Alphecca

Well, that makes my decision as to where to move next just a little easier.

Losers.

Anybody care to donate?

Well they will probably have told the police not to report any increace in crime and not to fill out any reports, Helps to make it look like that its working even though it isnt

First, to the loonies:

Remember folks, remember everyone who backed this goofiness. And count your "yes" vote among them.

That's who you will have to sue after your loved ones start being killed for fun.

Second, to the sane:

Cover up Mike? I seriously doubt it with the Blog Universe in it's current state. Seems the lack of 47 levels of editorial fact checking is proving to be the more accurate news these days.

People in a Demorcratic government get the government they deserve.

If the majority decide that they want to take the risk of being unarmed, then that is up to them, if the minority decide that the joy of living in San Francisco outweighs the risk involved in obeying the law that is their choice too.

I wonder if a ward decides to vote to not enforce the law if our liberal friends will consider it ok as they do with illegal immigration?

Sev: I'm really sure thugs have been waiting for this kind of vote to pass so that they can go around killing people for fun.
Sounds plausible.

There is a new name for the residents of San Francisco: "Targets"

I lived in San Francisco 8 years before moving to Houston in 2002. I always had handguns, and, oooh my goodness, I also reload my own bullets! Is that 'manufacture' under the new law? If only gang bangers sold stock .. the SFBAD listing would have got a huge boost yesterday.

Since this is unconstitutional based on California’s state constitution it’s little more than an opinion poll. Some one remarked that what’s going on in Paris couldn’t happen here, to many gun toting Americans would be out protecting their cars and businesses

"Couldn't happen here?"

New Orleans comes to mind after Katrina. Looters everywhere and the cops confiscating the law-abiding folk's guns.

Unconstitutional under the California Constitution? Try the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States! San Francisco is still part of the United States isn't it?

Question to San Francisco: how many criminals in San Francisco buy their firearms from reputable gun dealers within the city? You people are morons!

I live about 30 miles south of Baghdad-by-the-Bay. After Katrina I went out and bought my first firearm: a Mossberg Shotgun. When that thin-blue line breaks after the "Big One", I'll be able to defend my home and family from anyone tring to do us harm... how about you guys up the 101?

Lets just hope the big one comes along soon so the hole left half of the state slides off into the pacific, a lot fewer idiots for the country to deal with.

this SF gun ban is simply ridiculous. all it will do is force decent people to break the law in order to protect themselves from the non-decent!

Time for Yosemite Sam to come out of retirement.

The people who voted for this probably don't own handguns, those who own handguns surely voted against it. It will be interesting to see how many handguns are actually turned in.

Hm. Reading all the comments here, one would get the impression that you're all actively protecting your personal property everyday by carrying or using your weapons.

One would also get the impression that SF gangs were being kept somehow in check by knowing that their law-abiding targets might in fact be armed.

Reading the comments here, an uninformed observer would think that all San Fransciscans have just simply not thought this stuff through, and don't they realize that once they're in the middle of their inevitable gun battle, they'll be unarmed?

Speaking of donating. If San Fran residents have to turn in their guns, maybe they'd like to donate them to me? I'll pay shipping. :)

-Resident of a Real State

The SF police hardly report any crime already and those they do report go mostly unsolved, they have one of the worst crime-solving rates in the Nation. There was only one firearm dealer left in the City, so that's over now. Down on the Peninsula we need to set up roadblocks and barbwire. ;-)

Words to the wise (if any...?) who wish to remain in San Francisco after the ban takes effect: Remington 870, Kel-Tec SU16-A/B/C, Kahr (or IMI) M1 carbine, Springfield Armory M1A Scout/SOCOM-16, Yugoslav 59/66 (SKS), Ruger Mini-14/30. Get them before they're sold out...

Joey,

"San Francisco is still part of the United States isn't it?"

As much as most people would love for Kalifornia to slide off into the ocean, unfortunatly yeah, they are still part of the US.

You know I heard Bush recently upgraded the top secret Hurricane Satellite with a new "Fault Agitator" software upgrade... The perfect time to try it out is now! :D

This post is plain disingenuous.

As near as I can tell the ban is not on ALL guns, just handguns. I'd rather have a shotgun or rifle than a handgun, anyway.

And if San Fransisco is such a lefty enclave, how many citizens do you think are currently armed? I'd say not many. You can't have your bullet and shoot it, too, folks.

NYC Resident,
You're living in a place with some of the most prohibitive gun laws in the nation. D.C. & Chicago are the only cities that are worse - well besides SF. In your world you have to have cash & preferably a good political connection to receive permision to posses a firearm. So I'll assume you're not a gun owner, or at least not one who think gun are that big of a deal.

What any law which limit civilian possesion of arms does (& this would apply to NYC as well) is make it more difficult for folks w/o harmful intent to protect themselve, while giving a good reason for thoe with harmful intent to become emboldened. It's simple logic; if it's illegal for civilians to have firearm then the crackhead isn't going to think twice about robbing you. If it it legal for civilians to have firearms then said crackhead is going to concentrte on jacking your stereo instead of pulling a knife & demanding your wallet.

So yes; we are protecting our property every day by carrying. We don't have to draw down every five minute, but the general idea that we do have the means of defending ourselves & our property tends to dicourage those who would use threats of violence, or violence itself, to steal from us.

It' not so much a case that there will be a big gun battle, or that the crime rate will increase overall. It's more like, with all other factors being equal, that confrontational crime will increase due to a lower risk of being deterred by an armed victim. That's the societal effect. What I'd be concerned about is the individual effect - which means that if you're a victim of a confrontational crime you're legally prevented from being able to defend yourself. Not all confrontational crimes end with harm to the victim, but I've never liked playing the odds. Odds suck when you're the 1 instead of the 99.

The evil of this law & those like it (such as you have in NYC) is that it take away the option - the possibility - of defending yourelf against someone who may in fact be intended to kill you instead of just taking your cash.

So no; an fransicoans did not think things through. NYC people haven't either. Neither have folks in D.C. or Chicago. Otherwise they'd realize that being able to defend yourself is a much more fundamental right that the current laws there recognize. Not that all folks in such places are supportive of those most heinou & immoral anti-self defense laws, but it would eem that not enough oppose them to make any change.

Wish I could see the pic but the link seems to be busted (in Firefox - in IE Explorer the whole site is unavailable). Can anybody mirror it?

Lived in SF for 6 years. I'll never forget the time I called 911 after witnessing a guy walking up my street smashing car windows as he walked along. After 30 minutes on hold, I was chided by the cynical dispatcher to "call the non-emergency number" (which rang indefinitely). That city is beyond hope. After this election, I'm inclined to thing the WHOLE STATE is on dope.

Found this blog via Michelle Malkin. The point goes right along with something I said on my blog just the other day. Although I happen to be heterosexual, "I'd rather be gay than liberal." Keep up the good work.

so according to the law ammunition is not legal, so what do you use for ammo in your newly aquired shotgun?

If you don't turn in your gun and use it to defend yourself from a thug who thinks you are unarmed you will be prosecuted. I predict we will be seeing this.

New York City Resident said:

"One would also get the impression that SF gangs were being kept somehow in check by knowing that their law-abiding targets might in fact be armed."

Well, N.Y., the fact is that states that allow concealed carry have seen a DECREASE in crime against the citizens of said states. Against TOURISTS, who cannot legally carry, crime has GONE UP. This is particularly true in Florida, and is the exact reason why car rental companies stopped putting identifying stickers on their rental fleet vehicles. Criminals knew they were rentals, hence the occupants were most likely tourists, and therefore NOT armed.

Criminals prefer unarmed targets.

All this says that if you have to defend yourself, Shoot the thug and keep shooting till he is definetly DEAD. Then bundle the body and dump it in the bay asnd discard the gun and get a new one. Never call a cop; never admit you had to defend yourself.

It seems terrible to have to use capital punishment for some thug merely trying to bop you on the head for your wallet, or trying to rip off your TV but these ridiculous laws create the liability.

And so the great American experiment continues to be eroded. There are none so blind as those that see, but see nought.

Two things:

1. I had always heard that Washington DC (until now) had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and the highest murder rate.

2. Is SF going to compensate people for the fair market value of the firearms they turn in? I kinda doubt it.

Mike D - Sure. The fact that the ban now exists indicates that those guns no longer have a fair market value in San Francisco. Thus, no money will be paid to those who turn them in.

To coin a phrase, it's bulletproof!

Is no one is California informed about anything? Don't they read, or can't they read?

The countries with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland stated:

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent)."

The report further stated that the US did not even rank in the top 10.

Perhaps San Francisco will enjoy the same fate as Toronto, Canada. No sooner had the country instituted a gun registry than "death by handgun" became the city sport. Never had much of a problem before.

Maybe go to Oakland to buy the ammo?

Jesus, guys, use your heads.

And you accuse liberals of being dense, tinfoil-hat chicken littles.

Uh, OK, so it's alright to have a silly law because it's easy to work around?

This is a disgrace. No one should turn in their weapons. Our fundamental constitutional rights cannot be overturned by a popular vote.

No one's mentioned the metasticizing of this stupidity. SanFran may be one of the most liberal meccas in the country, but it's not the only one. The NRA is right to challenge this in court. Media WILL seize on this passage as a "go" for endorsing further infringements in other cities, other states. A book called "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross is not as fictional as I once thought. (Good read, too.)

Uh, Ok, It's okay to hyperbolize like whiney liberals because some stupid city in California passes a stupid law?

This shite about gangs of armed criminals salivating at the opportunity to attack an unarmed populous is just plain silly.

One, this law will probably not withstand a 2nd Amendment challenge, so put your feigned indignation away and calm your trigger happy asses down.

Two, as I mentioned before, if the city of San Fransisco is so liberal, it would follow that not may of it's citizens are armed, anyway. How'n come the gangs of armed criminals don't own the city already, then? Like I said, you can't have your bullets and shoot them, too, fellows.

One more thing...

How come I can't buy myself a B-24 with a payload of 500 lb. bombs and it's guns not cemented up? Or an F-14 with a couple of sidewinders? If Grumman can sell F-14s to Iran, how come I can't buy one? If Hugo Chavez can get his hands on some used F-16s, why can't I have one in my driveway?

Seriously. These aircraft are arms. It's my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, no? When the hell do I get my F-14?

once again, that stuff about eating bullets and shooting them too. . .

Actually, Me, once upon a time most merchant ships were armed with a cannon or two, to fend off pirates.

Given recent events, having a 25mm chaingun on an oceangoing vessel doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

And if you can find a B-24, and have the $$$ to get the thing flying, and live in a Class III legal state, and have still more money, you could get one and even get it fully armed. And making 500lb bombs wouldn't be allthat hard. Then you could drop them on SF city hall.

Oh, did anyone else notice that SF just outlawed handloading, too?

so just what will the liberal San Fran queers do to you if you don't turn in your hand guns you could use swords you gay blade bitches I am out of work and I need a job so I am selling every thing i have and maxing out every loan i can take out to run guns and ammo for the gangs of San Fran my sales pitch will be a free box of ammo for every girl-eee man you pop.

Once upon a time people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. What's you're point? It's not the 18th Century anymore. Do you really want private citizens in possesion of weapons of mass destruction? Do you really want some trustfunder in a Che t-shirt with access to a fully loaded B-24?

I guess that's one of the risks you take living in a libertarian society, though, huh?

Also, advocating violence against American citizens is so libertarian and patriotic of you. Hats off, Dumas.

Anyone else mesmerized by angry white man's self-loathing homophobia and lack of punctuation?

What the hell does sexuality have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Come and Take Them!

well me, the answer to your question is they do own the streets. Go to the Filmore or tenderloin at 9pm. We'll ask your survivors if you had any last words.

F -14, and cannon are not arms suitable for the members of a militia to own and bear. Damned heavy. However, in the matter of individual arms the founders did indeed intend for the citizen to be as well armed as any soldier of any military force. So the better question would be, where the Hell is your submachine gun. Full machine guns actually being crew served weapons are not individual arms.

You have a Hell of a lot of gall to tell others not to be excited when their rights are being trampled. Are you just too limited to understand "shall not be infringed". Or are you in some way incapacitated that you think more than 20,000 laws restricting that which "shall not be infringed" are not infringements?

How do you feel about 1A? Would you support 20,000 laws applying before you could post goof masquerading as opinions? Because of the 1st, you are allowed to say goofy things and I am not allowed to stop you. Isn't that neat? The test is what you or I or anyone else does that infringes on the rights of others. A real infringement, not some emotional imaginary, "I just don't 'feel'
-----(fill in the blank).", that just won't get it.

If the 2nd falls, the first won't be far behind and the rest will disappear immediately upon the demise of the first two. Think not? McCain-Feingold is your early warning about the sanctity of your rights as regarded by your rulers. They do intend to be your masters, not your servants. So, you just keep preaching sensible surrender.

Did you miss the part where if they had their way you go to prison? Uh huh, that's right. You gonna go to Oakland to buy ammo. Gonna shoot it all before you return? Did you miss the crime of possessing? Did you know there are specialty arms designed to be fired in twelve guage with one hand, making them handguns? Do you not think possession of that 12 guage ammo would not be interpreted as handgun ammo at their whim?

Please put away your feigned superiority, your naivete is embarrassing to witness.

San Francisco can have my legally registered handgun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers after they storm my home at midnight.

We have concealed carry here in Minneapolis. Go hang out in North and tell me how that's helped stop the gang activity. We'll ask your survivors how come your handgun didn't save your ignorant ass.

"F-14 and cannon" are arms, and by definition are my right to bear. How come I can't buy an "F-14 and cannon", but Iran can? Our right to keep and bear arms has been infringed for more than a century. How come I can't legally build pipe bombs here in my apartment? H-bombs? They are arms. I have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear them, no? Again, do you really want some Che t-shirt wearing trustfunder with access to weapons of mass destruction?

And what about the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment?

You have a hell of a lot of gall to call me naive.

Please put away your hyperbole and ignorance, chicken little, it's embarrasing to witness.

The ban complicates the game for the bad guys because the smart good guys will still pack heat --illegal or not. They do now.

Only now the dumb bad guys will think everyone is unarmed. Darwin will work his magic from here.

Will this spread to MT or NH?--not likely.

" A new study finds handgun crime rose by 40% in the two years after Britain banned the weapons in 1997. "The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals," the BBC reports. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which conducted the study, found that the number of handgun crimes rose to 3,685 in 1999-2000 from 2,648 in 1997-98."
JAMES TARANTO in WSJ's OpinionJournal.com, circa
Monday, July 16, 2001

I trust the police will also abandon the use of firearms, as there will be no need for such, and there are cases where even policemen have gone out of control with their guns.

Better to be safe than sorry! LOL!

in response to the comment by "me" about it not being a ban on ALL guns, just HANDguns...................true, BUT-it is simply a matter of convinience. to safely own a rifle you really need a gun rack or storage cabinet, meanwhile a handgun fits easily into a drawer. I imagine appartments in san fran are generally small, so it is really a space constraint. the same goes for shop owners protecting their private property, it is much easier to store a handgun than a rifle!

I have owned handguns for over 15 years. I have had a concealed carry permit for around 10 years (Virginia). Coming home from work very late one night I had stopped at a 7-11, when leaving, 2 men came from around the dumpster towards me, all I did was lift my jacket while unlocking my car door exposing the gun, they turned around and went the other way. No John Wayne, no yelling, no shooting. Might have been nothing or I might not be here to write this. I prefer the being here option.

You know, "me" I HAVE hung out in the very neighborhoods you speak of, and never had any problems at all. Never felt any need to pull a gun. Of course, I'm a fairly scary-looking man, and not a good target for crime because I'm big and in shape. Why would you leave smaller, weaker people defenseless? Is a raped and beaten woman morally superior to one standing over a dead attacker holding a smoking pistol? Seriously.
Nobody in their right mind is going to try to rob or attack someone who looks like me, but what about my sister, who teaches grade school in those same neghborhoods? Why should she be denied
the only effective means of self defense? And, please, no yammering about Mace or Tasers. I've participated in demos for police, and I can still get the "Macers" and "Taserers" down on the ground
with very little effort regardless of how much tasty pepper they spray or juice they "zap" me with.

Come to think of it, what is it about North that's so scary to you? Is it brown skinned folks?
See, I have been in real "bad neighborhoods", and comparatively, Minneapolis/St.Paul has NO bad areas.

You actually can own all the below, excepting the nukes, and you can legally build your pipe bomb.
They are regulated under the National Firearms Act
as Destructive Devices, costing $200 tax and time for the F.B.I. to check your background, typically 1-3 months. The aircraft itself is ownable by anyone with the cash to buy it.
National security trumps private ownership of city killers like nukes.(Duh.)

""F-14 and cannon" are arms, and by definition are my right to bear. How come I can't buy an "F-14 and cannon", but Iran can? Our right to keep and bear arms has been infringed for more than a century. How come I can't legally build pipe bombs here in my apartment? H-bombs? They are arms. I have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear them, no? Again, do you really want some Che t-shirt wearing trustfunder with access to weapons of mass destruction? "

We have gangs here in my home state ... and I don't fear them. Some of these turds tried intimidating homeowners in Olympia a few years ago ... and got shot to pieces ... gangbangers are cowards ... they fold like paper tigers when people shoot back.

The kind of comment "Me" posted sounds like a non-owner trying to sound like a member of the gun culture ... or just a little socialist H.S. student mouthing off.

As for "regulate" ... it only refers to militia units, re-read the thing ... the right portion is an individual right.

"The People" always refers to individuals in the Bill of rights. You don't get to assume that "The People" refers to a collective only in the Second, but nowhere else.

If you bother to read the SCOTUS Miller vs. US decision ( the last major gun law decision they made ), they agreed with my interpretation, not yours.

As usual, the victim-disarmament crowd hauls out the tired old "H-Bomb" strawman to try to confuse the issue.

If I point a loaded rifle at passers-by, but don't pull the trigger, I am threatening them, and will be arrested and charged for abusing my right to keep and bear arms.

If I assemble an atomic weapon on the earth's surface, I am endangering everyone within 10 miles, and everyone downwind of me ... just as surely as if I was pointing a rifle at them.

As for cannons and aircraft, if someone wants bang away with a cannon or an F-14 out in the desert, who the fuck cares?

Here's a state by state listing of what's legal in what state. MG= machine guns, SBR= short barreled rifle(under 16 inches), SBS= short barreled shotgun(under 18 inches), AOW= any other weapon(pistol grip only short shotgun, "gadget guns"eg. guns disguised as something else, and a few other things) DD= Destructive devices(Cannon, "bazooka" type weapons, artillery shells, grenades, your pipe bombs,etc.....)
C&R means anything on the BATFEs' Curio and Relic list(many machine guns, etc.. are considered C&R).
Flamethrowers remain unregulated by the N.F.A. as they are considered agricultural implements(!).
This should be enough to make "me" wet his/her/its panties.

State
MG's
SBR
SBS
Silencers
AOW
DD

Alabama (AL)
Yes
NO
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes

Alaska (AK)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Arizona (AZ)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Arkansas (AR)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

California (CA)
Class 3
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
Yes
Type 9

Colorado (CO)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Connecticut (CT)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Delaware (DE)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

District of Columbia (DC)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

Florida (FL)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Georgia (GA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Guam Police Police Police Police ? ?
Hawaii (HI)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

Idaho (ID)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Illinois (IL)
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
NO
Yes
Type 9

Indiana (IN)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Iowa (IA)
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3/YES
Class 3

Kansas (KS)
Class 3
NO
NO
NO
Class 3
Class 3

Kentucky (KY)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Louisiana (LA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Maine (ME)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Maryland (MD)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Massachusetts (MA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class 2
???
Yes

Michigan (MI)
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
Class 2 & 3
NO

Minnesota (MN)
C&R
C&R
C&R
Yes
Yes
Yes

Mississippi (MS)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Missouri (MO)
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R & Class 3
C&R
C&R

Montana (MT)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Nebraska (NE)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Nevada (NV)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

New Hampshire (NH)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

New Jersey (NJ)
Yes
NO
NO
NO
Class 3
NO

New Mexico (NM)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

New York (NY)
Class 2
NO
NO
NO
Yes
NO

North Carolina (NC)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

North Dakota (ND)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Northern Mariana Islands .22/.223 rifles .22/.223/.410 .22/.223/.410 Police .22/.223/.410 ?
Ohio (OH)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Oklahoma (OK)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Oregon (OR)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Pennsylvania (PA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Puerto Rico Class 2 ? Police Police ? ?
Rhode Island (RI)
Class 3
NO
NO
Police
NO
NO

South Carolina (SC)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

South Dakota (SD)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Tennessee (TN)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Texas (TX)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Utah (UT)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Vermont (VT)
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO*
Yes
Yes

Virginia (VA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Virgin Islands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Washington (WA)
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3
Class 3

West Virginia (WV)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Wisconsin (WI)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Wyoming (WY)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Key
Class 2 = Must have a Type 07 manufacturing license along with paying SOT
Class 3 = Must have a Type 01 dealers license along with paying SOT
Type 9 = Must have Destructive Import license
Police = Only law enforcement can possess

CT-MG: Does not allow select fire - Full auto only.
IA-AOW: Non-shotgun AOW's should be OK or NFA dealer.
MA-MG: Requires state "green card" for machine guns
NC-MG: Requires state permit
VT-SUPPRESSOR: §4010 A person who manufactures, sells or uses or possesses with intent to sell or use, an appliance known as or used for a gun silencer shall be fined $25.00 for each offense. The provisions of this section shall not prevent the use or possession of gun silencers for military purposes when so used or possessed under proper military authority and restriction.

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Copyright © 2005 Triple Break Products, All right reserved. Information in this document is subject to change without notice.
Last modified: June 23, 2005

me, you aren't only naive, you are ignorant. BTW, I have spent many many days in the twin cities. You're right about the problems. You should have a handle on it, you and people like you created it. You have concealed carry in Mn. that has been thwarted and fought and restrained from day one since the bill passed into law , just a very short time ago and the court fights and TRO's etc. haven't ended yet. The CCW's are not being issued according to the law and every measure to slow or stop an individual from getting a CCW is employed, illegally, while people like you try to sell more of that "security lies in being helpless crap".

Your ignorance is towering. Please get an education in history and civics.

You are adept at misstating the issue then offering a solution to the false problem that exacerbates the real one. Emotional driven weakness and refusal to accept the risk of being free and is your right. It is not your right to demand that others not exercise their responsibilities of defense of self, family, innocent and country, just so you don't feel like the lesser of men. That's your personal problem. Keep it personal, don't demand others be ineffectual as a sop to your conscience.

One more thing, "well-regulated" in the usage of the language of the time meant that the militia was efficient and operated properly. That they were, indeed, capable of the task of protecting the republic.

If you are under the age of 45, I believe it is, you are a member of the militia. You have no choice, it's the law. Look it up. USC 10. Only the tenth U.S. code passed. The founders thought it important evidently. Oh yeah, you are also supposed to supply your own arm and ammunition suitable for use in a military engagement. So, where is your assault weapon?

If you can bear those arms you mentioned, they are covered. Could I watch you carry them? BTW, I know where you can buy an F-111B right now, not 3 hours from my house. I can't maintain it or bear it, so I'll leave it for you people of the ridiculous bent.

Oh, and I don't have a CCW, I seldom carry a firearm, but it is my right to do so. When I think I need to,I do. I carried one every day for 10 years, even in Mn. Nobody ever knew I had it, except twice, and I never had to actually shoot anybody. Having it on those two occassions, whoops, forgot one, make that three exceptions and occassions saved my life most likely and certainly saved a lot of inury and possible death of others and myself.

I won't get a CCW, either. I refuse to pay for permission to exercise my right. At that point the right becomes rented privilege. When I have to buy temporary privilege instead of exercising rights, then my citizenship has been rescinded. That ain't happening while I'm breathing.

I am prouder of my American citizenship than anything else in my life. Though I have done nothing to earn it. A geographical accident of birth on my part. A sacred gift from generations of great men that sacrificed all to make me that gift. I am very proud. Proud of them, proud of what they left me, and proud enough to try to see that we don't trash it or hold it too cheaply, or let it die for comfort's sake because we fear the risk of being free. I will not let anyone take it from me. Not even those elected to serve. And certainly not a bunch of weak reeds bent double in the wind of political correctness and faux humanitarian concern.

An armed society is a polite society. And a safe one. Not just from internal stife, conflict and crime but also from any type of organized invasion. A country "awash" in firearms means every person is a potential soldier (see also 2nd Amendment.)

The NRA carries a column in their monthly publications called "The Armed Citizen", which is a collection of news reports about the use of firearms to prevent, thwart or mitigate a crime. They have been running this column for at least 20 years which means at least a couple thousand accounts and probaly countless more instances occurred that didn't make the print. I can't recall ever reading an account of a pacifist talking a violent criminal out of practicing his/her trade, especially while they were in the middle of committing said trade.

A good steward always leaves that which is in his care in a better condition than when he found it. What will history say of this generations stewardship of our Constitution?

Ah... just wait until handgun manufacturers/distributors decide not to sell to the SFPD and SFSO. Guess their rangemasters will have to learn to handload. Oops, that's illegal now, too! Hmm... maybe the SF cops will have to carry slingshots once they run out of ammo! And folks ask me why I'm moving out of the People's Republic when I retire in a couple of years (from a Northern CA law enforcement agency).

I can only say, "The people vote for whom or what they want - and get what they deserve!"

MY MY MY What a over reactant bunch of right wing yahoos on this post! LOL! Sounds like you right wing gun nuts are gettin a little frustrated eh? What with ALL of governor Shwarzennazi's bills going down in ABSOLUTE DEFEAT and military recruiters told by San Francisco voters to keep their slimy, corporate defendin' paws off of our youth, OH and lets not forget the fucked up red state of VIRGINIA has gone BLUE!!! BLUE I TELL YOU!! LMAO! Just elected a DEMOCRATIC for a governor!! Heh,heh,heh. Maybe you right wing genuises can circulate a petition asking voters to ban Marriage between gun owners or something to that effect! LMAO!!

DevilWorshippinCommunistBastard:

Virginia is and forever shall be a Conservative state, our current Democrat Governor has signed all pro-gun bills that came across his desk since they were approved by the conservative Virginia General Assembly in large margins by Republicans and Democrats. And if you knew anything about the Commonwealth, you'd know that the Governor cannot succeed himself, the current Governor (Mark Warner) promoted his protogé, Tim Kaine and that is why he won. Virginia isn't turning Socialist anytime soon. I see you're a proud product of the government-run schools, "genuises" [SIC] as well.

Ha,ha,ha! You good ol' boys are Sooooooo funny. Still lickin' your wounds from the Civil War I see. Always focusing on the horrible "socialist" state. =(. six little words I'll give you as a present ok Jim Bob. SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR TAXES!! 'nuff said! Heh,heh,heh.