Topic: All possession of guns illegal for citizens?

[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?

[caitlyn]

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.

Caitlyn

[Susan]

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.

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.

[HelenW]

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.

helen

[Chaunte]

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.

Chaunte

[caitlyn]

I will admit that with that part about Ann may have been tongue in Cheek, but when I saw the reference to Liberals I couldn’t resist throwing Ann in to see what would happen.  My apologies too any one I may have offended, but I honestly can’t promise not to stir the pot again some time in the future. 

In my state of Michigan we have a large body of citizens that have concealed pistol licenses I and spouse included.  This group of people has been studied very carefully to determine the affects of the law that allows any upstanding citizen, to apply for and get a concealed pistol license.  The studies have shown that the group as a whole, has not created any problems with their guns in the time (I am not real sure when the law was passed but I believe it is four years) that law has been in effect.. 

The interesting part of this process was that the Police and County clerk all know of my being transsexual and I still received the license with out problem or question.

PS: Good responses.

Caitlyn

[Kimberly]

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just a moment. Does not the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights blatantly say I can have a gun if I wish? "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Isn't it quite against the governing laws of this nation to "make any possession of firearms illegal"


Anyway to answer the question I think each house should have a loaded fire arm (and the occupants skilled and knowledgeable on it's use and safety!) Lets go one more step and waive the occupants liability for shooting a trespasser into their house. (Not so much fun to rob someone when you get shot now is it? ^*chortle*) -- It would never work of course, but details

[Chaunte]

Kimberly,

That's why I worded my response the way I did.  "The second ammendment, as it is presently defined, allows people to own firearms." 

The entire gun-control / right-to-bear-arms debate is a good one and I can see both sides of the issue.  All I was saying is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the ammendment at this time.  Some future court may change this position.  Until then, however, the interpretation is as it is...

Chaunte

[jan c]

Caitlyn, the thread is by definition in the political realm. I am not trying to be real delicate here. It does not ignore the criminal element - to wit: "now as a practical matter this may not mean a whole hell of a lot." The citizenry should have the ability to defend itself against the criminal element AND AGAINST THE POLICE AS WELL, as in my experience these two are not necessarily actually different, they tend to overlap quite a bit. And my statement the 'po-lice are the only ones that may', means LEGALLY. The people of SF with registered handguns are expected to give it up. (I did neglect to point out there is apparently some difference between handguns and, say, hunting rifles, in the new legislation.)

Btw, and Noto Bene: our house was recently entered and an attempt at 'armed' robbery was made. I was able to foil the attempt with a butter knife, not kidding here (I guessed that the gun was either fake or not loaded), but my roommate was fairly terrorized by this event. So Kimberly I am with you.


Posted at: April 14, 2006, 12:09:37 PMIt is interesting to me that no one has anything to say re: "is this a clueless advancement of a police state?", which I'd hoped the most provocative part of the thread. [This ordinance is obviously unconstitutional, not too unusual these days to see this from either side of the political spectrum.]
Could be that no one else has seen that side of 'the law' at work. Remember that this nation was founded by a violent revolution.

[Chaunte]

Jan,

I didn't want to get into a discussion about having an armed populace is a good way to keep the government from becoming a police state.  If the citizens are able to violently reform the government, the government is much more likely to be reformed through 'diplomatic means.'

BTW, I believe that what the present administration and Congress has done in the name of security is highly unconstitutional.  That is why I am voting against every incumbant that has supported the (un)Patriot Act and other such legislation.

Chaunte

[jan c]

yeppir, it's highly unconstitutional and highly UnAmerican. Also the present gang, it's more than a gang, they are extremely organized. They have stolen two elections, they only need to keep it close, they will steal a third. Ad infinitum. And they do know how to keep it close enough. The populace as currently situated, pot to piss in, bread and circuses, does not have enough dissatisfied customers, motivated anywhere near enough to revolt.
It is my view that the status quo will prevail short of revolt. When EG: San Franciscans are this clueless, it would be more than naive of me to imagine anyplace else (not that SF is so special anymore, but it is one place that has alternative press that is not owned by Clear Channel - that's right, you read right, Clear Channel owns The Village Voice and is intent on controlling the media across the board eventually. Any study of history obviously tells us that control of information is the key to absolute control of the populace.) getting the moxie up to make a real stand.
I am enough of an alarmist? I don't even think so.


Posted at: April 14, 2006, 02:50:41 PMAnd I do hope your vote counts, Chaunte. I am not confident of that anymore is what I am saying.


Posted at: April 14, 2006, 02:52:44 PMOne more thing, and I am outta here.
How Do You Talk To A Fascist? They have not the slightest intent on listening, unless you have hewed to their line in the first place.

[Chaunte]

Jan,

I have to believe that my vote counts, as well as everyone else who votes and does not vote.  THat is why I continue to live here.  To give up on my vote having any clout is to hand the government over to some aparatchek.  I refuse to do that.

No surrender!

Chaunte

[NightAngel]

I live in Europe and I think that non of my neighbors has any piece of firearms, so I really don't understand what is it with you Americans and this obsessions about firearms 
At least you could have a lot less self wounded or self killed people if you don't have so much guns in almost every home.
The gangs ... you can gave them guns or not they will always found the way to get one when they needed.

That's my opinion, maybe wrong but I would never buy a gun to have it at home where my kids (if I have some) can reached and harmed themself or others.

Michelle

[jan c]

The very fact that (sic) "they will always found the way to get one when they needed" is precisely what I'm on about.
Two boys enterered my house last month: "Don't nobody move! Give me all your mutha-(*&$^@ money!"
"Don't have no money here, son"
I went to the kitchen, to the silverware drawer, the kid followed me in, on top were only the butter knives. I guess I looked scary enough with that, they RAN, but next time, may not be enough ammunition.
"You Americans and your obsession with firearms" ?

[NightAngel]

"You Americans and your obsession with firearms" ?

yes exactly, I wonder why that doesn't happen here in Europe or Canada (at least much less than in USA)? I live in this town more than 30 years and never heard about something like you said.
It's just because you allowed anybody to have the fire weapons if there would be laws and penalties about walking around with weapon would be everything different but no you need a weapon, but not one better buy three or more so the criminals can steal that wepon and make another crime somewhere else.
Also your picture says it all, have a nice day, hopefully without weapon.

Michelle

[Dennis]

I don't know that gun control would be particularly effective in the States after all these years of not having it. In any event, I'm not fond of guns myself, but that's because I've only lived in Canada and the UK, neither of which has a gun culture.

The thing that bugs me is Americans not respecting our culture and bringing their firearms across the border. I used to work at the Canada/US border and we'd arrest at least one American a day trying to carry his or her personal firearm into our country. What's worse is that they were often camping, so the firearms would be accessible to thieves. RCMP caught one guy breaking into a camper that had 5 handguns in it. Although it'd be naive to think that criminals don't have guns up here, they're not as commonly used and I really don't appreciate anyone making them more accessible to criminals.

The prevalence of guns does make me wary of travelling in the US, that's for sure. It's about the last place I'd pick for a camping holiday because of that. I still think about a newspaper article I read about two women who were camping in Oregon and some nutbar shot and killed them in their tent because he thought they were lesbians and felt it his duty to take them out.

But, it is your country. If people carrying guns is what you want, then go for it, as long as they don't bring them across the border. I do think the rationalization about using them to limit government abuse is a bit outdated. The Patriot Act and related legislation did more damage to individual rights and liberties than anything a past government has done in the last 100 years and I didn't see anyone using their firearms to stop that.

Dennis

[jan c]

now I'm really tickled. hee hee hee.

 I do think the rationalization about using them to limit government abuse is a bit outdated. The Patriot Act and related legislation did more damage to individual rights and liberties than anything a past government has done in the last 100 years and I didn't see anyone using their firearms to stop that.


Dennis

i haven't rationalized anything. I am posing some talking points, and trying to see some things. Now, how, "outdated"? I am really trying not to have a failure of imagination here. We have a really, truly abusive government here. I expect these people to cling tenaciously to their power; it is really close to absolute, and absolutely corrupt. (Up in the Great White North, Your Mileage May Vary.) As for the Patriot Act, a truly self-concerned and self-governed populace might have risen up agin it. The State of the Union in the USA looks a lot like Deutschland circa 1930 to me.



Posted at: April 15, 2006, 02:42:03 PM

yes exactly, I wonder why that doesn't happen here in Europe or Canada (at least much less than in USA)? ...
Also your picture says it all, have a nice day, hopefully without weapon.

Michelle

I imagine it doesn't happen in Europe because some nations there have had it happen time and time again, and have learned their lesson, for now anyways; this here is a very very young nation by comparison.
A little history lesson I simply must share: right now my house is in Richmond California. Now Richmond is a city because of one thing historically: The US was extremely reluctant to get into the problems of Europe in the 1930's because it became entangled in WWI, a big big mistake. We got one of our big naval bases bombed on December 7 1941. We finally entered the fray.
To do this, a major shipbuilding effort had to be undertaken. The industrialist Henry J. Kaiser got the first contract with the goverments of this country and some others, EG: Great Britain. The builiding commenced in a little town in the Northeast San Francisco Bay Area, called Richmond. Now this effort attracted black people from all over the US to work, the pay was decent, the work was steady. Now Richmond is a pretty big town; it is a port town; port towns can be pretty rough, we are not talking about established classes of people. Unfortunately, due to a whole host of history that most Americans have some idea of, Richmond is the homicide capital of California, that's right not even EG: Compton can touch us.
This insane event happened to me, because I am SO not militant, we LEFT OUR DOOR UNLOCKED on a regular basis. Now because I have a real girly girl as a roommate, we lock it now. Me, I ain't terrorized so easy; I chased the gun-totin' thugs off with a butter knife. I have been in exactly three altercations in my life; two were absolute self-defense, one was with a Neo Nazi (they got those in Europe, too, don't they?)
So your perception of me is cute, yer funny!
[Now this I'm still giggling about: the avatar; the little bar at the bottom can be dragged to the right for the other part of it. Same girl. (the caption underneath it all is a song title; 'will you still love me UNDERNEATH IT ALL. It's subtle. Maybe.) I hadn't even considered that such an image was militant. LOL! That look is a very average example of what is popular in casual wear for young women here, in California at least. (Anybody here wanna tell Michelle who that's a picture of? I wish I looked that good, maybe 20 yrs ago...)]
You are so sweet and innocent Michelle, I feel I just want to protect you!

[NightAngel]

I feel I just want to protect you!

Who know's, maybe I will need your protection someday  ... look jan c,  i don't want to fight with you or someone else, I just told my opinion about that question, that's all.
I just see all that in different light because I live in relatively peaceful country where is no need for firearms.

Michelle

[jan c]

Michelle, I know sweety, I am very playful that way, didn't mean to be rough with the history. I'll be gentle from now on, k? I sometimes wish I did not live in The Wild Wild West as I do, but dem's de breaks.
Peace.

[Dennis]

Jan, I didn't say you rationalized anything. It's a common reason given by pro-gun lobbies, the armed rebellion against the state.  That, I think is outdated. Firearms are a part of American culture. To try and go back on it now would probably be dangerous.

And it is quite different living in a country where we don't carry guns. I am considering carrying a butter knife from now on though

Dennis