Activism and Politics > Politics

All possession of guns illegal for citizens?

(1/16) > >>

jan c:
I saw a reply of Leigh's to an old thread, deliberately provocative, re: RED state freedom vs BLUE state religious control. This referred to the freedom of the citizenry to bear arms. Last year San Francisco CA voted to make any possession of firearms illegal. So, the po-lice are the only persons that may. (now of course as a practical matter this may not mean a whole hell of a lot). But, just as a philosophical point, were the voters of SF right to do this? Is this a clueless advancement of the police state by the ostensibly 'liberal' city of SF?


I have tried several approaches to respond to this thread without entering the political realm, and find it impossible to do so. 

This thread is flawed in that it assumes that only the Police will have guns and totally ignores the criminal elements that totally ignore the laws on gun control.  “Criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns.”  After all their possession was illegal for criminals before the laws were written and they ignored the existing laws at the time and now only they and the police carry them.  Something seems strange about that logic.  In states like Texas crime has declined in certain areas and studies have shown it through fear of citizens being able to defend themselves with legally carried concealed firearms.

Ann Coulter sums it up best in her book How to Talk to a Liberal, you can talk to them but they generally aren’t listening.



--- Quote from: caitlyn on April 13, 2006, 07:54:25 pm ---Ann Coulter sums it up best in her book How to Talk to a Liberal, you can talk to them but they generally aren’t listening.

--- End quote ---

That's a broad generalization. Any time you paint such a large group with one brush you are invariably  wrong. It's like saying gay men are pedophiles when in fact scientific studies have shown that most pedophiles are straight heterosexual males. Also quoting someone of this nature doesn't help, instead hurts your argument.

I tend to find it's people like Ann Coulter who are generally closed minded inflexible and often unwilling to take factual information and use it to adjust their beliefs. Instead they immerse themselves in delusions and denials of reality.

It's like the 30% of the US that still think George Bush is a great president in spite of the lies, unethical acts, scandals, and other illegal and unconstitutional acts committed by his administration, his political party, and himself.

I think Anne Coulter is a ravenous publicity hound who will say anything to shock people into talking about her.  The grossest form of exhibitionist.

But "gun control" laws are a joke too.  Make them all illegal and organized crime has a new market, next to drugs, prostitution and gambling.  Even if all US gun manufacturers were shut down, the criminals would get the tools of their trade through smuggling and underground domestic manufacture (it really isn't that hard to make a gun!).

Should everyone be able to buy and carry a firearm?  NO!  Of course not!  Should sane, reasonably intelligent people be able to?  Yes.  (Yes, we CAN tell the difference!)  Should weaker people be able to successfully deter stronger people from doing them harm?  You bet!  I'm one of them!  I think the citizens of San Francisco made a mistake.


The city ordinance is unconstitutional.

The second ammendment, as it is presently defined, allows people to own firearms.  Any test of this ordinance in court would be immediately thrown out on that basis.  Federal law takes precidenc

The people of SF are trying to make a statement.  Unfortunately, all it will do is tie up an already over taxed legal system.  All it takes are 2 attorneys both trying to make a name for themselves, will probably file suite and end up turn the debate into a 3-ring circus.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version