San Francisco voters approve handgun

[Onyx]

LOUISE CHU

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting on Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Only two other major U.S. cities - Washington and Chicago - have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that "San Francisco voters support sensible gun control."

Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said "every life that's saved with Proposition H is a big win."

Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.

A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.

Davey Jones, chairman of the Committee to Oppose Handgun Ban, said a recent wave of gun violence in the city may have hurt his campaign, but opponents believe the right to possess handguns is necessary for self-defense.

"We focused our message to seniors and to women and to the gay community," Jones said. "Of course we're disappointed. We believe that we did not get the message out."

The military recruitment initiative also won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

Measure I, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

Instead, Proposition I encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, a College Not Combat activist, adding that the victory would help put pressure on the government to someday institute an actual ban on campus military recruiting.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ia/13117588.htm

[Onyx]

I didn't know that Washington and Chicago also had handgun bans. Hmmm.

If I lived there the thought of being forced to surrender my handgun *really* bothers me.

[Steven]

this is dangerous, this removal of the right to bear arms. This means that any opressor that sets his sights on you now has an even greater opportunity to kill you and your children and those you love. Removing the guns will not stop the oppressor. But it will severely limit your ability to repel one, even if that oppressor wears a government badge.

and this is equally dangerous, this removal of contact between military recruiters and recruitees. In effect it says that the youth are unable to think for themselves, so we'll do it for them.

any ban on CHOICE - leads to death, and control.

America was once all about the freedom of choice.

[The_Dark]

Hrmmmm...

One more Freedom being taken away by the extreme left....

As for the military.. Fine. If they are so against the military I think the US military forces stationed there should not be allowed to go into town. The naval bases should not be allowed to do bisiness with any local companys and in the case of a Natural disaster the National Gaurd and Reserves should stand back.. pointing and laughing.

[Head Wreck]

hmmm

seems like the US is almost going british bit by bit.

[HipsterDufus]

this is dangerous, this removal of the right to bear arms.  This means that any opressor that sets his sights on you now has an even greater opportunity to kill you and your children and those you love.  Removing the guns will not stop the oppressor.  But it will severely limit your ability to repel one, even if that oppressor wears a government badge.

and this is equally dangerous, this removal of contact between military recruiters and recruitees.  In effect it says that the youth are unable to think for themselves, so we'll do it for them. 

any ban on CHOICE - leads to death, and control.

America was once all about the freedom of choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that America has ever been about the freedom of choice. I mean, come on, a white male land-owner being the only one allowed to vote? Kinda removes a lot of peoples' right to choose. Choosing to be a peaceful Communist forces persecution during McCarthyism? Choosing to smoke pot (still) gets you jail time since the early 20th century? I hate the glorification of past America. Imagine choosing to listen to rock music in the 1950's and how "evil" that was and how the radio stations that played it were persecuted by the governement and churches. Sure there were good things, but unless you were a white male, life "choices" were pretty limited for you up until the latter half of this century.

As for the San Francisco stuff, I agree, it's pretty stupid. I generally don't like guns. But that's why I don't own one. Then again, I'm not in fear of government oppression. The only oppression I'm afraid of is done by the rightwing nutjobs who do own the guns. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Homicidalheathen]

I want a bigger gun. Or was that cock? Or cock and barrel? Heh. Me likes me some weaponery yes me does.

[HipsterDufus]

I want a bigger gun.  Or was that cock?  Or cock and barrel?  Heh.  Me likes me some weaponery yes me does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hahaha. Cock and Barrel. Sounds like Crate and Barrel's naughty sister store.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

hmmm

seems like the US is almost going british bit by bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

naaaa most states are now issuing concealed carry permits... only 3 cities have laws like this. which is kind of offset by the town in Georgia that requires everyone to own a gun (unless you are a clergymen or criminal)

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

The only oppression I'm afraid of is done by the rightwing nutjobs who do own the guns.  But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to break it to you but historically, more people have been oppressed or killed by "leftwing nutjobs" with guns than by rightwing nutjobs with guns.

Its a funny thing, poor people tend to believe they are entitled to the wealth of the rich and they join leftwing movements that eventually take control and opress everyone.... and they do this with guns not votes.

and before anyone brings up Hitler, the Nazi party was Socialist until FDR decreed that they were right wing in an effort to avoid confusing americans when telling them that we had to fight Nazis, but help communists.

When talking about freedom and the USA, when we were trying to figure out how to have a real democracy (dont even start on Roman or Greek democracy, since they had far more restrictions on citizenship and a far higher percentage of slaves in their population than we ever had), the europeans were still living in feudalism (french revolution was not until 1789 and only happened because Louis spent so much money helping us beat his enemy England that his people had to be taxed in to rebellion).

back to what I was saying, there was no precedent for what we started and no model. Sure there were lots of arguments on who should be a citizen and who should get to vote... but even in 2005 here on DGN i have seen arguments about who should be allowed to have children...

If for nothing else look at the 2nd ammendment as being the ammendment that protects all the rest as a last resort. The "inalienable rights" are there and the constitution only reaffirms them so that people remember that these rights are human rights that we are all supposedly born with.

The 2nd ammendment is legislation against power, absolute power either on the micro (guy with crowbar breaking into your house for nefarious purposes) or on the macro: evil regime trying to take over (no body jump in on the republicans or modern democrats on this one... we havenot had an "evil" regime in the United states since the Republicans under Prsident Abraham Lincoln squashed the old southern Democratic Party's answer to "no more slavery" (which was the Confederate States of America.

Had the slaves had access to firearms, that wouldnt have been an Issue (hence John Browns misadventure at Harper's Ferry.

and if anyone decides to invoke Bellisles "The Arming of America", ill post a link to the 500 page researched and footnoted rebuttal that got Bellisles fired and made him have to forfeit all his awards.

[HipsterDufus]

I hate to break it to you but historically, more people have been oppressed or killed by "leftwing nutjobs" with guns than by rightwing nutjobs with guns. 

Its a funny thing, poor people tend to believe they are entitled to the wealth of the rich and they join leftwing movements that eventually take control and opress everyone.... and they do this with guns not votes.

(snip)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand your point of view. I have enough gun-owning friends and I grew up around guns/gun-owners. I never said I was really for gun control. I said that I don't really like guns, personally. That's why I don't own one. You sound very well-educated in this area and I respect that. Still, I think that most people would have a hard time denying that conservative (and even ultra-conservative) Christianty is on the rise in America. And, it just so happens that these are the people that love their AK-47's. Therefore, I would say that me fearing a "right-wing nutjob" marching me off to jail because I'm a socialist is a far more reasonable fear at this point in time than you being marched off to one of my franchised liberal brainwashing camps in America's current state.

[Jarodaka]

So can I carry a rifle around San Fran?

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

And, it just so happens that these are the people that love their AK-47's.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to admit... I jus luvs me some Ak-47s,,,,, (well... actually a WZ-88 but who's really keeping track)

[Shade Everdark]

I hate to break it to you but historically, more people have been oppressed or killed by "leftwing nutjobs" with guns than by rightwing nutjobs with guns. 

Its a funny thing, poor people tend to believe they are entitled to the wealth of the rich and they join leftwing movements that eventually take control and opress everyone.... and they do this with guns not votes.

and before anyone brings up Hitler, the Nazi party was Socialist until FDR decreed that they were right wing in an effort to avoid confusing americans when telling them that we had to fight Nazis, but help communists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The poor are often the ones who work in the trenches, on the assembly lines, or mopping the floors for those rich people. Without them, the companies that make the rich what they are wouldn't exist.

As for Hitler, when was the NSDAP ever Socialist in its agenda under Hitler's direct leadership? Every history I've read about the Nazis sure seems fascist and right-wing to me (once control was finally and completely wrested from its founders, that is).

That said, I've been riding the fence on the gun control question for a long time. I think, what it comes down to, for me, is that we need coherent and sytematic gun control, not the banning of all firearms. While I do agree that citizens do not need things like 50-caliber automatic rifles, or even an assault rifle like the M-16, in their home arsenal, they do have the right to own firearms, including, hesitant as I am to commit to it, handguns. Responsibility is the key word, and if people can't exhibit responsibility on their own, maybe they do deserve to either blow their own head off, or have it legislated for them. People, as the saying goes, get the kind of government they deserve, in this country. I just hope they don't take the rest of us with them.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

As for Hitler, when was the NSDAP ever Socialist in its agenda under Hitler's direct leadership?  Every history I've read about the Nazis sure seems fascist and right-wing to me (once control was finally and completely wrested from its founders, that is).

Yes they were socialist.... they practically invented social programs single handed. FDR copied them, then LBJ expanded on it here. In Europe, social programs expanded substantially after people saw what the germans got in return for supporting the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

That said, I've been riding the fence on the gun control question for a long time.  I think, what it comes down to, for me, is that we need coherent and sytematic gun control, not the banning of all firearms.  While I do agree that citizens do not need things like 50-caliber automatic rifles, or even an assault rifle like the M-16, in their home arsenal, they do have the right to own firearms, including, hesitant as I am to commit to it, handguns.

The need and want issue is quite interesting... you dont really need to be free... you can live quite well in prison from what I have heard, but most people dont "want" to live incarcerated. The same goes for having more than 2 pairs of clothes, driving a new car, owning a home, having internet access, or even a job... Needs and wants are very confusing these days. Most people are against someone elses "wants" or needs, becuase they fear it somehow.

In the case of SUVs, peopel fear damage from wrecks if they have a small car, harm to their kids walking to school, hurting the enviormnment, or causing gas prices to rise...

Its odd that cars cause so many more injuries and deaths every year when compared to guns, while they are seen as a "need" by people who dont "want" to ride busses or trains, or get off their fat butts and ride bikes etc.

THe same can be said of modern health care. It kills 3-5 times as many people every year as guns, yet we "need" it.... so that we can for the most part extend the shitty part of our lives...

:erm

[Steven]

thats a myth Bud - that the Christians are on the rise.

To but into it you have to read beyond so called statistics placed for public consumption (seeds of fear I beleive) by the press.

If Christianity was truly on the rise - you'd see it in pop culture and watch it being embraced by the youth of today who are the voice of tommorow. As a Christian beleive me Bro - even the churches themselves do not see Chrisitainity on the rise nor do we buy into the hype. And by the way - I've been an active Christian for a very long time, and the only ones that I knew that had weapons were the backwoods nutjobs the media loved to show - I've never met them in real life. Statistics lie Dude. They are always presented through somones agenda.

As for freedoms in America - I understand the examples that you cite to oppose this point of view. But overall Dude - there has never been a nation with as much personal freedom as our own. You have to look at the whole pie - not jsut the rotten slices. We have always been the model for freedom historically. You can do things here that you simply cannot do anywhere else.

And the Gun thing - you have the right to not like them and not purchase them and I do not see that as weakness in any way. I myself do not currently own a gun, although I have in the past and will in the future. I recently went thru MI's weapons safety course to apply for a concealed weapons permit - because my job takes me thru some rough places. I dont walk arond with a macho hard-on for guns - but I'm very good with a weapon and would not hesitate to use it if I felt my life was in danger. It is my right - as an american citizen and american veteran, to arm myself as needed - I gave three years of my life to the military to protect that freedom - it is very important and personal to me. I'll accept the consequence - I've been trained and understand the mindset on the use of deadly force. But no priviledged career politician has the right to take that from me.

Incidently - since the Nazi regime came up...... whats one of the first things that regime did to ensure its rise to power?

They took away the private citizens arms.

[Ginevra]

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

This is the beginning of the end of individual's rights. As long as I'm being responsible, who's to say that I can or cannot keep a handgun in my home?

I'm with Shade in that it's my belief that people do not need HK's to go hunting with nor in the protection of their own home. A plain shotgun, however, will do wonders as will a handgun. A permit to keep a handgun along with a certificate of completion of a weapon safety course. Now, taking the safety course doesn't weed out all the idiots; I'd be one myself to think that it does. But it would help some in that aspect.

But let's imagine for a moment that I live in downtown Detroit in a "not so nice" area of town. You're damned right I'm going to have a weapon of some sort to protect me and mine. Push comes to shove it's going to be a gun over a knife unless it's a sword of some sort with some length on it. And if Detroit were to say, "Oops, we think it'd be better if you can't defend yourself so we're just going to take your little party popper away." I'm either going to find some other way to protect myself or else illegally have firearms in my home.

If they feel that the legislation is going to help keep handguns away from criminals and children, yes, it might. But Joe Schmoe is going to be pissed as hell when the ramifications drive home about what this law entails and could be the beginning of.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

I dont use AKs, HKs or any other rifle like that for hunting.... but they do make nice holes in paper.... and it takes far more skill to make a tight group with one of them than with a deer rifle. So its more of a challenge and sport.

[HipsterDufus]

thats a myth Bud - that the Christians are on the rise.

To but into it you have to read beyond so called statistics placed for public consumption (seeds of fear I beleive) by the press.

If Christianity was truly on the rise - you'd see it in pop culture and watch it being embraced by the youth of today who are the voice of tommorow.  As a Christian beleive me Bro - even the churches themselves do not see Chrisitainity on the rise nor do we buy into the hype. And by the way - I've been an active Christian for a very long time, and the only ones that I knew that had weapons were the backwoods nutjobs the media loved to show - I've never met them in real life.   Statistics lie Dude.  They are always presented through somones agenda. 

(snip)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heres your pop culture: I suppose that would explain the first Christian sticom

I guess that also would explain why Bush and the Republicans are in power. Liberal non-Christians sure love Dubbya.

And in case you still think that Christians have it rough in this country...

Sorry man. I'm not trying to "persecute" you or anything else, but being a pagan myself, I find that a lot of people give me a lot weirder looks when I tell them that than when my sister-in-law tells people that she's a Christian. Ask yourself if you'd really want to be an admitted pagan out there in the world, or if being a Christian makes your life in society a little bit easier. I think an honest answer would find that being your Christianity isn't exactly a social hindrance.

[The_Dark]

Thats not proof it's "on the rise". Being Christian has always been "the norm" in this country. The actual percentage of the population that is christian is lower now than in the past. The neo-pagan movement is whats on the rise... ever since Gerald Gardner released his book in 1954. Yes, there has always been some form of alternative religion on the fringe of American sociaty.. but not nearly in the number it is today. Your looking at things from a single point of view. How your experiancing things.. just like everyone else does. You need to really look at things from a wider perspective.

[HipsterDufus]

Thats not proof it's "on the rise". Being Christian has always been "the norm" in this country. The actual percentage of the population that is christian is lower now than in the past. The neo-pagan movement is whats on the rise... ever since Gerald Gardner released his book in 1954. Yes, there has always been some form of alternative religion on the fringe of American sociaty.. but not nearly in the number it is today. Your looking at things from a single point of view. How your experiancing things.. just like everyone else does. You need to really look at things from a wider perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like you do? I'm sure you've risen above all of that and you're maturity exceeds mine. My apologies, oh enlightened one. Screw it. I'm not going to turn this into a flame thread, especially being the n00b that I am. And you may notice that I used the terms conservative and ultra-conservative Christianity when I said it was on the rise. Want proof to back it up?

From the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey:

Evangelical Christianity rose 326.4%, more than any other single religious group. Besides the generic non-denominational group.

But, hell, what would some stupid liberal know anyway? That survey was probably conducted by liberals too. Here's the link

[The_Dark]

326.4% growth sounds like alot until you realize it went from .1% to .5%.

It's still a really really small part of the population. You also have to read the findings at the bottom.. where it says that the percentage of people that can be classified as Christian of any denomination has dropped from from 86% to 77%. All of which supports what I said above.

Stop being so hostile... you were wrong.. your own data says you were.. deal with it. Throwing a fit and flaming me is not going to change that.

[HipsterDufus]

326.4% growth sounds like alot until you realize it went from .1% to .5%.

It's still a really really small part of the population. You also have to read the findings at the bottom.. where it says that the percentage of people that can be classified as Christian of any denomination has dropped from from 86% to 77%. All of which supports what I said above.

Stop being so hostile... you were wrong.. your own data says you were.. deal with it. Throwing a fit and flaming me is not going to change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fine. I'll take the bait. Another "liberal" study. Look at table 29. And keep in mind that I've only ever been talking about conservative Christianity.

[The_Dark]

OK... That talks about what percentages of religious groups believe in what politically... not how many of each type there are or if those numbers have changed in recent historyand by how much. It doesn't really support what your saying or refute what I am saying.

Really, I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from. I'm not "baiting" you or anything like it. I'm telling you that your wrong and using your data to prove it.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

Lets move back to talking about cool stuff like guns and military etc... even banning things and rights... enough religious stuff.... unless you want to discuss Zhukolicism