Gun Ban - Sparks Fly

Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
478
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is evidently so bad that at least one of the original sponsors of the measure, City Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, has withdrawn her name from the ballot measure.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 that would make their victims easier prey can only make these thugs happier.

Will swords and knives be next? Perhaps we should consider banning water. Afterall, without water, where would we swim?
*******************************************
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

And You Thought She Was Just San Francisco's Problem! :p :p :p
Thanks,

iBear
 
Hard to believe that quote is from the same Sen. Feinswine who is continually trying with all her might to disarm the lawabiding public. As far as I'm concerned, she's #1 on the 2nd Amendment's most wanted list....what a crock.

It is also more than a little ironic that she was issued a CCW in a state where the only way to get one is to be someone or know someone. In that respect, it's not hard to figure out how her's was approved, but it sure is a far cry from how she would like to see us peasants treated.
 
The fact that one sponsor has withdrawn their name shows what a LOSER issue this is for the politicians involved.

It also shows why people are against gun registration. Because many people who call for "common sense gun control" such as registration are not willing to GUARANTEE the right to own guns in legislation, and without that what's to keep them from requesting a list of all firearms owners and rounding them up.

The Democrats are finally giving up this issue by and large so lets hope this ban is just the last gasp of this kind of nonsense for a while.
 
This thinking will never go away. It's based upon the wonderful belief system that some larger thing owes the individual safety and happiness. In this way, Nature kills off genetic inferiors. Let San Francisco sink into the Sea. They've found their own level. Osmosis. Higher gravity to lower. They're striving to obtain plankton consciousness, and they're succeeding. I think they should be disarmed. Only humans can handle the responsibility of firearms, freedom of speech, etc etc. Others are at their best with permission slips from a centralized authority.

If Terrorists ever let off a dirty bomb in San Francisco, God Forbid, the Council will ban nuclear material....



munk
 
munk said:
This thinking will never go away. It's based upon the wonderful belief system that some larger thing owes the individual safety and happiness. munk

I think it also has to do with the urban versus rural mindset. Some things in the urban mindset are good: respect for differences, people working together for a common goal, respect for the environment. Some things in rural areas are good, self reliance, helping your neighbor, appreciation of nature.

If we could just keep the best of both and avoid the worst we'd be sh*tt*ng in high cotton :thumbup: :D
 
This one's got me wondering if some of our mates in the UK can confirm or deny something for me.
I heard the other day that the British government was considering a ban of points on kitchen knives. Seriously, under the ban, anything larger than a paring knife would not be allowed to have a sharp point, or else it would become an "illegal weapon".
Looks to me that, through a succession of weapons bans, the British government is looking for a return to the simple innocence of "sticks and stones".
One of the very few lobbying groups in England that have successfully held on to their weapons, are the various living history organizations that conduct mock combat using live steel weapons that have been "rebated" (edges and points rounded off). To them I can only say Pactum Serva (keep faith) mates :thumbup:

Sarge
 
Hollowdweller said:
If we could just keep the best of both and avoid the worst we'd be sh*tt*ng in high cotton :thumbup: :D

And wiping on the top leaf!!!!:D :thumbup:

And isn't what Hollow said the *truth* about everything political...:cool:
 
God bless the police department spokesman, who displayed good common sense with his statement of; "it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

Those of us with bench grinders and belt sanders in our garages, know how simple it would be to purchase a blunt ended knife and "convert" it. ;) Ask Yvsa what a fellow can do with a three corner file and a grinder. I made one once, handled it a little bit, and proceeded to grind it into something else. Didn't want the dayumed thing falling into the wrong hands. :eek:

Sarge
 
munk said:
. . .
If Terrorists ever let off a dirty bomb in San Francisco, God Forbid, the Council will ban nuclear material....

munk

They'd be too late to be "first." Cleveland Heights, Ohio, declared itself a "nuclear free zone" years ago -- no nuke weapons and no nuke power plants within the city limits. Wow! What a gutsy move!! :rolleyes:

(They have also banned lawn chemicals. Next we teach the kids to watch their parents. They may be putting --GASP! -- fungicide on the grass at night.)
 
mrtgbnkr said:
The Brits have indeed suggested a ban on pointy knives, seeing as how stabbings are on the rise (along with violent crime in general) since the gun ban/grab.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


To anyone familiar with Bass' "The Godwhale" or "Half Past Human", this is shades of the Sharps Comittees, the Hive mentality, and the road to short lived Nebbishism....
 
munk said:
This thinking will never go away. It's based upon the wonderful belief system that some larger thing owes the individual safety and happiness. In this way, Nature kills off genetic inferiors. Let San Francisco sink into the Sea. They've found their own level. Osmosis. Higher gravity to lower. They're striving to obtain plankton consciousness, and they're succeeding. I think they should be disarmed. Only humans can handle the responsibility of firearms, freedom of speech, etc etc. Others are at their best with permission slips from a centralized authority.

If Terrorists ever let off a dirty bomb in San Francisco, God Forbid, the Council will ban nuclear material....

munk
And if all guns are banned from private ownership... who will be the only people trusted to carry guns... you guessed it, our City, County and State Government officials! Gun banners, like Dianne Feinswine trust our Government Officials to be fair and always do the right thing, much more than they trust private citizens. WHY? I do not have a clue!

With no evidence to the contrary, we had better trust ourselves first. Why would the Government suddenly become so ethical, that we should trust them to be the only one allowed to use deadly force? Haven't we seen the evidence to suggest that the exact opposite of trustworthy is a much more likely scenario for our Government to pursue? It seems to me that Dianne Feinswine is an idiot!

She is Jewish and either very ignorant or even more sinister, perhaps she is intentionally supporting the very policies that eventually led to her own people being slaughtered by Hitler and the Nazi Regime! Why would she decide to do this? Hmmmmm.... I don't know the answer.

The million dollar question that Dianne Feinswine and Kalifornia Gun Control apparently never bothers to consider.... is: Gun Control is the answer to what? By her own admission, it sure does NOT make Dianne Feinstein any safer.... WHY else would she carry a gun? Of course Barbara Boxer also carries a gun and the same logic follows her..... Gun Control is the answer for what?

It may have occurred to some people, that have taken the time to realize, that Kalifornia Gun Control has no other alternative, no other solution, to take the place of guns for self defense. By their own actions, because their leaders carry a gun, they prove that they have no other solution for self defense..... except a gun! That is apparent! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That is just my opinion!

iBear
 
mtngunr said:
To anyone familiar with Bass' "The Godwhale" or "Half Past Human", this is shades of the Sharps Comittees, the Hive mentality, and the road to short lived Nebbishism....
I think of Mr. Bass's books a lot when I read these 'ban this, ban that' threads. Very good SF.
 
Sylvrfalcn said:
God bless the police department spokesman, who displayed good common sense with his statement of; "it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

Those of us with bench grinders and belt sanders in our garages, know how simple it would be to purchase a blunt ended knife and "convert" it. ;) Ask Yvsa what a fellow can do with a three corner file and a grinder. I made one once, handled it a little bit, and proceeded to grind it into something else. Didn't want the dayumed thing falling into the wrong hands. :eek:

Sarge
HeeeHa! I like your style! I sure do!

Thanks,

iBear
 
Aardvark said:
I think of Mr. Bass's books a lot when I read these 'ban this, ban that' threads. Very good SF.
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work." - L. Neil Smith

Firearms are about equality and the equal rights of all people! Guns ended the idea that might makes right! With a rifle or pistol, we have an effective equalizer that can make the weakest, among us, equal to the biggest, baddest of the worst of us. That is the equality of self defense. - iBear
 
mrtgbnkr said:
The Brits have indeed suggested a ban on pointy knives, seeing as how stabbings are on the rise (along with violent crime in general) since the gun ban/grab.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
It takes the potential of deadly force to deter and defend against criminals and terrorists using deadly force. - iBear

There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. -- President Bill Clinton

AMERICANS ARE AMONG THE world's most heavily armed people. And according to author Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., our guns make us safer. "In England, fewer guns have meant more crime," she writes. "In America, more guns have meant less crime."

Whatever became of the Englishman's castle? He did not lose the right and means to protect himself at once. It was teased away over the course of some 80 years by governments claiming to be fighting crime, but actually fearful of revolution and disorder. When the policy began, crime was rare. For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.

The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain's 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned firearms. Since then it has been pretty much downhill.

Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the US; our homes are still our castles. However, in England the reverse is true! While 53 per cent of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Even with all the gang violence, violent crime in the US is at a 30-year low.

Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person". Since these guidelines were classified until 1989, there was no opportunity for public debate.

Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon.

Police were given broad power to stop and search anyone. Individuals found with offensive weapons were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by, and leave it to the professionals.

Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law, approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to defend property with force.

Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".

Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper.

This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.

Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a "natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need". This Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to defend themselves.

Thanks,

iBear
 
hollowdweller said:
The fact that one sponsor has withdrawn their name shows what a LOSER issue this is for the politicians involved.

It also shows why people are against gun registration. Because many people who call for "common sense gun control" such as registration are not willing to GUARANTEE the right to own guns in legislation, and without that what's to keep them from requesting a list of all firearms owners and rounding them up.

The Democrats are finally giving up this issue by and large so lets hope this ban is just the last gasp of this kind of nonsense for a while.
In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

Go figure!

iBear
 
mrtgbnkr said:
Hard to believe that quote is from the same Sen. Feinswine who is continually trying with all her might to disarm the lawabiding public. As far as I'm concerned, she's #1 on the 2nd Amendment's most wanted list....what a crock.

It is also more than a little ironic that she was issued a CCW in a state where the only way to get one is to be someone or know someone. In that respect, it's not hard to figure out how her's was approved, but it sure is a far cry from how she would like to see us peasants treated.
What force is the most effective crime deterrent ever devised? Who is it that stops more criminals, by far than the police, military and FBI combined? We do! The private law abiding citizen!!!

http://www.ncpa.org/press/transcript/hsb032001.html

Studies have shown that criminals fear armed citizens far more than police. Their fear is reasonable since up to 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians - more than three times the number killed by the police. An additional 9,000 to 17,000 are criminals are wounded by civilians each year. In addition, more than 15 studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between 800,000 and 3.6 million times annually (in the vast majority of cases merely showing the firearm wards off the attack or prevents the crime).

Award-winning criminologists Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz estimated that defensive gun uses (DGUs) totaled more than 2.5 million per year. Another study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and carried out by the Police Foundation found an even greater number of DGUs - approximately 2.73 million a year. Either figure is far larger than the number of crimes committed with firearms each year.

Thus, any legislation that discourages or mistakenly disallows legally permitted persons from lawfully purchasing a firearm in a timely manner could place them, and the general public at increased risk from violent crime. - H. Sterling Burnett, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

Thanks,

iBear
 
ibear said:
What force is the most effective crime deterrent ever devised? Who is it that stops more criminals, by far than the police, military and FBI combined? We do! The private law abiding citizen!!!


iBear

I hope you're not misunderstanding me...I'd like to see Feinswine disappear into the ether never to return. I think that personal responsiblity has disappeared from out society (by and large) and that's a bad thing. I KNOW that I can't count on anyone else to keep my family and me safe, so I have every intention of providing for our security. I'm pretty much a 'cold, dead hands', Molon Labe kinda guy. My guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy's Olds (or was it a Buick?)....guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
 
Back
Top