 and the 60 is the former had a walnut stock.. and the 60 had a stock made of birch. Both were bolt action, autoloaders that had a magazine that held 15 rounds. I think that the model 60 was scaled back to 7 rounds in 1994 because of the assualt weapon ban.. (Terrorist really like .22 caliber rifles.. and bayonnetes!! Drive by bayonneting are all the rage among neer-do-well criminals you know!?!?)

This is all off the top of my head.. I would have to really look into it to be sure.. I will take your word for it though.. just thought I would ask.

Raymond
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by BabyRider »

Tomi wrote: As for your second story, there are a few puzzling points.
Tomi, you will find that is the case in the majority of "stories" told by this poster. But, welcome to FG anyway!! You sound like a person knowledgeable about guns and we have several members here, (myself included) who love our guns. Hope you find more to interest you here in the Garden!! :yh_peace
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Captain Ray »

Tomi.. I did not notice that this was your first post.. I hope I did not come off as a know it all.. certainly in this case I don't know it all..

I did look up that rifle.. but I'll be darned if I can find any specifics about the magazine.. here is a picture though:



It does apear to have a tubular magazine... So you were right.. and I was wrong.. nobody is perfect..

Raymond
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Nomad »

Hang it up sneezer, its a given that hes a pathalogical liar. When you lie that much its got to be near impossible to keep your story straight.
I AM AWESOME MAN
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Tomi wrote:

You may be a fine person, but in the situations you describe you behaved like a dangerous fool. No, you should not possess firearms.


The law in all states in in the Constitution is very clear on this issue.

YOU don't decide who gets to own firearms.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: The law in all states in in the Constitution is very clear on this issue.



YOU don't decide who gets to own firearms.


the law in all states of the constitution is very clear on this issue.



YOU don't get to decide who can or cannot express their opinion on the matter.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Tomi
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:39 am

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Tomi »

commie_kalafornian wrote: The law in all states in in the Constitution is very clear on this issue.

YOU don't decide who gets to own firearms.
I never claimed I did. The man was debating whether he should get another firearm. Judging from the stories he told about his own past history with firearms, I recommended against it. The key word is "should."

In the "hunting" story, he describes committing several felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon. Had he been convicted of that in any state, the result would have been equally clear: No right to possess a firearm.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

anastrophe wrote: the law in all states of the constitution is very clear on this issue.



YOU don't get to decide who can or cannot express their opinion on the matter.


Oh?

From that short bit of text? How did you conclude that I am trying to censor an opinion?

Can I suggest something? Maybe your political opinion on this matter is just as faulty as your deductive reasoning on how you came about to decide that I am "YOU don't get to decide who can or cannot express their opinion on the matter".
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Tomi wrote: I never claimed I did. The man was debating whether he should get another firearm. Judging from the stories he told about his own past history with firearms, I recommended against it. The key word is "should."

In the "hunting" story, he describes committing several felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon. Had he been convicted of that in any state, the result would have been equally clear: No right to possess a firearm.


Hmmmm? Even with 'should' it sounds like to your opinion sounds like your goal and not a recommendation.

OK.

So then let me hear you say it just for chuckles, that you don't care if he owns a gun or not. That his legal ownership of firearms is none of your business and you will stay out of he lawfull business. Then try to live it. Just for chuckles.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Oh?



From that short bit of text? How did you conclude that I am trying to censor an opinion?


in exactly the same way you posed it for crying out loud. read your own words, and tell me how they differ from yours. here's the easy step by step process. read your post. read my reply. note the similar construction. bury your head in shame.





Can I suggest something? Maybe your political opinion on this matter is just as faulty as your deductive reasoning on how you came about to decide that I am "YOU don't get to decide who can or cannot express their opinion on the matter".




now you're just being an *******. which is fine. everyone has one.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

anastrophe wrote: in exactly the same way you posed it for crying out loud. read your own words, and tell me how they differ from yours. here's the easy step by step process. read your post. read my reply. note the similar construction. bury your head in shame.







now you're just being an *******. which is fine. everyone has one.


Oh?

OK. I still don't get it but OK. Somehow from when I do "You don't get to decide...." I'm did something dumb, but then you do exactly the samething and your not dumb. OK.

Lets check the logic here again. I do , thus I am dumb. You do , you are .

I was very clear on this. NO ONE as an individual decides who gets rights or thier status of rights.

And...

NO where did I state any opinion regarding the censor of opinions. That deduction was in your head and only your head.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

anastrophe wrote: read your own words, and tell me how they differ from yours.


words are hard. i meant 'read your own words, and tell me how they differ from mine.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Oh?



OK. I still don't get it but OK. Somehow from when I do "You don't get to decide...." I'm did something dumb, but then you do exactly the samething and your not dumb. OK.



Lets check the logic here again. I do , thus I am dumb. You do , you are .



I was very clear on this. NO ONE as an individual decides who gets rights or thier status of rights.



And...



NO where did I state any opinion regarding the censor of opinions. That deduction was in your head and only your head.


you just don't get it. the original poster never said that she/he decides who gets to own firearms.



you put words in the original posters mouth, then attacked them for it. so i turned it right back around on you. no, you didn't say you were censoring his/her opinion. just as the original poster never said it was for him/her to decide who gets to own firearms.



sheesh.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

Originally Posted by Tomi

I never claimed I did. The man was debating whether he should get another firearm. Judging from the stories he told about his own past history with firearms, I recommended against it. The key word is "should."

In the "hunting" story, he describes committing several felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon. Had he been convicted of that in any state, the result would have been equally clear: No right to possess a firearm.



commie_kalafornian wrote: Hmmmm? Even with 'should' it sounds like to your opinion sounds like your goal and not a recommendation.



OK.



So then let me hear you say it just for chuckles, that you don't care if he owns a gun or not. That his legal ownership of firearms is none of your business and you will stay out of he lawfull business. Then try to live it. Just for chuckles.


and here you're being even more ridiculous. every gun owner shoudl definitely care when a bozo reports doing irresponsible and illegal things with their firearms. if jive's comments held any value in law, he should have the book thrown at him for criminally negligent handling of firearms. bozos like that only make things that much harder for law abiding citizens - it's crap like his fairytale that get the anti-gun-nuts in a froth, and they're the ones who are determined to take our guns.



so, had jives been caught by a passing cop during the fictional tale he provided, he would have - and should have - had the book thrown at him, up to and including revocation of his right to own firearms. with the right comes responsibility. that's why convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms.



think about it further - it used to be that if someone was convicted of a felony while using firearms, then they'd have their gun rights revoked. now however, if someone is convicted of felony drunken driving, they too have their right to own firearms revoked, even though their crime had nothing to do with firearms. felony fraud, same thing. felony anything. who do we thank for that? the anti-gun-nuts, who use as ammunition for all their gun laws imaginitive stories like jive's.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

anastrophe wrote: you just don't get it. the original poster never said that she/he decides who gets to own firearms.



you put words in the original posters mouth, then attacked them for it. so i turned it right back around on you. no, you didn't say you were censoring his/her opinion. just as the original poster never said it was for him/her to decide who gets to own firearms.



sheesh.


Ok

Lets look at this again.

I do thus I a dumb and deserve shame.

YOU do (by your own admission), thus .

What do you think is ?

I am willing to accept the orginal poster doesn't want to decide which lawful individuals will get rights or thier status of rights. I am trying to get more clarification to see if the orginal poster understand for themselves that they are serious not just posting what I want to hear so I don't attack them.

Are you sure the poster did not want to decide the status of a persons rights? I wasn't, "should' does not equal 'recommend'. I could say, 'people should shut up'. That could be my opinion and it could also be my goal.

So what do you think is ? Did I construct the logic incorrectly? Did I use "note the similar construction. bury your head in shame" correctly in my argument?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Ok



Lets look at this again.



I do thus I a dumb and deserve shame.



YOU do (by your own admission), thus .



What do you think is ?



I am willing to accept the orginal poster doesn't want to decide which lawful individuals will get rights or thier status of rights.


your argument here ends with failed logic. the story described criminally negligent handling of firearms. assault. recklessness. etc.. Are we to understand that you consider people who act in a criminal manner to be "lawful individuals"?



if so, please exit the gun-rights movement through the door on the left. because you aren't helping us at all.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Tomi
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:39 am

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by Tomi »

I believe that any law-abiding citizen should have the right to possess firearms. I also know that there are some people that I prefer not to be around when they have a gun in their hands, just as there are certain people I don't like to ride in cars with. This is simply because the behavior of these people is dangerous to themselves and others. It is my right to hold the opinion that these people are dangerous, and to express that opinion whenever I wish. I believe that some people should not own firearms, just as I believe that some people should not drive cars or have children. I believe that people who lack basic common sense and life skills should not be engaging in activities that present serious physical threats to those around them. That's just my belief; it's not law. I'm not asking anyone to enforce my belief on others: I will vote with my mouth and my feet whenever I see fit.

Notice that I didn't say that the individual in question shouldn't have the right to own a firearm; I just expressed the opinion that he shouldn't own one. Judging by what he said in his posting, I would not want to be anywhere near him when he has a firearm in his hand(s). Let's call it personal advice: "Dude--don't buy a gun. You'll hurt somebody." It's a judgement call.

When a person's behavior crosses a line and the law steps in, the rights of that person are frequently taken away. Our society has decided that it can do this: Drunken driving leads to loss of license, felony conviction leads to loss of firearm ownership, abuse/neglect of children leads to loss of custody, etc. Some people have a problem with this concept. I don't. I didn't make these laws, but I'm willing to live by them. I just don't want my rights to be taken away because of the idiotic or criminal behavior of someone else. That's why I like to discourage this kind of behavior whenever and wherever I can.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Ok

Lets look at this again.

I do thus I a dumb and deserve shame.

YOU do (by your own admission), thus .

What do you think is ?

I am willing to accept the orginal poster doesn't want to decide which lawful individuals will get rights or thier status of rights. I am trying to get more clarification to see if the orginal poster understand for themselves that they are serious not just posting what I want to hear so I don't attack them.

Are you sure the poster did not want to decide the status of a persons rights? I wasn't, "should' does not equal 'recommend'. I could say, 'people should shut up'. That could be my opinion and it could also be my goal.

So what do you think is ? Did I construct the logic incorrectly? Did I use "note the similar construction. bury your head in shame" correctly in my argument?


You know what goes in . That is all I need to say. BAAHAAAHAAA.
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

Tomi wrote: I believe that any law-abiding citizen should have the right to possess firearms. I also know that there are some people that I prefer not to be around when they have a gun in their hands, just as there are certain people I don't like to ride in cars with. This is simply because the behavior of these people is dangerous to themselves and others. It is my right to hold the opinion that these people are dangerous, and to express that opinion whenever I wish. I believe that some people should not own firearms, just as I believe that some people should not drive cars or have children. I believe that people who lack basic common sense and life skills should not be engaging in activities that present serious physical threats to those around them. That's just my belief; it's not law. I'm not asking anyone to enforce my belief on others: I will vote with my mouth and my feet whenever I see fit.

Notice that I didn't say that the individual in question shouldn't have the right to own a firearm; I just expressed the opinion that he shouldn't own one. Judging by what he said in his posting, I would not want to be anywhere near him when he has a firearm in his hand(s). Let's call it personal advice: "Dude--don't buy a gun. You'll hurt somebody." It's a judgement call.

When a person's behavior crosses a line and the law steps in, the rights of that person are frequently taken away. Our society has decided that it can do this: Drunken driving leads to loss of license, felony conviction leads to loss of firearm ownership, abuse/neglect of children leads to loss of custody, etc. Some people have a problem with this concept. I don't. I didn't make these laws, but I'm willing to live by them. I just don't want my rights to be taken away because of the idiotic or criminal behavior of someone else. That's why I like to discourage this kind of behavior whenever and wherever I can.


OK I'm good with that. There are only two ways citizens loose rights:

1) criminal conviction by a court.

2) a doctor says they are insane.

There are no other ways and that is the way it should be. That is the way our democracy was designed to exist. Any other way that is used is illegal, unconstitional, unfair, unjust, and evil.

I will go even one step further and say that it is YOUR DUTY as a good citizen to tollerate the rights of others no matter how distasteful they are to you. There is a big difference between distasteful and criminal. Anti-gunners these days seem to have justified removal of gun rights based on distateful.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: OK I'm good with that. There are only two ways citizens loose rights:



1) criminal conviction by a court.

2) a doctor says they are insane.



There are no other ways and that is the way it should be. That is the way our democracy was designed to exist. Any other way that is used is illegal, unconstitional, unfair, unjust, and evil.



I will go even one step further and say that it is YOUR DUTY as a good citizen to tollerate the rights of others no matter how distasteful they are to you. There is a big difference between distasteful and criminal. Anti-gunners these days seem to have justified removal of gun rights based on distateful.


and you have advocated NOT revoking rights where someone has acted criminally negligently.



it is YOUR DUTY as a good citizen to report criminal activity if you witness it. nobody here can attest to jive's (fictional) story, so nobody here could report it even if they wanted to. however, if *I* was near someone who was drunk, brandishing a firearm, discharging a firearm, discharging it at an occupied vehicle, putting the occupants in danger, and not doing so in self-defense, you bet your sweet ass i'd call the cops the first opportunity i had, and testify against the dumbass.



you're free to nano-parse the distinctions here. the reality is, you jumped all over tomi for stating his/her opinion that - given the description that jives gave of his criminally negligent behavior - he/she agreed that jives should not own firearms. not "jives should not have the RIGHT to own firearms", but that his criminal negiligence showed clearly that he's not responsible enough to own them. nothing about the Right at all. tomi did not suggest that 'we should pass new, idiotic laws to take away his gun rights' - primarily i assume because under existing gun laws his actions were criminally negligent already. but i can't speak for tomi. i can only speak for myself.



you assumed anti-gun-rights opinion where none existed. hey, i've made that mistake too.



the problem is, when you jump all over somebody's **** like that, all you do is add to the unfair representation of gun-rights advocates as raving bubbas.



try arguing more reasonably. tomi said nothing about revoking jive's right to own firearms. period.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
commie_kalafornian
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:48 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by commie_kalafornian »

anastrophe wrote: and you have advocated NOT revoking rights where someone has acted criminally negligently.



it is YOUR DUTY as a good citizen to report criminal activity if you witness it. nobody here can attest to jive's (fictional) story, so nobody here could report it even if they wanted to. however, if *I* was near someone who was drunk, brandishing a firearm, discharging a firearm, discharging it at an occupied vehicle, putting the occupants in danger, and not doing so in self-defense, you bet your sweet ass i'd call the cops the first opportunity i had, and testify against the dumbass.



you're free to nano-parse the distinctions here. the reality is, you jumped all over tomi for stating his/her opinion that - given the description that jives gave of his criminally negligent behavior - he/she agreed that jives should not own firearms. not "jives should not have the RIGHT to own firearms", but that his criminal negiligence showed clearly that he's not responsible enough to own them. nothing about the Right at all. tomi did not suggest that 'we should pass new, idiotic laws to take away his gun rights' - primarily i assume because under existing gun laws his actions were criminally negligent already. but i can't speak for tomi. i can only speak for myself.



you assumed anti-gun-rights opinion where none existed. hey, i've made that mistake too.



the problem is, when you jump all over somebody's **** like that, all you do is add to the unfair representation of gun-rights advocates as raving bubbas.



try arguing more reasonably. tomi said nothing about revoking jive's right to own firearms. period.


Read the post directly above yours. What part of "OK I'm good with that." did you find confusing?

Can you help me? Can you ?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

Post by anastrophe »

commie_kalafornian wrote: Read the post directly above yours. What part of "OK I'm good with that." did you find confusing?



Can you help me? Can you ?


'i'm good with that' is not the right response. you jumped all over tomi for NO good reason. i'm not defending tomi, he/she can manage that fine. my gripe is that you assumed ill intent way out of proportion from what was said. i think you owe tomi an apology - that would be the right response.



like i said - thanks for you contributions to the gun-rights cause, but you aren't helping at all by getting up on your hind legs and attacking people who've said *nothing out of order*.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]

Return to “Gun Control”