The Communists of Kalifornia...

[IHL]

This has GOT to be stopped. Please - if you live in the San Francisco area (I pity you) vote AGAINST this invasion of our Constitutional rights! (Click image for more information)

http://www.stopsanfranban.com/images/sfgb_stopbanner.gif (http://www.stopsanfranban.com/)

Do not forget about this absurd Propostition. If you live in the San Francisco area and can vote, please register to vote and VOTE NO to Proposition H.

A better name for it, might have been

http://preparationh.com/products/images/supposit_box.gif

[Android]

So... San Fransisco does NOT have to follow the rules of our constitution? This is screwed up. Whats worse is if they do it, how many uber lib cities will follow? Again, pick and choose the sections of the constitution that they agree with and that is necessary to exist. AHHHHHHHH.

[FKLBRLS]

Man, San Francisco is being really gay right now (pun intended). Well we all have to remember that the second amendment-The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed-only applies to state militias. That's the liberal argument for this. Like it or not the constitution says we have the right to own guns, so deal with it. I know a few people that live near SF, but not in it, good thing. Watch as the gun crimes go up. I guess these SF city officials haven't learned anything from Texas, where crime rates are low thanks to friendly gun-ownership policies. In one small TX town, residents are REQUIRED to own guns. As a result break-ins and robberies are nonexistant.

[RLord4268]

Man, San Francisco is being really gay right now (pun intended). Well we all have to remember that the second amendment-The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed-only applies to state militias. That's the liberal argument for this. Actually that is 100% true, due to the fact that the state militias, where composed of everyday people. So in fact this does apply to the militia, but it just so happens that anybody should or could be in a militia, you didn't organize until you went into combat, otherwise you just lived life, so as my friend says it, take the musket from above the door, and go whip the redcoat's ass. :icon_smil

[RLord4268]

But to the point, this is nothing other than an outright violation of American civil rights, and if no one does anything this will become the staple of all large urban cities and crime will skyrocket and become unbearable for the residents inside as the criminals will know this and have free reign. The reason the second amendment is there has actually nothing to do with hunting, self deefense, or sporting of any kind. It was put there as a check and balance so that the government did no become to powerful or out of the peoples control.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. How can we do this if do not have arms to do this with, this is why this is in the constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This states that we need the militia to keep the country free and therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[RLord4268]

Oh, and by the way if the libs really wanted to get into it with me:

Infringed:To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. This doesn't mean denied, this means violated even a small bit not denied alltogether, so in fact they are already in violation of the constitution.

[Argonath]

Is prop. H just a line that says "Do you want to ban guns in San Francisco?", and then a yes or no stamp. A link to either both sides of the argument, or an unbiased one that just is an investigative report, would be much opreciated. Also, when did this Prop. come up? was it the mayor? or a city mandate? or some other source?

[IHL]

I don't know all of that and it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter to have the other side of the so-called argument. There is no other side. They want to abolish the ability of the citizens to possess handguns. Period. And, if you already have purchased a gun, they want to take it out of your hands and turn it over to the government. You don't need any more information than that.

This is un-American and unconstitutional but the liberals only see what they think is some great fix to a problem. Apparently they believe the criminals will also turn in their guns and all their problems will be solved. These people, and anyone who also believes this is a absolute, 100% moron. They are ignorant and blind to the facts.

This sort of thing has been tried. It has never worked and never will. In every single instance where a ban on guns was attempted to reduce violence, exactly the opposite has happened. Mark my words on this too - if this confiscation takes place, you will see the crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, in San Francisco will skyrocket. This isn't hard to figure out if you are not a liberal. Liberals obviously have a hard time digesting facts. Instead, they like to count on the warm and fuzzy feeling they get when they think something might work. Actually results are ignored. What the liberals are either too blind or too stupid to see is that the criminal won't turn in a single gun. Only the law abiding citizen will do that. The criminal must be loving this. One of the main deterrents to criminals is the fact that the place they are breaking into might actually have some means of defending themselves. Thanks to the liberals in California, the criminals are now facing the real possibility that their victims will be come virtually defenseless against them. What a treat for the criminals. Gee, thanks Libs!

But, the bleeding heart brain dead liberals will feel good. "Look what we did. We got guns off the streets. Aren't we great?" No, you aren't great. You aren't great at all. If this happens, someone come back to me in a year with the crime rate statistics. If they are not drastically higher I will take back all I said and turn this web site over to the libs.

[Topiary Lady]

Even if this passed, I can't see that it would hold up in court. It might be a long term legal battle though just like the Mt. Soledad cross issue here. San Diegans again voted to save it and a judge again says it has to go. I think that even if Prop H passed it would never be implemented.

After what we all just saw happen in New Orleans I think that gun ownership will be on the rise in this country, not on the decline.

[IHL]

From your lips to God's ears TL. Gun ownership is on the rise already and when I'm in charge, all citizens will be required to own a gun and take mandatory classes on how to use it for self defense. I will instate laws like Florida that say if you are faced with deadly force you may respond using deadly force. And, if you kill someone who has broken into your house, not only will you not be charged with a crime, the family of the perpetrator must pay for the clean up of the mess.

How's that!! Hey, their way doesn't work. Try my way and if it fails, which it wouldn't and if violence is up after two years of my plan, I will be more than happy to return to the liberal way.

It will never happen but it would work.

[Oi_Ve]

I hope san fransico passes the law. I hope they open that can of worms. I hope they evoke the wrath of the entire gun lobby. I hope they pass the law, so that it can go before the supreme court and let the world see how ridiculous it is, have the law struck down, and finally bury this arguement (or at least one part of it).

[Topiary Lady]

When you're 'in charge' IHL? So, when are you running for office? IHL For Prez. I like it! Just say the word and we'll get an office going over this way.

[Argonath]

Mabye it doesn't matter to you, but I want to know both sides. no matter how stupid or repugnant it is, i want to know their reasoning.

Now, if I were president, hmm. Abortions would be outlawed, but there would be government-sanctioned baby killings. if you don't want it, just toss it in the van! There would be no tax, just immediate seizure of all personal accounts. All crimes would have the death penalty. there will be mandatory mating periods for all cabinet members. the Supreme court would be dismantled, they would halt all progress of the fourth Reich. Everything would cost 17.76$, anything else would be unpatriotic, and the distributer would be killed. Canada would be immediatly annexed, and used as a breeding ground for clones of tom hanks. these tom hanks clones would invade hollywood, killing all infirior actors, from Tom Cruise to Mel Gibson, from Britany Spears, to Pamala Anderson. Morgan Freeman would be able to live, though. He will have to play as every role in "the Royal Tannenbaums" for my entertainment. Alaska would become another cloning ground, but for Millions of Lindsay Lohans. A chicken in every pot, and a Lohan in every home! I would kick ass.

[Madcowhunter]

Hmmm.... Argonath, I have to say that is pretty intesting... Interesting and creepy. Now, if there was forced mating, then too many people would want in prison. An easy way is by selling a car for 20 bucks.

Their reasoning for asking guns to be outlawed? Because, simply, they are afraid of guns. They've grown up their entire lives being taught how guns are bad, and how they kill people. It's obvious, they don't know how to operate a gun. And they're too afraid to learn, I won't listen to them rant about something they know nothing about.

[Peace_by_superior _power]

Here is some quotes from our founding fathers:

http://www.fortliberty.org/quotes/quotes-firearms.shtml

Ill leave my favorites.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --- Thomas Jefferson in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour. -- George Washington.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible. -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964


If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. -- Edward Abbey in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)

Id keep posting but ill keep it short check it out for yourself

[Argonath]

Yes, yes, i know, Guns were cool back then. I'm not for the ban of guns, that would only start another prohibition thing, only instead of speak-easies, you have squeze-easies. Hell, did you know that Swizerland gives rifles to grown males? They have one of the lowest gun-related murder ratings in the world! as Peter from family guy said: "A chicken in every pot, and a cap in every ass!".

[alwaysRight]

This is un-American and unconstitutional but the liberals only see what they think is some great fix to a problem. Apparently they believe the criminals will also turn in their guns and all their problems will be solved. These people, and anyone who also believes this is a absolute, 100% moron. They are ignorant and blind to the facts.

IHL-You're genius. I can't stand how people think laws like this will hurt the criminals, when all it does is hurt us law abiding citizens.

Okay, so I am a female, and unlike many of my female friends, I am pro-guns. I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I believe having a gun is my Constitutional right. I also live in Ohio where we have the concealed carry law, which I think is great.

My question is, how can we allow these people to interfere and infringe on our constitutional rights? How are they able to bypass the Constitution?

It infuriates me..

[Wadi66]

My question is, how can we allow these people to interfere and infringe on our constitutional rights? How are they able to bypass the Constitution? Most people don't stop to think about why laws are created and implimented. Laws are nothing more than a collective effort to force a person or people to do something (or take away something) that a single individual hasn't the capacity to do. Think about that.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

From your lips to God's ears TL. Gun ownership is on the rise already and when I'm in charge, all citizens will be required to own a gun and take mandatory classes on how to use it for self defense. I will instate laws like Florida that say if you are faced with deadly force you may respond using deadly force. And, if you kill someone who has broken into your house, not only will you not be charged with a crime, the family of the perpetrator must pay for the clean up of the mess.

You got my Vote IHL w00t!!!!!!!!!! :icon_cool

[IHL]

I want to remind people of this up coming vote. If you live in this area or know anyone who does, PLEASE vote or have them vote against this gun ban.

For those of you who might be in favor of such a thing, let me ask you this...

Anti-gun lobbyists like to bring up Columbine, shootings in day care centers, churches, other schools etc. Yet in every one of these cases, these areas are strictly designated as NO GUNS ALLOWED areas. How can this be? If guns are not allowed, how is it possible that these crimes are committed?

If guns are the problem, then why aren't these shootings happening at NRA conventions, shooting competitions and the bane of the liberals - the gun shows? If guns are truly the problem, why aren't these shootings happening in areas where guns are everywhere?

The answer of course is because guns are not the problem. Criminals don't pay attention to gun laws, or any other laws and they know better than to start shooting at a gun show where they would be dropped by the time they fired their second shot.

But I'd love to hear a response by some anti-gun person. Anyone?

[DefacedCreation]

I was so completely against this, it's not even funny. Oh, and for those who wanted to know, if four city supervisors agree on a proposition, then it can be put on the ballot. Such is the case, where four different supervisors from districts joined forces to take my freedom of owning firearms away from me.

[The Sheriff]

Here is some quotes from our founding fathersOMG U L00zER!!! TEH FOUNDING FATHERS WERE LIBERALS IN THEIR DAY THEY WOULD NEVER ALLOW GUNS IN MODERN TIMES THEY ALLOW TEH CHANGING OF CONSTITUTION THATS WHY WE DONT AMEND IT AND MAKE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ANYWAYS DURRRRRRRRR!!!!111!!!

Actually, California's massive, self-defeating Constitution doesn't even have any laws regarding arms, firearms, guns, weapons, or self-defense. I'd hate to say it, but the gun controllers actually do have a quasi-reasonable argument. It still sucks, but it's better than nothing, especially when 9/10 liberals is more than happy to ignore the word "infringe."

How someone manages to get anti-gun laws past the U.S. Constitution and this baby is beyond my comprehension:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.

The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms
As far as I can tell, that means any seventeen-year-old citizen and resident of Ohio has a full right to arms, yet laws in Ohio contradict nearly every word stated here. If that's happening in Ohio, then anything can happen in California even if it somehow lost half of its liberals.