|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
December 16, 2004It Can't Happen Here???San Francisco is considering a ban on all handgun ownership for its subjects. Only law enforcement would be allowed to defend themselves. From the AP:
Here we go, folks, another city decides to violate the Second Amendment and to deny residents the right to defend themselves from the mutants. If SF has such a high crime rate now, what on Earth makes the city supervisors think that completely disarming the law-abiding will make it any better? It hasn't worked in Chicago, it hasn't worked in DC, it's a total failure in England and Australia. And showing what complete morons they are, the San Francisco tyrants think that somehow it will be different in their town? Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. And given the liberal make-up of the city, the vote will probably pass. California already HAS tough gun control regulations in place and that hasn't worked. And if this ban is enacted, is it even constitutional? Unfortunately, the hyper-activist Ninth Circuit Court will probably rule that it is. Criminals in San Francisco must already be activating their grass-roots "get out the vote" machine cranked-up! *Sigh* Update: Some other bloggers have been covering this story too, including FreedomSight (also here) and Publicola as well as Hell in a Handbasket and Eric Scheie. Also Eugene Volokh. And plenty of others! Comments
I sold my home in the Castro district there last year after 20 years in the city - and hope I never have to see the place again. They deserve themselves. I finally could not take the downhill slide into lunacy that I saw all around me. Posted by: tim at December 16, 2004 09:37 AMSF passed a similar ordinance in the early 1980s, under then-Mayor Feinstein IIRC. That ordinance was struck down by the state Supreme Court as a blatant violation of the preemption law. I don't see how this one could fare any better. Posted by: Xrlq at December 16, 2004 10:20 AMAs they reap... Posted by: Bruce at December 16, 2004 10:56 AMAs a resident of Los Angeles, this is particularly troubling. I can hear the "if they can do it, why can't we?" chorus already. Fortunately, LA County is a patchwork of municipalities that are not all governed by the Los Angeles Mayor's Office. Oooh, someone's gonna pay for this... Posted by: Scott Ganz at December 16, 2004 12:17 PMThe case refered to above is Doe v. San Francisco, 1982. Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at December 16, 2004 12:25 PMIt's Peikoff-obvious that I'm absolutely against it. If Jeff Soyer and every other gun owner reading this were to point their guns at my head and shoot, I'd still have more brains left than everybody voting for this ban. My ultra-liberal friend Jeanine Ring is against it, too. She knows how necessary is the right to self-defense. Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson at December 16, 2004 07:11 PMHL: thanks for reminding us about the name of the case. Here's a link to the case itself. I was wrong about the court in question; apparently, this went down 3-0 at the appellate level and was not appealed (or cert was denied - which has the same effect in California, albeit not at the national level). Posted by: Xrlq at December 16, 2004 11:18 PMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |