Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I guess this is where I should post this. I borrowed it from another forum I frequent. I think everyone should see this.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20041216/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.


If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.

Firearms would be allowed only for 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,\" according to the measure.

Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: \"We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city.\"


Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group, quickly called the ban illegal. Sam Paredes, the group\'s executive director, said state law 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.

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.


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 would be remiss to use that city as a model.


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

In San Francisco, five of the 11-member Board of Supervisors submitted the measure 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 city\'s voters have frequently championed liberal causes. In the last election, a nonbinding ballot measure to condemn the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and immediately pull out U.S. troops immediately passed with ease.

If approved, the weapons ban would take effect in January 2006.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,044 Posts
This sort of stuff makes my blood boil. Let them do it and find out first hand what is going to happen to their crime statistics. Beautiful place, San Francisco but it is the perfect example of beauty being only skin deep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
What do you think would happen if someone tried that here in Texas? I would hate to see what the people would do. Don\'t think that it would ever make it to a vote though.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
More people die in San Francisco from AIDS than from guns. Ban homosexuals, not guns IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Puppage, those are mutually exclusive arguements.

I could careless what two men or two women do but when one calls into question my rights to bear arms, than I care.

Where do you see the correlation???

~A
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
APachon, it was a rhetorical observation.
However, if their reason for banning guns is, as they often state, to save lives (a BS argument if ever there was)....then this ceases to be rhetorical and becomes a bonifide parallel.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
239 Posts
Puppage, Guns and sexuality!! I think you better rethink that one? Your entitled to your opinion but rethoric like yours can offend. (pun intended) This forum is for CCW and CCW issues, not sexual preferences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Nighthawk...did you even READ the post above yours? I was referring to the amount of DEATHS, and if that was the reason for banning then THEY need to rethink. For God\'s sake, it was rhetorical to begin with & was just throwing out some food for thought. But, gee....thanks for letting me know what this board is all about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
As one lady on another forum said, the danger is in this metstasizing to other parts of the country. It needs to be put to a stop and immediately. Seems to me viloation of state law should get them out of office and in jail. But who knows in Kaliforina?:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
Read the San Francisco Supervisors list of things they have signed off to; lifestyle issues are tops for sucking money from the Fed\'s. Everything is socialization with their agenda, if you homeless, have aids etc, go to San Francisco there may be a government program to help you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
How can they take away anyone property without fair payment? I have well over $10,000 worth of guns, presses, reloading dies and ammo. Where will the money come from to reimburse people for their property? Or do they just plan on stealing it from citizens without compensation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Silvercorvette, you should know the answer to that one. Of course they will steal all they can get. That is DI-FI country. Only the rich and famous should have them, don\'t you know?:realmad:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,839 Posts
I could see that proposed legislation going down in flames because it smacks the face of logic even for San Francisco & will only increase violent gun crime.
But, as mentioned above - The sooner they pass it then the quicker it will be repealed. Though I would hate to see it go that far.
Concerning gays & lesbians - Many are using & training with firearms/handguns for personal protection since they are sometimes violently & unfairly targeted solely for their preferred private sexual orientation.
We absolutely cannot afford to alienate any pro-gun segment of the U.S. population.
I happen to prefer bombshell babes:D but I honestly developed a goodly amount of respect (on another forum) for the gay & lesbian population that carry for personal protection.
More specifically by reading the threads & comments posted by the head of the organization \"Pink Pistols\" - Those gay folks are absolutely 100% on our side of the 2nd amendment & are extremely intelligent, committed, & contribute MUCH time and effort & big dollars toward securing our general RKBA rights in the United States.
Never once did any of them try to force their sexual preference on any forum member or really even ever attempt to make their preferred lifestyle any sort of a forum issue.
They stayed right on track with gun & carry issues & we owe then the same basic respect.
By The Way: This should be considered to be just a \"general information comment\" and (For Sure) NOT directed toward forum member \"puppage\" since I honestly don\'t think that he was malicious in his comment and was obviously only referring to published death statistics AKA - A.I.D.S. VS Gun Death statistics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Originally posted by QKShooter
I could see that proposed legislation going down in flames because it smacks the face of logic even for San Francisco & will only increase violent gun crime.
But, as mentioned above - The sooner they pass it then the quicker it will be repealed. Though I would hate to see it go that far.
Concerning gays & lesbians - Many are using & training with firearms/handguns for personal protection since they are sometimes violently & unfairly targeted solely for their preferred private sexual orientation.
We absolutely cannot afford to alienate any pro-gun segment of the U.S. population.
I happen to prefer bombshell babes:D but I honestly developed a goodly amount of respect (on another forum) for the gay & lesbian population that carry for personal protection.
More specifically by reading the threads & comments posted by the head of the organization \"Pink Pistols\" - Those gay folks are absolutely 100% on our side of the 2nd amendment & are extremely intelligent, committed, & contribute MUCH time and effort & big dollars toward securing our general RKBA rights in the United States.
Never once did any of them try to force their sexual preference on any forum member or really even ever attempt to make their preferred lifestyle any sort of a forum issue.
They stayed right on track with gun & carry issues & we owe then the same basic respect.
By The Way: This should be considered to be just a \"general information comment\" and (For Sure) NOT directed toward forum member \"puppage\" since I honestly don\'t think that he was malicious in his comment and was obviously only referring to published death statistics AKA - A.I.D.S. VS Gun Death statistics.
There is a member of Pink Pistols that belongs to the 1911 forum I belong to. I have no problems with people from minority groups protecting themselves. Another important person from a minority group that is pro 2nd Amendment happens to be Dr. Condoleezza Rice
======================================


Condoleezza is pro 2nd Amendment
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, Nov. 20, 2004 9:36 p.m. EST
Condi: Why I Support the Second Amendment

Secretary of State nominee Dr. Condoleezza Rice is a big supporter of the second amendment, a commitment cultivated during her days growing up in Bull Conner\'s Birmingham, Alabama, when the shotgun wielded by her father was often the only thing that stood between her family and the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1963, racial violence was \"turning her hometown into \'Bombingham'as Alabama’s governor George Wallace fought a federal court order to integrate the city’s schools,\" writes Rice biographer Antonia Felix. In excerpts of her book \"The Condoleezza Rice Story,\" reprinted in the London Sunday Times, Felix recounts:

\"With the bombings came marauding groups of armed white vigilantes called \'nightriders,'who drove through black neighborhoods shooting and starting fires. [Condi\'s father] John Rice and his neighbors guarded the streets at night with shotguns.

\"The memory of her father out on patrol lies behind Rice’s opposition to gun control today. Had those guns been registered, she argues, Bull Connor would have had a legal right to take them away, thereby removing one of the black community’s only means of defense.\"

\"I have a sort of pure second amendment view of the right to bear arms,\" said the future Secretary of State.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,044 Posts
Originally posted by silvercorvette
\"The memory of her father out on patrol lies behind Rice’s opposition to gun control today. Had those guns been registered, she argues, Bull Connor would have had a legal right to take them away, thereby removing one of the black community’s only means of defense.\"

\"I have a sort of pure second amendment view of the right to bear arms,\" said the future Secretary of State.
Good woman :bowdown:
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top