Reply With QuoteDamn!!! WTF!! Don't the liberal dumb asses understand???? deterence = complance!!im keeping my stuff!!
I just read that SF is going to vote to totally ban handguns, except for police or military. If passed, you would not be able to buy, own or sell a gun. The only other major US city to have done this, Washington D.C., just happens to be the murder capital of the nation. Just goes to show you that logic or experience has never detered a liberal from a stupid cause. :hammer2:
Damn!!! WTF!! Don't the liberal dumb asses understand???? deterence = complance!!im keeping my stuff!!
Welcome to the UK, Australia, Canada, ect......
What did Hitler do? Disarm the citizens!!!!!! :hammerhea
OUT OF MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!!! :crossx:
yup you are right. They are at it again. Frisco's sups love to be the pioneers when it comes to far-left legislation.
Their logic (or lack thereof) is that since no one is a member of a militia then no one has the right to posses a gun.
My interterpretation of the second amendment is that we have the right to possess a gun so we can join a militia, if necessary.
The framers wanted us to have the right to "change" our government, by force if necessary, so the intent of the constitution is not to restrict gun ownership to just the government but allow all citizens to have a gun.
Actually, the logic is that once the citizens give up their guns the criminals will be so touched that they will drop their guns as well and everyone can hold hands and sing Kumbayah around a big campfire. In reality, once the citizens are denied their 2nd amendment rights, criminals will be emboldened and start doing whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want because they know there's a good chance none of them have a gun. You gotta love a city that treats the law abiding citizens like criminals and protects criminals from the consequences of their actions. Hopefully the NRA will tie this one up in court until the year 3000.
In reality, once the citizens are denied their 2nd amendment rights, criminals will be emboldened and start doing whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want because they know there's a good chance none of them have a gun.
That is exactly right. And that is what has happened in England!!! :220v:
Can you have the next best thing? How about a sawed off shotgun?
Washington DC had a gun ban, but it will soon be lifted by the supreme court... So the city with the highest murder rate(didn't change with the ban) is gaining guns, and the city with the lower rate is attempting to start the ban...
There is only one gun dealer in the SF city limits..
They're trying to write it so it's not unconstitutional, but it will likely be overturned and end up being a big waste of our tax money....
I think SoCal should anex from Norcal....
A 2001 report covered by the BBC, showed that there was a 40% increase in gun crimes two years after the 1997 gun ban. It also showed that the areas with the highest level of legal gun ownership, were inclined to have the least increase in gun crimes.
They showed that the criminals were smuggling, building and rigging guns and had little problems with the legal restrictions. It would seem to me that anyone with a modest knowledge of machine work, can fabricate a gun. The hard part is the the casings and powder for the bullets. England has even had report of screwdrivers that were made into one shot weapons.
It is hard to get a impartial analysis of the English results as there is much distortion on both sides, but one of the reasons we parted from England was the draconian rules that were being applied to the colonies without any representation that understood the needs of a wilderness.
I think SoCal should anex from Norcal....
I second the motion!
I think Southern Cal should annex from Northern Cal but you have to take San Francisco with the deal, you can have the 49ers, and Raiders too.
Posting Permissions