San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[koda]

manualman:

Frankly, this is typical California behavior.

Oppose construction of new nuclear, coal or hydro electric plants. Scream bloody murder when the rolling blackout start.

Oppose construction of new sanitary landfills when the per capita use of disposable products is among the highest in the world.

Require the cleanest auto emissions in the USA. Whine and complain about how your botique formula gas costs more than gas anywhere else in the country.

Ban military recruiting. Soon: Complain about Federal government slow response to disasters and lack of military assistance. You watch and see.

It’s just par for the course out there.

P.S. Lot got the heck out of Sodom! (And he didn’t even get rich on real estate in the process!)

I live in California. Yes, it’s true that we have our share of strange ideas but wanting clean air and water seem pretty reasonable to me. We want something cleaner than coal and safer than nuclear - but because this country is in the grips of the oil and coal industries there is no money for research into safer cleaner alternative. As for rolling blackouts, the state will be receiving millions from the likes of Enron who put us over a barrel and price gouged us nearly to death. The feds keep rolling back the dates when the US car makers have to make cleaner buring cars as well cars that get better gas mileage (no wonder everyone buys Japanese). And again, a lot of this has to do with the oil industry who want to sell as much of their product as they can, regardless of its effect on the environment. And they are price gouging as well - as you can see by the current actions in Congress demanding answers from the industry on their record profits.

You are very correct about the landfill and disposables. I think this is in large part due to the millions of folks who live here and feel they must work 80 hour weeks to keep up with the Joneses and therefore must use disposable everything because it’s faster and simpler for them.

 

[2shelbys]

catsrus:

Just a reminder, some of us live here.

Then you need to use your voice and your vote to end such nonsense.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by 2shelbys
Then you need to use your voice and your vote to end such nonsense.

I do and I have.
I don’t see any progress however.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catsrus:

I do and I have.
I don’t see any progress however.

With shot from the wall, they brake his engine. But he kept building it up and by dint of repeated blows smashed the Accursed Tower.

–Geoffry of Monmouth referring to Richard the Lion Heart at the seige of Acre

 

[Isidore_AK]

MikeWM:

Incredible. And horrifying

Mike

You find it horrifying, but when was the last time you heard about crimes being commited (in the US) with these weapons? It doesn’t happen. The people who own them are law-abiding citizens who just want to be left alone, & to play with their toys…

 

[JOHNYJ]

The recuiter part is only symbolical.It has no weight in law . San Francisco is a liberal,expensive city, It has became liberal by voting. Liberals and l;eftists ,vote ! If those with other political beliefs came out and voted ,there would be more balance in San Francisco politics.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

Since no one accepts me as the final arbiter of what my neighbors think or would do under various circumstances, it would be hubristic of me to set myself up as the arbiter of my neighbors.

No arbiter, but you certainly have an opinion of or a feel for what the folks in your part of your state are like.

What is “strapped?”

Carrying a concealed weapon. A street term.

I posted the figures for Richard Olsen. These are the relevant figures (latest available is 2000)

For your state or what?

Everybody except all those other people insured by State Farm who have higher premiums as a result of insurance fraud like this.

You may be right, but the mentality around here would be, “Who cares?” My point was that even law-abiding citizens here aren’t as “law-abiding” as folks might be in Arkansas and such states.

Who are these “neighborhood punks?” Do they have clean records?

Most likely yes, or misdemeanor raps only. I’d not like to see them with guns.

Let me ask you this – if you could carry a gun, what crimes would you commit?

I don’t know. I might have a case of road rage someday, and then it’s The O.K. Corral on Ocean Parkway with the other shooters. Better to remove that possibility for them and me.

Would having the right to carry a gun automatically make you a criminal?

Not automatically, to be sure.

I look at it in sort of a Law of Large Numbers way. In as populous an environment as this city’s, there are sure to be enough “law-abiding” crazies or even criminals who would qualify to get a permit and go around wearing a holster and revolver regardless how many other law-abiding citizens of your stripe go forth with a gun on their hips. It’s not you I’m afraid of. It’s the law-abiding trigger-happy types that I’d like to avoid.

But, again, I have no beef with people elsewhere who want more people to go around armed. I don’t live there, I live here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

No arbiter, but you certainly have an opinion of or a feel for what the folks in your part of your state are like.

And yet despite that, they persist in having all these expensive elections – when they could just come and ask me.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Arba Sicula:

For your state or what?

For the state of Arkansas – that’s what he was interested in.
Arba Sicula:

You may be right, but the mentality around here would be, “Who cares?” My point was that even law-abiding citizens here aren’t as “law-abiding” as folks might be in Arkansas and such states.

Are you law-abiding?

And are you better than all your neighbors?
Arba Sicula:

Most likely yes, or misdemeanor raps only. I’d not like to see them with guns.

If they are criminals, they cannot legally own or carry guns. Of course, as criminals they do carry guns. It’s only the victims who are unarmed.
Arba Sicula:

I don’t know. I might have a case of road rage someday, and then it’s The O.K. Corral on Ocean Parkway with the other shooters. Better to remove that possibility for them and me.

There are so many states (38 now) with shall-issue laws, and they have had them so long that it is simply not intellectually honest to predict what might happen when such a law is passed. The only honest thing is to report what did happen – and what did happen is that in each state violent crime went down.
Arba Sicula:

Not automatically, to be sure.

I look at it in sort of a Law of Large Numbers way. In as populous an environment as this city’s, there are sure to be enough “law-abiding” crazies or even criminals who would qualify to get a permit and go around wearing a holster and revolver regardless how many other law-abiding citizens of your stripe go forth with a gun on their hips. It’s not you I’m afraid of. It’s the law-abiding trigger-happy types that I’d like to avoid.

But, again, I have no beef with people elsewhere who want more people to go around armed. I don’t live there, I live here.

So you’re willing to sacrifice your friends, but strangers are allowed to protect themselves?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

And yet despite that, they persist in having all these expensive elections – when they could just come and ask me.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

You are far too modest. I’ll bet you have a very good impression indeed of what your neighbors are like.

Are you law-abiding?

Law-abiding enough.

And are you better than all your neighbors?

Modesty prevents me from replying.

If they are criminals, they cannot legally own or carry guns.

Felonies only or misdemeanors as well?

Of course, as criminals they do carry guns.

Some do, some don’t. I am acquainted with a number of men involved in criminal activities who are always unarmed. Petty racketeers, and such. Some with felonies, some without. I don’t mix with them - they tend to be low-class, but everyone knows a few like that.

There are so many states (38 now) with shall-issue laws, and they have had them so long that it is simply not intellectually honest to predict what might happen when such a law is passed. The only honest thing is to report what did happen – and what did happen is that in each state violent crime went down.

You’ve hit the nail on the head! “In each state.” New York is not without “carry laws,” but upstate New York, that is the smaller cities along the Hudson and the Mohawk rivers, the smaller cities in the interior and the rural counties may well permit folks to carry a revolver or such, without much risk or peril. The heady blend of humanity and emotions that is New York City is different. We’re not like Ithaca or Rochester or Saratoga. Not by a long shot.

So you’re willing to sacrifice your friends, but strangers are allowed to protect themselves?

We’re pretty much all strangers to one another here. And they’re not allowed to carry guns any more than I am.

Again, the right to carry a gun should depend on where it’s going to be carried - Wyoming isn’t Massachusetts and New Mexico isn’t New Jersey.

 

[Brad]

WanderAimlessly:

Fine on the Military Recruiting Ban. Cut off all federal funds to San Francisco and that includes any disaster relief funds for the the next earthquake.

PF

I agree. I think this should be done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Some do, some don’t. I am acquainted with a number of men involved in criminal activities who are always unarmed. Petty racketeers, and such. Some with felonies, some without. I don’t mix with them - they tend to be low-class, but everyone knows a few like that.

So the people who we both agree shouldn’t have guns do have them. Why then do you insist that their potential victims be disarmed?
Arba Sicula:

You’ve hit the nail on the head! “In each state.” New York is not without “carry laws,” but upstate New York, that is the smaller cities along the Hudson and the Mohawk rivers, the smaller cities in the interior and the rural counties may well permit folks to carry a revolver or such, without much risk or peril. The heady blend of humanity and emotions that is New York City is different. We’re not like Ithaca or Rochester or Saratoga. Not by a long shot.

No. In NYC only the rich and powerful can exercise their rights.
Arba Sicula:

We’re pretty much all strangers to one another here. And they’re not allowed to carry guns any more than I am.

Again, the right to carry a gun should depend on where it’s going to be carried - Wyoming isn’t Massachusetts and New Mexico isn’t New Jersey.

But people from New York are humans, aren’t they? And not inferior in their humanity to the rest of us?

Why, then are their rights so circumscribed?

 

[Brad]

“The measure, dubbed “College Not Combat,” opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding”

Opposition billboards should read:

“No Combat, No Colleges”

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

So the people who we both agree shouldn’t have guns do have them. Why then do you insist that their potential victims be disarmed?

I didn’t say that. I said that the few people I know to be criminals don’t go armed. There are extra penalties for committing a crime using a weapon. I suppose that these men don’t see any need to carry a gun when it is unnecessary to do so.

No. In NYC only the rich and powerful can exercise their rights.

Quite to the contrary!

But people from New York are humans, aren’t they? And not inferior in their humanity to the rest of us?

Philosophically speaking, they are like all other men. Sure.

Why, then are their rights so circumscribed?

Whoa! This isn’t Arkansas. If an election were held tomorrow about letting New Yorkers exercise their “right” to carry guns, it would go down fast and big-time. This is a liberal city. We aren’t Little Rock.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

I didn’t say that. I said that the few people I know to be criminals don’t go armed. There are extra penalties for committing a crime using a weapon. I suppose that these men don’t see any need to carry a gun when it is unnecessary to do so.

But they do. And the death toll from crime is proof.
Arba Sicula:

Quite to the contrary!

The wealthier and more powerful you are, the more likely you are to be able to get a carry permit in New York (and in many other places where guns are virtually outlawed.) If you’re rich enough, you can get permits for your bodyguards, too.
Arba Sicula:

Philosophically speaking, they are like all other men. Sure.

Then why do you insist that they, unlike other honest, law-abiding men, cannot be trusted with full civil rights?
Arba Sicula:

Whoa! This isn’t Arkansas. If an election were held tomorrow about letting New Yorkers exercise their “right” to carry guns, it would go down fast and big-time. This is a liberal city. We aren’t Little Rock.

If an election had been held in Little Rock in 1958 or thereabouts on the issue of letting Blacks go to school with Whites, it would have gone down fast and big-time.

That’s why we have a Constitution – to ensure that rights are respected, even if there is overwhelming opposition.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

But they do. And the death toll from crime is proof.

New York has lower death by gun statistics than most other states.

The wealthier and more powerful you are, the more likely you are to be able to get a carry permit in New York (and in many other places where guns are virtually outlawed.)

Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys? Maybe so.

If you’re rich enough, you can get permits for your bodyguards, too.

If the bodyguards are licensed Private Investigators, they can get permits on that account alone.

Then why do you insist that they, unlike other honest, law-abiding men, cannot be trusted with full civil rights?

You consider the “right” to carry a concealed weapon to be a “civil right.” I don’t.

That’s why we have a Constitution – to ensure that rights are respected, even if there is overwhelming opposition.

Again, you consider carrying a hidden gun in public a Constitutional right. I and most NYCites don’t.

I do agree, however, that there is a right to own guns in one’s own home or business, and a right to use long arms for hunting.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Vern, please read the thread, "Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?"

Have you statistics to rebut that article?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

New York has lower death by gun statistics than most other states.

What are “gun statistics?”

States with restrictions on guns generally have higher violent crime rates than states with shall issue laws.
Arba Sicula:

Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys? Maybe so.]

Politicians, movie stars, people who make big contributions to political campaign.
Arba Sicula:

If the bodyguards are licensed Private Investigators, they can get permits on that account alone.

So the wealthy are entitled to armed protection, ordinary citizens are not?
Arba Sicula:

You consider the “right” to carry a concealed weapon to be a “civil right.” I don’t.

There were people who did not consider the right to ride in any seat on the bus to be a civil right, too.
Arba Sicula:

Again, you consider carrying a hidden gun in public a Constitutional right. I and most NYCites don’t.

There were people who did not consider the right to attend local schools to be a civil right, too.
Arba Sicula:

I do agree, however, that there is a right to own guns in one’s own home or business, and a right to use long arms for hunting.

What article of the Bill of Rights addresses hunting?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

What are “gun statistics?”

States with restrictions on guns generally have higher violent crime rates than states with shall issue laws.

You’d better read the thread that takes issue with you on that.

So the wealthy are entitled to armed protection, ordinary citizens are not?

I do get armed protection, from professionals who carry guns.

There were people who did not consider the right to ride in any seat on the bus to be a civil right, too.

There were people who did not consider the right to attend local schools to be a civil right, too.

You’re clutching at straws with this sort of an appeal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

You’d better read the thread that takes issue with you on that.

I have. I’ve also read much more scholarly and exhaustive work that refutes the proposition that gun control somehow saves lives.
Arba Sicula:

I do get armed protection, from professionals who carry guns.

As you probably know, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled there is no individual right to police protection. Every dead citizen found in the street is an example of someone whom those professionals did not protect.
Arba Sicula:

You’re clutching at straws with this sort of an appeal.

It’s not an appeal – it’s an illustration of how wrong-headed bigots can destroy civil rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Vern, please read the thread, "Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?"

Have you statistics to rebut that article?

Start here: tsra.com/LottPage.htm

The most exhaustive stastical study ever done shows that allowing concealed weapons does reduce crime.

Note the irony – the question is no longer presented as “Allowing concealed weapons will increase crime.” That’s been so thoroughly shot down that the opposition has had to reword it to “Does allowing concealed weapons really **reduce **crime?”