San Francisco, which seems to have more stupid people running the city than anywhere else in the U.S., is set to vote Tuesday on Proposition H, which would make it illegal for anyone to own or possess handguns in the city. Police are up in arms against the measure.
Anyone who already owned a handgun would be required to turn it in before April 1, 2006, under the measure, and people would be prohibited from bringing handguns into the city.
The usual left-leaning suspects are spouting off the usual tripe about this measure.
“We had a record 88 homicides last year,” said Supervisor Chris Daly, a leading advocate of the measure. “We’re in the 70s now this year. Most of them are handgun-related. It’s clear that the city has yet to figure out how to get a handle on the problem. A ban — that type of gun control can play a part in stemming the tide of violence.” — San Francisco Chronicle
There is precisely one gun store in the city and county of San Francisco, and it declined comment.
Now, what the usual left-leaning idiots who don’t understand gun violence and criminal behavior at all don’t seem to understand is that these guns used in street violence are almost never “legally” obtained. That’s right, the law already prohibited these criminals from obtaining the guns they somehow got! This is what we call a black market. If Proposition H passes, the black market will simply expand if necessary to cover any additional demand for illegal guns.
“Those who are committing violence on the street don’t use legally obtained guns anyway,” said Larry Barsetti, a retired San Francisco police lieutenant. — Ibid.
Told you so. Police have been saying the same thing all over the country for years. That’s right, the cops want ordinary people to purchase, become familiar with, and carry guns to defend themselves.
“The facts are in and the record is clear: right-to-carry gives law enforcement, their families and our communities real protection from violent criminals,” said James J. Fortis, executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
And the real losers here will be the law-abiding citizens of San Francisco, who will have one less option for defending themselves from criminals.
And I didn’t even get into the fact that Proposition H probably won’t stand up in court. The California Supreme Court has previously ruled that only the state can regulate possession of firearms.
“We’ve crafted the measure carefully so it has a chance to withstand a challenge of state pre-emption,” Daly said. “The NRA’s going to have some good lawyers, but I don’t think they’ll be as good as my lawyer, Dennis Herrera, the city’s lawyer, the people of San Francisco’s lawyer.” — Ibid.
You asshole. The people of San Francisco deserve protection from violent crime, not to have it taken away from them. Don’t fall for Daly’s (and the left’s) bullshit. Vote for the right to defend yourself and your family from violent criminals. Vote NO on Proposition H.
(Hat tip: Questions and Observations)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3472 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Ron Wrinkle
Nov 07, 2005
The right wingnut who published this nonsense stated: “Police are up in arms against the measure.”
That was enough to make me realize he has no credibility. Which police? My daugher is a Police Officer and would love to see all handguns outlawed. What good are they? Statistics are very clear that most handgun homicides are committed by family and friends in domestic violence. The majority of citizens do not have the skill to defend themselves with a gun they purchased “for protection.”
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws AND THE POLICE will have guns.
I am a former gun shop owner (the Outdoorsman that was located on the 700 block of Columbus Ave.) and am scared to death of the damn things.
Go back to your muzzle loading squirrel guns the framers of the Constitution were referring to and keep the red coats at bay.
Meanwhile, the fewer guns we have on San Francisco streets there are, the safer I would feel.
Consider: If there were no handguns available, where would the criminals get them?
Let the handgun madness stop. And let San Francisco lead the way.
Michael Hampton
Nov 07, 2005
Well, since you’re perpetuating the handgun madness, let me interject some reality into this.
First, your daughter is a rare exception. Almost every police officer will disagree with her in the strongest possible terms on this point, and I’ll let the regular readers here who are cops speak up on this.
Second, if handguns are banned, criminals will get them the same place they already do: somewhere else. You think the drug dealers on Mission got their guns from a gun store? I’ve already talked a bit about how the black market works, but I can explain it in more depth if you’re still confused.
Third, you really should read the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It’s amazing the creative ways people come up with to kill each other, even when firearms are not available. Simply removing one type of weapon isn’t going to prevent anything but accidental death by firearms in the domestic cases you cite. Anyone driven to murder will find a way, such as throwing the victims into San Francisco Bay.
Fourth, I don’t know what they taught you in California, but here in the United States, we actually respect the Constitution.
Finally, you shouldn’t feel safer if Proposition H passes. You should be far more worried. It will do absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, and we have years of history in Chicago, New York City and Washington, D.C. proving this. What it will prevent is anyone being able to use a handgun to defend themselves from violent crime. Private citizens killed 229 felons in the commission of a felony in 2004, 139 of which used handguns. (Law enforcement killed 437 felons in 2004, 372 with handguns.) That’s 139 innocent people who would be dead or worse if not for their guns. And this doesn’t even report the number of people who never had to fire their guns, which is far, far larger.
P.S. I wrote the above article, and I’m certainly no right winger.
Michael Hampton
Nov 07, 2005
Oh, forgot something.
Obviously your daughter has no credibility.
Jason
Nov 08, 2005
Ron, I have a great idea.
Let’s take every firearm away from EVERYBODY.
That way, when someone storms a government or other important corporate building, no one can legally defend themselves, because they abided by the law and turned in their weapon(s).
And those who broke the law are now KILLING EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN SIGHT.
Yeah, great fucking idea, jackasses.
(Note: Last comment was not directed at Ron, it was directed at the retarded ass congressman (woman?).
Dale
Nov 09, 2005
When I joined the armed services I took an Oath to defend this nation from all enemies both foriegn AND DOMESTIC, How am I to do this if I can not arm myself. And don’t you think that anyone who propses such a measure as H is far more dangerous to our way of life than the guns. The guns are tools ,The person proposing this is in a position to have his will imposed on others. I fear for us all if this passes. just a quick quote to end my tyraid
“Today , for the fisrt time in history we have total gun control, Our people are safer , Our police are safer , And our country is safer”
oct 23 1939
State of the nation address
Berlin Germany
Adolf Hitler Chancellor
Michael Hampton
Nov 09, 2005
With 100% of precincts reporting, Proposition H seems to have passed, 58% to 42%. It seems 89,696 morons voted for it, and 65,185 people saw through Chris Daly’s rhetoric and did the right thing.
Now it goes to the courts.
Beau
Nov 09, 2005
I would like to comment on Ron’s lunacy. Apparently, he and his daughter would just as soon have us call 911 when we are threatened by an armed, violent criminal intent on doing us harm. Leave the protection to the police, the gun-haters say.
But no less than the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, the court found that the police had no requirement to enforce a restraining order against a man who had kidnapped his daughter from her mother, and later killed her.
Suprisingly (irony intended), a piece of paper and a phone call does NOT stop a criminal intent on doing harm to another.
Michael Hampton
Nov 09, 2005
Beau, you bring up a good point. The police are under no obligation to provide services to any particular individual, and cannot be held responsible for any failure to render assistance to any particular person. See, for instance, Warren v. District of Columbia.
Dial 911 and Die! has a good summary of several other cases where this sort of thing has happened.
Joe Delong
Nov 09, 2005
Uhh. What’s up? You mean I have to keep my dick in my pants? I’m not gay by the way. I just want to be able to whip out my gun when I want to . . . bitch.
Joe, SF California
Michael Hampton
Nov 09, 2005
Actually, you have to cut it off and turn it in to the SFPD before April 1.
tom lendy
Nov 09, 2005
I think that what Ron fails to realize is that the founding fathers didnt guarantee the right to keep and bear arms because they just liked guns. It is because intelligent people, such as the founding fathers, realize that guns are the only defense that someone has against many different threats. These threats are not only the criminals but also our own government.
The fact is that they were fighting a government that had gone too far. So the intent of the 2nd amendment was to give citizens the right to have a viable means of defense against a foreign invader among other things.. They did not want the people to not be able to defend themselves against an attack. Once you realize that the main reason to have guns is to defend yourself then you realize that being able to defend yourself against an attack would include having the same weapons available to citizens as the Army did. If they intended the “ARMS” in question to be plain old muskets that would not be looking out for our best interest. Obviously they realized that as time went on “arms” would become more advanced. The more advanced weapons get, the more we would need those advanced weapons to defend ourselves. I guarantee that if you asked the founding fathers “If Britain were to come back 150 years from now with weapons of the future that are far superior to our own would you want the citizens of this country to have those weapons, or would you want them to have these muskets” What do you think there answer would be? Dont be an idiot. Of course they want us to have those guns. Because they know that guns are the only viable means of defense we have. If our guns become outdated and antiquated then they no longer are capable of providing an adequate dfense.
As far as your daughter goes, she is one of the rare exceptions of a law enforcement officer wanting to take guns away. I think that this is obvious with the fact that the San Fran police comission opposed the bill.
I am from IL and I am only too aware of the negative aspects that can come from a gun ban. Look at Chicago. It has more murders than any other city in the country. And guns have been illegal here for more than two decades. And you should be thankful that your city is as safe as it is. The city of San Fran has a pop of 776k. There were 88 murders last year. Washington DC. has a population of 572k and had 248. Thats 350% of what you had and they have 200k less people than you do. They have had a ban on guns for 30 years. They have more murders with less people. Since there is less people and a ban on guns, you could assume that there would be less guns in DC than in San Fran. Yet there are more murders. Hmmm. Less guns equals more murder. Go figure that one (sarcasm intended)
tom lendy
Nov 09, 2005
Actually I gave you the wrong figure. It isnt 350% It is closer to 281%. I got on a roll and did the math incorrectly. My mistake.
Scott Watts
Nov 11, 2005
Mr. Wrinkle, there are really only 3 groups of gun owners, law abiding citizens, criminals, and the police. And of those 3 groups, the criminals are the ones that are commiting the murders and other gun related crimes, so wouldn’t it make sense to take the guns from those individuals? Yet you stated that “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws AND THE POLICE will have guns”. This means that the criminals still have their guns, and the police still have their guns, but the law abiding citizen will be the only person who was disarmed. With that in mind do you care to explain how proposition H is going to curb gun violence?
Bill
Nov 15, 2005
It sounds like I share like minds with most of the people commenting at this website. Another thing that people need to keep in mind is precedence. I don’t agree with people who think that it is ok to burn the flag, but I would never vote for an amendment that makes it illegal. Why? Because it is a right and every little seemingly unimportant right we give up is just a step closer to the big one we really care about. It might be only SF who is doing this now but it adds to the list of places in the U.S. where we cannot protect ourselves. If we allow these people who don’t understand the importance of this issue to set a large enough precedence, we may completely lose our right to own guns and become a country of “sheeple” completely controlled by whoever comes along next. If you doubt that anything like this is on the horizon consider the fact that we are now being taxed heavier than our founding fathers were when they decided to do something about it. I don’t see any Boston Tea parties happening today, but how long will the average American stand by and allow this to continue. And how strongly do you figure the individuals who benefit from our lack of Sac will fight to keep their free money pouring in? So bottom line is, this is not just some city doing some crazy thing. It is a threat to our freedom.
Antonio
Nov 15, 2005
Screw the politics. Get all the guns and ammo you can. and when they come for your’s. Give them all your ammo as well. !That will make a difference then. It’s a damn shame how so many brave peoples have fought to secure the freedom of this country. Just to see a bunch of liberal minded misguided cowards vot away their freedoms. Voto your freedoms away if you wish. But your not going to do mine. I promise you this. There will be a new type of violence in this country over the new sweeping gun vote bullshit that coming. One that will possibly throw the country in civil war. But “that”, is exactly what these NWO Traitors in the Federal Government want. !SO BE IT.
Craig Windmueller
Nov 21, 2005
I was visiting San Francisco in 1999 at a large conference. I was in a Bart Station late one night(after traveling the BART to a Warrior’s game) with a friend and an individual came up fast behind us. I had noticed him standing on a wall at the base of some stairs we just came down to wait for another train. There were few, if any people around that late. My friend had decided to walk along the tracks on a walk that was separated from the main platform by shops. We were basically alone. I pulled my .22 cal. revolver out of my pocket and held it out for the guy to see. He stopped like he hit a wall, turned and walked away. I knew what he wanted…but not from me that night. It was over in about two seconds. If I hadn’t been aware(SF is a bad town) I would probably not had time to show the gun. My friend never even knew I had drawn a gun. I grew up in the bay area(I’m in my fifties) and she is from a little midwest town that is quite safe so she has blinders on. Needless to say it is the first, and I hope only time I need to ever do that. By the way, the “other guy” never bothered to get upset. I guess he just went back to look for easier pickings. I know he was up to no good. I have seen his type many times. Glad I don’t live in San Francisco, can’t even defend myself. Oh, and if only I could carry a muzzle loading pistol to shoot red coats with in San Francisco. You people certainly are reality based.
Baden Powell
Nov 29, 2005
I’m impressed with Craig’s comments! Obviously here’s a guy not afraid to “pack” heat. No doubt you have the balls to shoot also. Just a few questions Craig:
1. I realize 1999 is some time ago but there were laws against carrying a concealed gun without a permit even back then. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that being a participant in a convention/conference you might be out of state. Did you carry this “concealed gun” in a law abiding fashion by obtaining a permit from the proper authorities in California? How were you trained to assess this situation so that should you need to use lethal force it would be applied correctly and you wouldn’t shoot yourself in the foot or worse your companion? Surely even if you were a law enforcement officer from out of state you can’t just waltze in carrying a concealed handgun without checking with the proper authorities.
2. What became of the “bad” guy. Did you call 911 on your cell phone and report this apparent assault on your person? did you stick around to insure, since you were favorably armed, that no other “easy pickings” came along in your most worthy place to get assaulted. The least I would have done is point this guy out to the police and let them deal with him. Ever hear of citizens’ arrest? No, I don’t think you would have the balls for that! :>(
Personally, I was trained by the NRA to shoot and acquired expert status in many shooting events. I abhore the stupidity I see from both sides of this argument. My reality is that guns are dangerous devices just like automobiles, which kill far more people annually, and need to be treated with respect. Of course, any breaking of current laws to use either does not reflect favorably on parties arguing one side or the other!
In fact, I bet you own at least 25 hand guns and live in Montana! Sorry Craig we all can’t live there!
Remember – do a good turn daily… it does a world of good for you and someone else and confuses the sh..! out of everyone else.
rolland
Dec 03, 2005
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Kenneth
Dec 21, 2005
I cant beleive what people say sometimes. To the person that said the guy with the .22 pistol should have pointed out the guy to the police. Are you insane? The police would do nothing as there was no actual crime commited. The man used common sense to assess a potentional dangerous situation and it worked. The man left. The police would have stated…uhmm…he did what??
B. Lukens
Jan 05, 2006
I believe the voters that voted yes to prop “H” had better take a good look at what they have given up. So, you personally may not like guns, however the right to own and have a gun is a constitutional right that you handed back over to your government. Did any of you ever think that this was only the beginning of what you might be asked to give up? I do not agree with a few other constitutional rights that everyone has, but I’m not so short sited as to vote to abolish them simply because I don’t agree with them. I hope those of you who voted in favor of this proposition (not gun owners I suspect) aren’t suprised or offended when your government asks you to give up your right to a fair and speedy trial, because it costs the county too much to foot the bill for justice. But look at the big picture, did you give up “a gun” or “a constitutional right”? By the way, I am a Police Officer and I fully support private ownership of firearms.
forstand
Apr 24, 2006
A handgun saved my life in Watts, California . . .
At the time I was a resident of California; currently I live in Texas. In the early 1980s I was on vacation and decided to drive to Los Angeles via Interstate 5, cross to Malibu Beach for a visit, then travel back up the Coast Highway (101).
While in Los Angeles I got lost and ended up in the Watts area of Los Angeles. This is a problem as I am white. I had to stop for a traffic light. It was a 6-lane divided street and I was in the left lane with no other vehicles (witnesses) around. A right turn was out of the question as I knew the street that I was on would take me towards Malibu. While stopped I observed 6-8 black males to the left and the same to the right getting up and walking in my direction. Their eyes were focused on me. I was a runt in size compared to these ‘gentlemen.’ I was driving a ’77 Toyota Land Cruiser. None of these individuals were carrying window-cleaning equipment so I did not believe that they were coming over to wash my windows for a ‘small donation.’
To put it bluntly, yes, I feared for my life as there were no cops anywhere and I was the only white person. It would have been dangerous for me to attempt a right turn onto a busy street and I still would have the problem of returning to the original street to continue my trip.
I grabbed my holstered handgun (6-shot .22 magnum) and placed it in plain view on the dash of my vehicle. All dozen or so ‘gentlemen’ saw the handgun and decided to return to where they were sitting.
Did the mere showing (threat if you prefer) save my life that day? There is no doubt in my mind that it did. Could I have tried driving away? Possibly. Would I have shot to kill if needed? Yes but only as a last resort. I don’t believe in warning shots.
The moral of this story is to use a GPS to avoid places like Watts. Carry a gun only if you are prepared to use it and take the legal consequences, especially in California where the dozen or so black gentlemen would have more rights than a single white man.
And, for the record, I would not turn myself in like Bernard Goetz did in New York for shooting the 5 black gentlemen (1984). He did the correct thing in shooting them as I believe that he would have been robbed or worse; this was self-defense, not vigilante justice. Had the blacks not been threatening then he would never have shot them.
Why am I writing this? I am looking to move from Texas and considered California where I am from. I left in 1992. I likely will end up in Idaho where I can defend myself and be armed sufficiently to do so.
May 26, 2006
Why I’m not a journalist, and how I’m biased - Homeland Stupidity
Jun 12, 2006
San Francisco Proposition H gun ban fails in court - Homeland Stupidity
rollywind
Jan 04, 2012
Ben Franklin: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.