San Francisco repeals Second Amendment
There was an interesting aspect to this month's elections that was largely lost in the coverage of the Democratic "tsunami" in which the party was able to retain two governorships that it already had.
Still, I think it's pretty big news. By a comfortable margin, San Francisco voters decided to ban the sale and/or manufacture of firearms or ammunition within their city. Moreover, private citizens will no longer be allowed to keep handguns in their own homes, and will have until April 1 to surrender their guns to the authorities. In short, it's pretty much the most draconian anti-gun measures this country has ever seen, and the ACLU, which purports to defend the Bill of Rights, is nowhere to be found.
It's hard to understand why. I remember back in 1987, when Florida first voted to allow "concealed carry" permits. There was, of course, all the expected hyperventilation and hysteria about how Florida would become Dodge City, and there'd be mindless, rampaging shoot-outs in the streets.
Well that didn't happen, of course, and in the years since there has been a quiet revolution underway, as other states followed suit. Thirty-five states, a solid majority, now have some form of "shall issue" law for concealed weapon permits. (In addition, we should probably throw in the state of Vermont, which always allowed concealed handguns, even before they became trendy.)
Note that this revolution has coincided with the most dramatic reductions in violent crime rates of our lifetime. Now I'm not going to claim a causal relationship there, but that indisputable fact devastatingly undermines the gun grabbers' claim that liberalized handgun laws breed violence.
But for some reason San Francisco never got the memo. By preventing the sale of firearms and ammunition through legal channels, and by forcing law abiding citizens to voluntarily comply with the surrender ordinance, the city thus guarantees its criminal element (who will not surrender their guns) that their prey will henceforth be defenseless.
It's hard for me to understand how that can be a recipe for less violent crime. Time will tell, of course, and I may be wrong, but I am not at all optimistic about this.
Comments
Austria also bans free speech and enforces Thought Crimes! Today, this historian was jailed for "Holocaust Denial" -- because he has a different opinion.
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 17, 2005 12:32 PM
Very frightening, but then again it's SF. It will be interesting to watch the murder and crime rate. what a bunch of brainless sheep. And Mrs. Brady...GET OVER IT! Criminals will always have guns no matter how many laws you support and get passed. See URL above for NRA lawsuit.
Posted by: Dan O. | November 17, 2005 12:36 PM
Sorry URL didn't show up in previous post.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200511%5CNAT20051110b.html
Posted by: Dan O. | November 17, 2005 12:38 PM
The Second Amendment is perfectly clear. Alito will fix this after he is confirmed.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 17, 2005 01:24 PM
From a heartless, voyeuristic point of view, it should be interesting to see if what happened in England after the gun-ban happens in SF.
Posted by: Adam | November 17, 2005 02:35 PM
There's always one thing that's stuck in my mind about the 2nd Amendment. It says we can own guns for "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Well regulated militia. Seeing as how we don't need those anymore, I think owning a gun is almost unconstitutional. Just my thought.
Posted by: That Guy | November 17, 2005 06:37 PM
Also, Bailey, people should be banned for Holocaust denial. Someone like that shouldn't even kid about such a horrific stain on history not existing.
Posted by: That Guy | November 17, 2005 06:38 PM
How do you know it really did?
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 18, 2005 12:09 AM
"There's always one thing that's stuck in my mind about the 2nd Amendment. It says we can own guns for "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Well regulated militia. Seeing as how we don't need those anymore, I think owning a gun is almost unconstitutional. Just my thought." (That Guy)
OK, how about this, if it's truly Unconstitutional, then it's just as Unconstitutional for the Police and Military to have them - I'll drop mine, as soon as the Cops and Military are forced to drop theirs.
Then we can fight like civilized men - "Knives or axes!"
Personally I'd like to see a cop have to take on a goon like my former self with a knife or a broad axe...I mean, it would be interesting.
No more donut eating. That time would have to be used for hand-tohand combat lessons.
Posted by: JMK | November 18, 2005 11:32 AM
If you knew why the founding fathers included the Second Amendment, you would know that Alito is right, and we have the right to own the same weapons as our government -- to protect us from the government.
Admittedly, a neighborhood to neighborhood nuclear arms race could get tricky.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 18, 2005 03:33 PM
I wouldn't mind having my own Abrams. Fuel economy is a bitch, but it'd take the frustration right out of those daily traffic jams
Posted by: apotheosis | November 18, 2005 05:45 PM
Actually BH, that's a very sane comment.
Jefferson annunciated what most of America's Founders believed, "That this government has no powers beyond which any individual citizen can grant it," meaning that, aside from the most basic national needs, a common currency, an Armed Forces to provide for the common defense, the government had no powers beyond those that any individual could bestow, thus no "Right" to redistribute wealth," no "monopoly on the use of force," etc.
The Second Amendment was indeed created so that the citizenry, if necessary could protect themselves from the potential tyranny of their own government.
That is the problem that we've faced since about 1913 (with the passage of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act) and which has accelerated throughout the 20th Century to this very day - our servants (the politicians from both Parties) have begun to see themselves and act as our masters, and that attitude creates the womb for tyranny.
Posted by: JMK | November 20, 2005 10:58 AM