← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · madrussian
Thread ID: 20909 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-11-05
2005-11-05 23:36 | User Profile
Someone is in the search of a problem, rather than a solution. In a fvcked up homo-and-homeless-saturated city they are doing what liberals know to do best: pursuing irrelevant utopian ideas. If this passes, it will be another good reason to not live there.
[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13079136.htm?source=yahoodist&content=sjm_news[/url]
Highlights of Proposition H, on Tuesday's ballot:
Would ban possession of handguns within city limits by San Francisco residents unless they are active law enforcement or military personnel.
Would ban manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within the city.
Would take effect Jan. 1, 2006, and residents would have until April 1 to turn in their handguns.
2005-11-06 00:15 | User Profile
Someone has a sense of humor. I note the turn in day is on April Fool's day. How appropriate.
2005-11-06 01:07 | User Profile
They are trying to ban even off duty cops from carrying. :mad:
Anyway, I moved to San Mateo county, so f*ck them.
2005-11-06 01:13 | User Profile
Some years ago some nut case killed a few people at a McDonalds in CA and three months later they came out with a ballot to outlaw all semi auto military looking weapons, the people voted for NO leave everything as it.... now here comes the good part..... the governow said that the people didn't know what was good for them and then passed the law anyway. :angry:
2005-11-06 02:10 | User Profile
Given the near-impossibility of concealed carry in most urban Commiefornia counties (especially SF), most residents who own handguns are legally only left with the options of keeping them at home and transporting them to and from firing ranges.
Less paperwork, fees and bureaucracy--and more lethal at a cheaper price--if you can only use it at home to defend yourself, is to simply get a good economical home defense shotgun and keep plenty of #1 buckshot loads. Yes #1 buck is better than 00 for home defense: [url=http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm]Shotgun Home Defense Ammunition[/url]--I prefer the Federal Classic 2 þ-inch #1 buck load (F127).
Saw a [url=http://www.mossberg.com/pcatalog/Specpurp.htm]Mossberg 500 Persuader[/url] at Big 5 the other day for about $225 or so. Lot of gun for the money, but I already have my [url=http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/defense.tpl]Benelli Nova Tactical[/url] and am quite happy with it.
2005-11-07 00:38 | User Profile
what a ridiculous thought. it's like prohobition for guns...
2005-11-07 10:51 | User Profile
Well New York doesn't ban them outright, it just puts so many restrictions on it that few people find it worth the hassle. Outright bans are better actually - they tend to generate a backlash.
2005-11-08 02:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well New York doesn't ban them outright, it just puts so many restrictions on it that few people find it worth the hassle. Outright bans are better actually - they tend to generate a backlash.[/QUOTE]
When I lived in NYC I gave up my get-a-gun plan. It was more hassle (and fees) than getting admitted to the bar.
Other states are much better.
By the way, great thing about S.F., whatever else you can say: it's a mere 7 percent black.
2005-11-08 03:16 | User Profile
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]
By the way, great thing about S.F., whatever else you can say: it's a mere 7 percent black.
:unsure: You sure those figures are correct? Seems like a hell of alot more than that.
2005-11-08 04:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Some years ago some nut case killed a few people at a McDonalds in CA and three months later they came out with a ballot to outlaw all semi auto military looking weapons, the people voted for NO leave everything as it.... now here comes the good part..... the governow said that the people didn't know what was good for them and then passed the law anyway. :angry:[/QUOTE]
Cite, Ponce.
Governors cannot pass laws unilaterally, unless something very weird happened in the US that I was not aware of. I think you're lying.
2005-11-08 04:59 | User Profile
It's not just San Francisco that has few(er) blacks, California in general has fewer of them. With the exceptions like Oakland or parts of L.A. It's a great thing about California:biggrin:
Of course, where I live, it's much below 7%. It's too expensive for niggers.
2005-11-08 08:15 | User Profile
Screw gun laws. No one has a right to tell you what firearms you can't own or carry.
If oppressive gun laws are passed where you live, the only two honorable courses of action are (1) ignore the laws, or (2) take your guns and move out of the area. Anything else is abject submission to slavery.
[quote=Bardamu]They are trying to ban even off duty cops from carrying. Actually, if they're going to have a ban, then it's only fair that off-duty cops have to deal with it just like everyone else.
2005-11-08 13:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]
Actually, if they're going to have a ban, then it's only fair that off-duty cops have to deal with it just like everyone else.[/QUOTE]
It's beneficial in that it pisses off the cops like everyone else but it doesn't make any sense from a crime control perspective. It's not as if cop handguns are somehow getting into the hands of thugs.
2005-11-09 01:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Solid]:unsure: You sure those figures are correct? Seems like a hell of alot more than that.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure, but I don't have a cite. I read that somewhere recently. It's not a white city by any means, with many Asians and Hispanics. But white gays, I've noticed, can't stand blacks. So that may figure in.
It is truly amazing how much the environment improves when there's a marked decrease of blacks --- even when "everyone else" isn't all-white. Take NYC, with 25 percent, and compare it to SF, and it's like it's practically easier to [I]breathe.[/I] All other races seem to agree: blacks are the racial garbage of the planet.
2005-11-09 02:45 | User Profile
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]Pretty sure, but I don't have a cite. I read that somewhere recently. It's not a white city by any means, with many Asians and Hispanics. But white gays, I've noticed, can't stand blacks. So that may figure in.
I hear you. I once read SF was 50 percent white but that was five or more years ago. Probably far less now. Even if blacks are 7 percent, they make up for it by causing the most problems. The number just threw me off.
And it's interesting you brought up gays and this being a thread about a possible gun ban. I once read in the Chronicle an article about gays and guns. It was saying how these gays wanted to protect themselves and it showed some target practicing too. If these guys had it their way, the only way you could have a gun is if you are gay.