Odd San Fran Article

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
873
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Linkie...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/05/MNG30G33SM1.DTL

Excerpt with my comments in red...

THE LINE OF FIRE
Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.'s voter-approved ban on handguns
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, December 5, 2005

For a long time, Margaret Hurst lived in fear.

Gangs control turf just a few blocks from her Mission District apartment in San Francisco, and she's sure a neighbor across the street deals drugs. Her building was broken into four times in one year. She saw teenagers on her street display a gun. And while she was stopped at a red light one day, a man tried to punch in her car window in a case of road rage.

Way to go San Fran, don't so something crazy like arrest the criminals.

So she bought a handgun. Now Hurst is no longer scared.

"I'll tell you one thing. If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me," said 49-year-old Hurst, who is about as un-Charlton Heston as any woman with a British accent, braided bun and long flowing skirt could be.

After a heated campaign brought the national debate over gun control to San Francisco, the city's famously liberal voters passed a law last month banning the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits. The measure, which takes effect Jan. 1, also makes it illegal for residents to possess handguns.

And as that date approaches, handgun owners like Hurst are becoming increasingly fearful of the consequences.

"We're exactly the kind of people that should have weapons. We're vulnerable," Hurst said during a recent conversation in her cozy apartment, where she lives with her partner and their two cats. "The guns are not going away unless they absolutely have to."

Actually, we all should have weapons, except the criminals.

When 58 percent of the city's voters approved the handgun ban, San Francisco joined only two other cities in the nation with similar laws, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

The day after the election, the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, saying it oversteps local government authority and intrudes into an area regulated by the state. That battle continues in court.

Backers of the law known as Proposition H include San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who placed the measure on the ballot with three other supervisors.

At a time when San Francisco is experiencing a wave of homicides, backers concede that the ban will not solve the problem of violence, but say the law will at least help curb violence.

Totaly illogical.

"There are other ways that people can defend themselves in their homes," said Bill Barnes, a spokesman for the Prop. H campaign. "Let's say someone breaks into this woman's house and steals her gun and gets in a gunfight. The proliferation of handguns has made the city less safe."

Let's say the criminal already has a gun illegally. THe he uses it to break in your house. Then you blow him away. One less gun on the street, One less criminal on the street. :D

In 1999, the last year for which data are available, 213 people in the city were victims of handgun incidents, according to a 2002 San Francisco Department of Public Health report. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.

But it's about more than statistics to Hurst, who wanted to be identified by her maiden name rather than her last name, out of concern she might be singled out by criminals.

Growing up in a London suburb, she was never exposed to guns. In fact, she had never fired a gun in her life before the day six years ago when she borrowed a friend's rifle, took a trip to the shooting range and learned she's actually a great shot.

Well, I see the London reference as a subtle message that Gun Control can work.

Not long after that, she and her partner, B.C., went to a gun show and spent $700 on matching 9mm handguns. Two years ago, B.C, who also did not want her last name used, bought Hurst a Winchester rifle as a Christmas gift.

Gees, I'm suprprised they celebrate Christmas out there. Maybe it was a Vinter Festivus Gift.

Now the weapons are hidden in different rooms of their apartment after careful thought about the various scenarios in which the women may need to use them.

"I'm not going to start anything, but if somebody else starts something, I'm going to fight for my life," Hurst said. "And not only that, I'm going to try to do enough harm to my attacker that they're not going to go after somebody else who they think might be an easy target."

Both belong to the NRA, not because they agree with what they call the "right-wing lunatics" running the organization, but mostly because they like the mailers and Second Amendment literature the group offers.

Well, folks, typical liberal here.

They pride themselves on being responsible gun owners -- they take regular trips to the range to practice and always keep the bullets separate from the guns. It's just, they say, that they have too many friends who have been raped and abused to allow themselves to fall victim to anyone.

"Not only am I female, it is real obvious, unless you're blind, that I'm gay. I have been harassed more often than I care to think about," said B.C., a 43-year-old personal trainer who has won trophies in bodybuilding competitions. "If all of a sudden it becomes apparent that I'm not going to be able to have a gun at home and you decide to follow me all the way home, well, I'm not looking forward to that at all."

It is unknown exactly how many handguns exist in San Francisco, because the state does not require owners to have a license or permit for their handguns, and many weapons are bought and sold illegally.

Is this true? The State of CA does not require permits for guns? If so then how can the weapons be "bought and sold illegally"? I mean there are no loaws on the books. Right?
 
A very interesting article. One quote and your response to that quote struck a littel discord in me:

"Both belong to the NRA, not because they agree with what they call the "right-wing lunatics" running the organization, but mostly because they like the mailers and Second Amendment literature the group offers. "

"Well, folks, typical liberal here. " S.F.

Be glad that these people want to support Second Amendment rights, regardless of their lifestyle or what they think about anything else. Gun control is a constitutional issue that is neither liberal or conservative...but I guess if folks don't go along with the whole conservative agenda, then they are suspect....I want abortions, gay marraige, and no capital punishment, and the U.S. out of Iraq, okay ? What I don't want is some numbnuts taking away my guns.

Yeah, the horse is dead, but I'll keep kicking it as long as folks want to promulgate other agendas.

Respectfully,

Mark
 
I agree with you Mark, but you will have to bear with most of us, we don't appreciate the left too much. [wink]
 
mark056 said:
A very interesting article. One quote and your response to that quote struck a littel discord in me:

"Both belong to the NRA, not because they agree with what they call the "right-wing lunatics" running the organization, but mostly because they like the mailers and Second Amendment literature the group offers. "

"Well, folks, typical liberal here. " S.F.

Be glad that these people want to support Second Amendment rights, regardless of their lifestyle or what they think about anything else. Gun control is a constitutional issue that is neither liberal or conservative...but I guess if folks don't go along with the whole conservative agenda, then they are suspect....I want abortions, gay marraige, and no capital punishment, and the U.S. out of Iraq, okay ? What I don't want is some numbnuts taking away my guns.

Yeah, the horse is dead, but I'll keep kicking it as long as folks want to promulgate other agendas.

Respectfully,

Mark

Mark, Why should I be glad?

Left/Libs/Dems/Intellectuals, whatever you want to call them are the ones who superceeded the US Constitution and fought to restrict Second Amendment rights with their we-know-best-do-gooder idealogy. I don't see how you can deny this.

If you want to speak to that issue alone the left is clearly anti-gun & anti-Second Amendment.

Republicans/Conservatives/The Far Right, have a much better record on Pro-Second Amendment Issues.

Regards,

:D
 
Well Senor, I think you raise a very good question. First, there are a lot of people like me who straddle the fence, but a lot of people like me aren't into guns. If we continually associate gun rights issues with Conservatism and the Republican Party, then there are a lot of straddlers who are going to go over to the anti-gun side. I think there is a tendency to categorize people today.

Let's look at our own state politics for example. Now both my state rep and state senator were against the Gun Control Act of 1998 and both were Democrats. Remember our acting gov, Jane Swift ? She was a GOAL and NRA poster child when she was a state rep, but what did she do for us once she got the corner office ? Oh, and she is a Republican. Now we have the Mittster who is going around to all of these so-called red states and he is trying to pass himself off as some kind of conservative in a possible presidential bid. Well...what has he done for us ? Here we are with a gun law that is every bit as oppressive with regard to magazine capacities and "so-called" assault weapons as the lapsed Federal law. Now what did this fine upstanding Repubican do for us ?

I really believe that if one wraps the bottom line which is the second amendment into other agendas and political ideology, we are going to lose allies. Remember that classic saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes one has to forge an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

I'm for gun rights and who one sleeps with, or what one does with one's body isn't any of my business. If some Evangelical, pro-life, person wants to help me defeat regressive gun legislation, then I welcome them into the fold, just as I would a married lesbian couple who were pro-choice. There are other arenas and venues to discuss non-gun related issues.

What would I do if tomorrow, Cindy Sheehan said that the Second Amendment was in peril, and that every American should join the NRA ? I'd hug her and say welcome to the fold, Cindy. Likewise if James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame said that recreational shooting improves family life, and that a class on firearms safety should be incorporated into every home schooling cirriculum, I'd say bully for you Dr. Dobson, I'd support that even though I find much of Dobson's agenda personally repugnant. The thing is, many of you find Sheehan as repugnant as I find Dobson, but the real issue is can you work with people who are different from you to achieve a common goal or objective ? If we, as responsible gun owners cannot, then we really are doomed. Charlton Heston was a true champion of our gun rights, and he is right, yet this is the same man who was active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, an issue that was looked on with disdain by the Conservatives of that day.

It would be really easy if all the people who supported the Second Amendment were of the same, race, religion, political party, had similar views on other political topics, but the point is we're not all the same, but we have consensus on one issue and that's something.

I know this forum is a good catharsis and allows people to let off steam, but ya gotta remember that liberals and the fence straddlers who might populate this board, use it to let off steam too. :D

Respectfuly,

Mark
 
mark056 said:
First, there are a lot of people like me who straddle the fence

Got another fence straddler here, Mark.

Gun control? Hitting your target.
Abortion? It's legal; check Roe vs Wade.
Immigration? Shut the friggin' door and deport the illegals.
Gay Marriage? Not My Business; doesn't affect me at all. Let 'em do what they want.
Death Penalty? I think I've burned enough electrons on that topic recently; you all know where I stand on that. :D
Intelligent Design? You're kidding me, right? Just another thinly-disguised attempt by the Fundamentalist Christians to shove Creationism down our throats and deep-six evolution.

Dizzy enough yet? I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative... I think for myself and decide what I'm for and what I'm against. I don't let a political party decide for me.

But I support the Second Amendment. Hope that I'm still welcome here. Since this is a gun forum and all. [roll]
 
mark056 said:
First, there are a lot of people like me who straddle the fence, but a lot of people like me aren't into guns.

On all the issues you mentioned aside from Gun Control you take liberal position. I wouldn't characterize that as fence straddling.

acting gov, Jane Swift ? She was a GOAL and NRA poster child when she was a state rep, but what did she do for us once she got the corner office ? Oh, and she is a Republican.

Jane Swift wasn't elected govenor by anyone. She was a liberal northeast republican, not a conservative. Frankly, I don't see what she has to do with anything. She had so little support within her own party, she didn't even get the chance to loose in the general election.

I really believe that if one wraps the bottom line which is the second amendment into other agendas and political ideology, we are going to lose allies. Remember that classic saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes one has to forge an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

The enemy-of-enemy-blah-blah business I've only heard from the talking heads on the cable news junket since 9/11. I don't think Hitler or Stalin or Stalin-Lite is my brand of vodka. Does the end justify the means? Hell no. That type of liberal group think brought us gun control in the first place.

I'm for gun rights and who one sleeps with, or what one does with one's body isn't any of my business. If some Evangelical, pro-life, person wants to help me defeat regressive gun legislation, then I welcome them into the fold, just as I would a married lesbian couple who were pro-choice. There are other arenas and venues to discuss non-gun related issues.

Well, good for you, I didn't bring up any of those issues. The hypocrisy of the liberals taking a pro-Second Amendment stance on a Constitutional Basis is amazing, when they've done so much to undermine it.

What would I do if tomorrow, Cindy Sheehan said that the Second Amendment was in peril, and that every American should join the NRA ? I'd hug her and say welcome to the fold, Cindy. Likewise if James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame said that recreational shooting improves family life, and that a class on firearms safety should be incorporated into every home schooling cirriculum, I'd say bully for you Dr. Dobson, I'd support that even though I find much of Dobson's agenda personally repugnant. The thing is, many of you find Sheehan as repugnant as I find Dobson, but the real issue is can you work with people who are different from you to achieve a common goal or objective ? If we, as responsible gun owners cannot, then we really are doomed. Charlton Heston was a true champion of our gun rights, and he is right, yet this is the same man who was active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, an issue that was looked on with disdain by the Conservatives of that day.

Again, all issues you have raised, not me.

It would be really easy if all the people who supported the Second Amendment were of the same, race, religion, political party, had similar views on other political topics, but the point is we're not all the same, but we have consensus on one issue and that's something.

Again, not sure why this is mentioned. Liberal postitions on Gun Control & the Second Amendment matter most. Something you haven't addressed AT ALL.

I know this forum is a good catharsis and allows people to let off steam, but ya gotta remember that liberals and the fence straddlers who might populate this board, use it to let off steam too. :D

Yes, indeed it's a nice forum.
 
senorFrog said:
It is unknown exactly how many handguns exist in San Francisco, because the state does not require owners to have a license or permit for their handguns, and many weapons are bought and sold illegally.

Is this true? The State of CA does not require permits for guns? If so then how can the weapons be "bought and sold illegally"? I mean there are no loaws on the books. Right?

Surprisingly, no. All transfers are required to be booked through a licensed dealer and reported to the state, but the only permit that exists is for Concealed Carry, which operates just like in the PRofMA, i.e., local police and sheriffs issue or don't according to what they voices tell them. L.A. city and county tend to issue 2 or 3 a year for a population of 8 million; San Bernardino County (where I grew up) and Culver City (a block from where I used to live in L.A.) are both essentially "shall issue". A common work around on concealed carry when you had to work or drive through the wrong areas was to keep an unloaded Uzi carbine on the passenger seat, with a loaded magazine next to it -- perfectly legal at that time, though the law has probably tightened up somewhat since I left.

Ken
 
Glad to know that that I am a hypocrtical liberal and responsible for the ills of society, as for Ms. Swift, yeah she wasn't elected governor but both GOAL and the NRA gave her the highest ratings when she was a State Rep..... I don't think the people in North Adams thought that she was a liberal. :?

Guess, I'll sell my guns and join the ACLU :? Yeah, right... :(

Senor, I can work with you on gun issues, but I am inclined to surmise that you may have issues with people who don't have cookie cutter views that don't fall into a particular mold, if I am incorrect about this, please accept my apologies. Generally speaking, it would appear that there are many who want the whole enchilada, so to speak, and who perceive gun rights as one of many agenda items....with that attitude, we will fail simply because we will get hung up in the quagmire of things not relevent to our common goal.

I would never compare myself to the great Zell Miller of Georgia, a great patriot and a man of stellar accomplishments (I lived in GA when he was governor down there) but he and I share a common problem, but in reverse. The Democratic Party went too far to the left for him, and the Republican Party went too far to the right for me.

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans control the executive branch, and legislative branches of the Federal Government, and have controlled the executive branch of Mass State govt since Mike Dukakis left office.

I loved Ronald Regan!! 8)

Mark
Life Member, National Rifle Assn.
Member, VFW Post 10333 (MA State Police At Large Post)
Member. Military Officers Assn. of America (Formerly known as the Retired Officers Assn.)

(as you can see, by the organiations that I am a member of, I am a real flaming liberal bent on turning this into the New World Order) [twisted]
 
mark056 said:
Glad to know that that I am a hypocrtical liberal and responsible for the ills of society

Senor, I can work with you on gun issues, but I am inclined to surmise that you may have issues with people who don't have cookie cutter views that don't fall into a particular mold

Liberals as a group are the ones who instituted gun control, something you've yet to address.

Personal attacks on me for whatever you believe my view of the world is, is not nesessary. I've stated no positions on any issue besides gun control. You're the only one who gave and injected positions on issues other than gun control.
 
Senor,

If I were going to make an ad hominem attack upon you, I would not use this forum to do so. I was stating an impression, and I also said in the body of the text that if I was wrong you have my apologies. If you are going to quote me, please do so in context.

Methinks it's best that we carry on any further dialog on this topic via email or PM. Please feel free to PM me anytime.

Respectfully and with all best wishes,

Mark
 
Kumbaya. Let's hug!

I'll quote you in context if you agree to not surmise my political leanings. Fair?

BTW, you still haven't addressed liberals record on the gun issue.


If I were going to make an ad hominem attack upon you, I would not use this forum to do so.

Edit: PS - No need to cyber-brandish. ( [lol] ).
 
Well, that's an eye-opener. Mark, I do believe you're not actually a Liberal.

You sound more like a Moderate than anything else. I also am a Moderate, though I lean to the right more than a little. You just may lean a little to the left. Neither is bad. And for the record, I'm an Issue Voter.

I'm Pro-Gun, Pro-Choice and don't give a shit what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.

Extremeism (Far Right or Far Left) is what's bad, and it's wrecking the political future of this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom