Tuesday, May 22, 2007

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome...

...drops his pants, squats, grunts, and tries to crap all over the Bill of Rights AGAIN.
Having lost their last battle over a blatantly unconstitutional citywide ban on handguns, the liberal lunatics at the helm of Frisco city government try another tack.

NOW can we secede?

PLEASE?

I'm so ashamed. The rest of the country is looking in at this abject IDIOCY and must think all us Californians are patchouli-drenched pot-smoking free-love screw-anything hippy tree-huggers with absolutely no idea what reality truly is. Reality in this case being, more government control and less ability/legality for self-defense is a BAD thing.
Those of you outside CA, please understand that these creatures up in that pestilential den are not representative of Californians as a whole. It's just that there's a HELL of a lot of them crammed up there in that little peninsula, and they make a LOT of noise.

Found at the Rottie...

5 comments:

Robbie said...

I read somewhere that Australia attempted a reactionary gun-elimination legislation in the mid 90's after some big massacre. Later studies found that the only reduction in firearm-related crimes was that the suicide rate--self-inflicted deaths attributed to guns-- dipped slightly. Homicide and other gun-involved crimes were not reduced. In fact, something like 85% of guns involved in crimes were not purchased legally and imported from other countries illegally in the first place. Ack.

But this whole talk about how all Californians are somehow all "wackos" is a little ridiculous. It's disingenuous and just as bad as if I said people from Utah were all polygamists. Sure, there's a concentration of them But ultimately I think it is a case of signal vs. noise. It makes glib blogging to make those generalizations.

I am a Californian. I am not part of the "gun culture" per se--meaning I don't equate liberty with gun ownership. I don't belong to the NRA. I get worried and sad when there's a massacre at a high school or college. I don't think government black helicopters are going to descend and drag me away in the middle of the night and I'll be screaming... "If only they hadn't taken away my right to own a gun!" I don't want criminals to own guns, but I'm not stupid--they will find ways to own them.

So bottom line, I don't want Washington (or Sacramento) to eliminate the right to protect myself. I don't think I'd ever need a bazooka or an AK47 to do this and that will probably get me labeled as some sort of freedom hating constitutional revisionist.

But I think I'm like a lot of Californians, like a lot of Americans. We don't think in extremes, but we do have a POV and we love this country.

Kevin said...

Britain's gun crime increased after their gun ban went into effect. Japan, even with their homogenous culture and long standing ban on guns just had a mayor assassinated the day after the Virginia Tech massacre. Legal availability of guns is not and never has been the issue.
I never said all Californians are wackos. I happen to be Californian, and the majority of people I associate with tend to think along the same lines I do; i.e. more libertarian/conservative - a rare species indeed it seems when you look at California's larger cities, especially in the Bay Area.
You may find my blogging glib - that's fine. I don't pretend or claim to throw out particularly deep thoughts. I blog about what moves me, and since I have a lot of obligations pulling me in several directions after I get off work, if I can't get my message across in a couple of paragraphs, I won't bother writing it.
I'm sorry you don't equate liberty with gun ownership. When the Romans freed a slave, they would give that freedman a wooden knife, which was symbolic of the right to self protection. They were under their master's protection no longer. As well as recognizing our ability to protect ourselves, the second amendment in my opinion protects the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. In our government's system of checks and balances, the second amendment is that last, final and most desperate check against a government that no longer heeds the wishes of its people.
The "black helicopter" (well, in the 30's, it was "cattle cars") thing did happen to the Jews not 70 years ago, after they had been disarmed. It's easy to sit in the here and now and sneer about such things, but if you think humanity has seen the last of the likes of Hitler, then I think you're sadly deluded.
You're right - criminals will own guns. This is a technology we cannot uninvent. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
I respect the fact that you don't feel that a bazooka or AK47 is necessary for YOU to protect yourself, as long as you don't try to tell OTHER people what THEY need for their defense.
Your love for your country was never in doubt, good sir.

Robbie said...

Actually, my comment about glib blogging was not directed at you, it was more about blogs that seemed to think all Californians were nutjobs (you actually made the counter point).

I'm not a troll, I just have a slightly different POV. Perhaps in the end, gun owners in the US will somhow prevent a genocide in the US. Doubt it, but don't know.

My point was actually that there are people who understand the imperative of the RIGHT to gun ownership, and will vote to uphold that right, but still choose not to own guns at this time and choose not see it as some sort of "another-Holocaust-is-coming-be-prepared" argument -- which it always seems to be portrayed as.

And then if I say "people shouldn't be allowed to own suitcase nukes" I'm pegged as undermining the Second Amendment.

I don't beleive the Second Amendment will ever be repealed. There will never be the political will to do this. If that's complacent, I'm sorry.

Kevin said...

Yeah, I'm thinking I may have popped off too soon there. As you can see, my reading comprehension skills are on a par with my writing. I respect your POV, it's one that my father-in-law shares. I am just as opposed to mandatory gun ownership as I am to total gun control. Kinda defeats the whole "freedom" thing, you know...
Just as you don't care to be called a "freedom hating constitutional revisionist", I'm not so fond of being called a "Red Dawner"...
And as far as suitcase nukes go, I wish we COULD uninvent those. I think they're a bit of a misnomer though - I don't think they're quite as small as what I was seeing on "24" - more on the order of a "victorian trunk" I think.

DirtCrashr said...

IMO the "another-Holocaust-is-coming-be-prepared" argument -- which it always seems to be portrayed as. Ever wonder why that is? It's not soley or entirely an argument originating from gun owners themselves, but it is the Media narrative that has been developed with which to encapsulate and characterize them.
It's not at all why I own guns, firstly I never had any before I inherited an old rifle from my Grandpa when he passed away - then after learning about them it was because they're fun and I enjoy shooting.
The 2nd Amendment may never be repealed but it has certainly been gutted and twisted into bureaucratic nonsense and red-taped to the bathroom wall in many ways and in many States, especially noticeable in California, New York City, Washington DC, New Jersey, Maryland, and all the non shall-issue states and jurisdictions where rights are denied.
Australia did and still does have gun-elimination legislation, it hasn't been repealed so the "attempt" is ongoing. As a fellow Californian living in the Bay Area though, I can assure you that the folks running San Francisco really are whackos - and really arrogant ones. Fortunately they're confined to their little earthquake prone city - I avoid the place, it's dirty and smells bad, and it's cold and nasty - they can have it.