San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[Arba_Sicula]

Isidore_AK:

So in the end, we have to fight for our gun rights on your home turf, because evejntually you will get around to denying me the right to bear arms in MY home turf.

No. You bear what your will. Don’t deny us the perogative to ban guns here.

Don’t you understand that most of the firearms that criminals use are NOT legally owned or possessed? Don’t you understand that the criminals get their guns the same places they get their drugs?

That’s true for both carry states and non-carry states.

Why hassle those of us who purchase guns at gunshows? We go through the exact same FBI check when we buy a gun there as we would at the store (just an FYI, the vast majority of venders at the gun shows are gun store owner/operators, just like any other trade show). If you want to decrease crime, go close the mexican border. That’ll put a serious hurt on the drug trade & stop most of the illegal weapons from coming in as well.

Good points, but not applicable here. There aren’t gunshows, etc. in NYC

I’m betting that in your vaunted NYC there are thousands of perfectly reasonable, lawful citizens, who own illegal weapons. These people would be criminals in your city for nothing other than exercising their God given right to bear arms.

Hardly a God-given right IMO, but if they own illegal weapons, they are criminals. There are thousands of perfectly reasonable, lawful citizens who own pot plants here and grow their own, but regardless how good they are otherwise, they’re still criminals in the eyes of the law.

I personally have no beef against what you folks do in your jurisdictions - really. I’d not deny you carrying guns where you live given that you voted to allow that.

Don’t restrict us, however. You like guns and want them - okay. We don’t care for them and don’t want them - that should also be okay.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I think each community has the right to determine what the most appropriate weapons legislation for themselves. Guess that makes me a local-government conservative on this issue.

No, it makes you an anti-Constitutional liberal.
Philip P:

However, I do get annoyed with the ardent pro-guners who would deny the right to self-government of my community.

Do you hold that your community has the right to legalize slavery?

If they cannot violate the 13th Amendment by local option, how can they violate the 2nd?
Philip P:

Now, as far as the gun TRADE, that’s a whole 'nother can of worms. The majority of guns used in crimes in NYC are acquired in states with lax gun purchase laws.

No, they are not. They are stolen.
Philip P:

Make whatever weapons carrying regulations you like for your community, but insufficient due dilligence as to WHO you are selling to is irresponsible. When states let criminals buy guns, they’re hurting all of us.

When states and communities violate the civil rights of their citizens and deprive them of the means of self-defense, they’re hurting all of us.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

If they cannot violate the 13th Amendment by local option, how can they violate the 2nd?

New York State does not restrict one’s ability to own hunting weapons. Even in New York City, one can own hunting arms, and in fact, one here can own a pistol - without any permit! - if the weapon is a muzzleloader. So, it’s not as if we here were denying anyone the right to bear arms.

In the interests of common safety, we restrict carrying concealed handguns, a not unreasonable regulation in this city. I checked, and even in Vern’s Arkansas, one can’t go into a bank or bar carrying a concealed weapon nor into any business that puts up a sign on the door that tells people that they forbid firearms in their establishments. Regulation and restriction of particular weapons isn’t the same as an across the board ban of all firearms.

When states and communities violate the civil rights of their citizens and deprive them of the means of self-defense, they’re hurting all of us.

Yes, that statement is your sincerely held position, though I disagree with all of its points.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

New York State does not restrict one’s ability to own hunting weapons. Even in New York City, one can own hunting arms, and in fact, one here can own a pistol - without any permit! - if the weapon is a muzzleloader. So, it’s not as if we here were denying anyone the right to bear arms.

New York State does not restrict freedom of the press. Even in New York City, one can own quill pens, and in fact, one here can own a fountain pen - without any permit! - if the the pen is loaded with an eye dropper. So, it’s not as if we here were denying anyone the right to freedom of the press.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Arba Sicula:

In the interests of common safety, we restrict carrying concealed handguns, a not unreasonable regulation in this city.

Actually it’s in the interest of the criminals’ safety that the victims be disarmed.
Arba Sicula:

I checked, and even in Vern’s Arkansas, one can’t go into a bank or bar carrying a concealed weapon nor into any business that puts up a sign on the door that tells people that they forbid firearms in their establishments. Regulation and restriction of particular weapons isn’t the same as an across the board ban of all firearms.

It’s still unconstitutional – and stupid, too.

After all, if you wanted to rob someone, who better than a merchant delivering his day’s reciepts to the bank?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

Actually it’s in the interest of the criminals’ safety that the victims be disarmed.

I don’t know how often I have to repeat this, but New York City is not a hotbed of crimes committed with guns. It is a safer place than most- and that’s a fact. Dope pushing is endemic here, yes, as is prostitution and illegal gambling, but those crimes are not gun related.

You folks have awfully vivid imaginations about the Big Apple.

It’s still unconstitutional – and stupid, too.

After all, if you wanted to rob someone, who better than a merchant delivering his day’s reciepts to the bank?

Then, as a resident of your state with a law repellent to you, try to get the restriction repealed. I’m all for local initiative when it comes to gun laws.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

I don’t know how often I have to repeat this, but New York City is not a hotbed of crimes committed with guns. It is a safer place than most- and that’s a fact. Dope pushing is endemic here, yes, as is prostitution and illegal gambling, but those crimes are not gun related.

Yes. The murder rate is less than, say Washington, DC.

But you have a strange paradox here. If there aren’t many violent crimes being committed, why should you care if I carry my gun when I come to visit?

But if there ARE a lot of violent crimes, then I need a gun.
Arba Sicula:

You folks have awfully vivid imaginations about the Big Apple.

No more vivid that your imagination about what your fellow New Yorkers would do if you allowed them their civil rights.
Arba Sicula:

Then, as a resident of your state with a law repellent to you, try to get the restriction repealed. I’m all for local initiative when it comes to gun laws.

And the Constitution? That has no bearing?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

Yes. The murder rate is less than, say Washington, DC.

And a lot of other cities, too.

But you have a strange paradox here. If there aren’t many violent crimes being committed, why should you care if I carry my gun when I come to visit?

A lot of jurisdictions with carry-laws don’t honor the carry-permits of every other carry-law state. We are doing no more than some carry-law states do.

But if there ARE a lot of violent crimes, then I need a gun.

Rest assured. If you don’t look for trouble here, you won’t find it.

No more vivid that your imagination about what your fellow New Yorkers would do if you allowed them their civil rights.

If it were me and a few hundred activists, I’d concede your sense that it is a matter of my personal imagination. But, frankly, I doubt that there are a thousand people in the city who want carry-laws. 7 million people who don’t want guns here aren’t all imagining things.

And the Constitution? That has no bearing?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I was speaking of your restriction on where guns can be carried. I don’t know a thing about the Arkansas Constitution and whether it allows unrestricted carrying of a concealed weapon within your state.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

No more vivid that your imagination about what your fellow New Yorkers would do if you allowed them their civil rights.

Or the imaginitave idea that we are all toothless and trigger happy.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

Or the imaginitave idea that we are all toothless and trigger happy.

Hardly toothless with a gun in your hand, but you certainly can’t deny that some gunnies on this thread talk about having to go out armed as though there was a band of robbers at every street corner.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

A lot of jurisdictions with carry-laws don’t honor the carry-permits of every other carry-law state. We are doing no more than some carry-law states do.

That’s a statement the slave-holding states could have made in 1860.
Arba Sicula:

Rest assured. If you don’t look for trouble here, you won’t find it.

Odd, isn’t it, how every now and then someone who isn’t looking for trouble does find it?
Arba Sicula:

If it were me and a few hundred activists, I’d concede your sense that it is a matter of my personal imagination. But, frankly, I doubt that there are a thousand people in the city who want carry-laws. 7 million people who don’t want guns here aren’t all imagining things.

And there were few Germans actively opposing the Nazis, too.

Yet I will go out on a limb and say there are more than a thousand people in New York City who do have carry permits.
Arba Sicula:

I was speaking of your restriction on where guns can be carried. I don’t know a thing about the Arkansas Constitution and whether it allows unrestricted carrying of a concealed weapon within your state.

I am speaking of the United States Constitution – what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Hardly toothless with a gun in your hand, but you certainly can’t deny that some gunnies on this thread talk about having to go out armed as though there was a band of robbers at every street corner.

All the talk like that I see is on the other side – how if people are allowed their civil rights all sorts of bad things will happen.

Since we know those bad things didn’t happen in the 38 states that have “shall issue” laws, it appears the unrealistic imaginations are on the other side.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

That’s a statement the slave-holding states could have made in 1860.

Maybe so.

Odd, isn’t it, how every now and then someone who isn’t looking for trouble does find it?

Yes, but the ways to deal with it don’t have to automatically involve using a gun.

Yet I will go out on a limb and say there are more than a thousand people in New York City who do have carry permits.

Yes, you are correct. I didn’t think about that as I should have. Jewelry messengers like my wife’s relative, private investigators, people regularly carrying large amounts of money, and others can, in connection with their activities get carry permits. But, even so, there can’t be that many carry permits circulating. I have no idea how many, though.

I am speaking of the United States Constitution – what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

We differ irreconcilably, it seems. I agree with you that Americans have a right to own firearms, but I believe that restrictions can be placed on that right - e.g. no concealed handguns, no machine guns, no missiles, no crew-served weapons and such. And even, no carrying a gun into a bank or drinking establishment or any business that doesn’t want armed customers on the premises, as in your state.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Yes, but the ways to deal with it don’t have to automatically involve using a gun.

The problem is, sometimes nothing less than a gun will save the victim’s life.
Arba Sicula:

Yes, you are correct. I didn’t think about that as I should have. Jewelry messengers like my wife’s relative, private investigators, people regularly carrying large amounts of money, and others can, in connection with their activities get carry permits. But, even so, there can’t be that many carry permits circulating. I have no idea how many, though.

Does it occur to you that every person you see walking down the street carries something more valuable than what your wife’s relartive, the jewlery messenger, carries?
Arba Sicula:

We differ irreconcilably, it seems. I agree with you that Americans have a right to own firearms, but I believe that restrictions can be placed on that right - e.g. no concealed handguns, no machine guns, no missiles, no crew-served weapons and such. And even, no carrying a gun into a bank or drinking establishment or any business that doesn’t want armed customers on the premises, as in your state.

Would you agree that while Americans have the right to freedom of speech, restrictions can be placed on that right – for example, no one should be allowed to disagree with the government?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

The problem is, sometimes nothing less than a gun will save the victim’s life.

Could be.

Does it occur to you that every person you see walking down the street carries something more valuable than what your wife’s relartive, the jewlery messenger, carries?

The authorities, however, gear the permits to the protection of property valuables.

Would you agree that while Americans have the right to freedom of speech, restrictions can be placed on that right – for example, no one should be allowed to disagree with the government?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Like not crying out “Fire!” in a crowded theater? Or no publication of obscenity? Some restrictions can be made, I think…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

The authorities, however, gear the permits to the protection of property valuables.

Protection of property is more important than protection of human life?
Arba Sicula:

Like not crying out “Fire!” in a crowded theater? Or no publication of obscenity? Some restrictions can be made, I think…

Note how in the first case, the prohibition against crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater is aimed at the preservation of human life. Whereas depriving a person of their rights under the Second Amendment leaves them unable to protect their lives.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

Protection of property is more important than protection of human life?

According to the regulations, it is.

Note how in the first case, the prohibition against crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater is aimed at the preservation of human life. Whereas depriving a person of their rights under the Second Amendment leaves them unable to protect their lives.

You call it “depriving a person of rights,” I call it regulating the use of firearms. Two different points of view.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

According to the regulations, it is.

And you agree with that – that property is more important than human life?
Arba Sicula:

You call it “depriving a person of rights,” I call it regulating the use of firearms. Two different points of view.

Actually, I call it victim disarmament – and you seem to favor disarming the ordinary citizen, while allowing the rich and powerful to be armed.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

And you agree with that – that property is more important than human life?

Of course not. But, I have no interest in getting a permit (like most New Yorkers) so the city’s reasons don’t matter to me.

Actually, I call it victim disarmament – and you seem to favor disarming the ordinary citizen, while allowing the rich and powerful to be armed.

I want all New Yorkers disarmed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Of course not. But, I have no interest in getting a permit (like most New Yorkers) so the city’s reasons don’t matter to me.

Since you support them, the City’s reasons are your reasons.
Arba Sicula:

I want all New Yorkers disarmed.

But you can’t have that – for 70 years, New York has tried, and armed criminals are still preying on the citizens.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

Since you support them, the City’s reasons are your reasons.

Maybe so, but I don’t worry about it.

But you can’t have that – for 70 years, New York has tried, and armed criminals are still preying on the citizens.

And they’ll still be doing it whether the citizens are armed or not.