The Only Guarantor of Safety and Freedom
Last year San Franciscans, apparently after many trips to the Medical Marijuana store, decided it would be a good idea (damn the Constitution!) to ban handgun possession and sales. Nevermind that is clearly unconstitutional and violates state law.
Their other brilliant-while-stoned move was making the law apply only to residents of San Francisco, which means a tourist or anyone moving through the city (like a criminal) had every right in the world to possess a handgun.
Fortunately, the National Rifle Association sued and a judge has agreed with them, overturning a remarkably dangerous and insipidly unconstitutional city ordinance.
Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban
SAN FRANCISCO – A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
Read the whole story and make note of the other good news about a similar challenge to the Washington, DC gun ban which has made that city one of the regular murder capitals in the world. Why? Because only the law-abiding respect the law, making any city that bans firearms a Mecca for the depraved and violent.
Unless, of course, you’re a bunch a leftist MalNars with control issues and your head in the hemp.
Notice the rhetoric and the anti-gun nuts: San Franciscans created this ordinance to ban guns because of an increase in so-called “gun violence.” Only when a gun gets up and makes you breakfast can there be a claim of “gun violence.” It’s people violence, which includes murder. Murder, of course, and using a gun in the commission of a crime, are also illegal, but that hasn’t stopped the criminal element from engaging in those acts. And with a gun ban, criminals will also continue to use guns in the commission of their crimes.
Gun bans only serve to make good, law-abiding people more vulnerable by applying a big, fat neon sign atop their heads that screams, “I am an unarmed easy target! There is no way you are at risk of being shot by me of you break into my home, rape me, and murder my family. Come and get it!”
Just ask the people of Washington, DC, Canada, and London what happens when you ban guns. Londoners will tell you what it’s like to have a violent crime rate surpass New York City. And how is it that the murder rate in Washington, DC skyrocketed when guns were banned. How strange–violent crime increased when guns were banned. Gee, I wonder why…
And everyone who voted for that law can thank the NRA for making sure their freedom-loving leftist nirvana doesn’t turn into a murderous hellhole. Oh, and what should they do about a rising homicide rate? They would be well served to stop viewing crime as the result of the actions of a thing (“gun violence”) and the choice of violent individuals who don’t need therapy or more pot or didn’t get enough hugs when they were kids.
It’s called getting tough on criminals, shaming the violent and cracking down on the humans who commit crime instead of blaming an inanimate object.
Courtesy of the NRA, at least the good law-abiding citizens of San Francisco can keep their arms and defend their property, themselves and their families.
It’s interesting how so many liberals interpret the Bill of Rights most broadly and flexibly and to the benefit of the individual citizen, except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, at which point they suddenly reach for a narrow interpretation. For example, ask what part of the Constitution offers abortion rights, and they’ll cite the right to privacy (which isn’t clearly enumerated) or perhaps offer some vague reference to the Constitutional “penumbra”. But then ask about the right to bear arms, and they’ll tell you that right only belongs to the state and not to you. Please, let’s have some consistency!
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to express yourself. The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to defend yourself. Without the 2nd, the 1st is worthless.
More to the point, without the 2nd, you really have no guarentee to ANY of the others.
You’d have to be dillusional (as is often the case with the left) or illiterate not to understand the the intent of the 2nd Ammendment;
“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
How lefties interpret that to mean the state has the right but the people, despite what it says in plain english, don’t, presents quite a poser to the more logical amongst us.
Chris Rock, probably put it best in his song “No Sex in the Champagne Room”:
“Don’t go to parties with metal detectors. Sure it FEELS safe inside, but what about all those [guys] waiting outside WITH guns? They know you aint got one.”
Apparently everybody in California is not clueless about the what the second amendment is there for. Bravo to that courageous judge.
Living in Indiana as I do, we take the second amendment very seriously and life here is pretty quiet. Indiana is a right to carry state and any law abiding citizen has the right to carry a firearm if they obtain a permit. In Indiana the burden of proof is on the state to find a good reason why a citizen should not be granted a permit.
We in Indiana have a fairly low crime rate but of course we’re not Utopia. On the other hand, our print MSM, if not our broadcast MSM, is full of stories of ordinary citizens defending themselves. Every year there are a variety of stories in which normal folks defend themselves from criminals with firearms. Our prosecutors are very sympathetic and in this state, one can defend one’s self without fear of frivilous prosecution.
The founding fathers wrote and ratified that “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. They were wise in doing so, they meant what they said, and 230 years hence our other freedoms are still here as well.
Bravo.
It is worthy of note that the right to bear arms is not there to allow us to protect ourselvs from criminals but from a tyrannical government. It is there for inefective when we can not posses anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.
Hmmm. Do we really want to go there? No, I am really woundering, do we really want to go there.