Still think they're not coming for your guns?

Judy, you might have a point and be on to something IF it was the state of California passing a law to stop all gun sales in the state............ their NOT! What you have here is ONE city in a very large state passing that law, if you look at California as a whole and if you honestly knew anything about those in that state you'd know that most living there think that San Francisco and Berkley are looked at as a bit of a joke due to their extreme views. So this happing through out the rest of the state is very very unlikely, there's a lot of good hunting and fishing in that state and it makes money, so it's not going to be outlawed any time soon there. Originally Posted by novacain

One very large city right next to the state capital. If they can make it work there (that means any decrease that they can take credit for) then it goes on the road. Why? Just like everyone said, the surrounding areas haven't done it yet. Take New York City, they have restrictive gun laws. They don't seem to work. What do they do? Complain that the other cities and states around them are screwing up their efforts. What are the odds that San Fran will in the very near future demand that Oakland, Sacramento, et. al. follow suit?

It's out there, speedy, all your little moronic-ass has to do is Google it... or better yet, prove that number is wrong, jackass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You made the statement. It's up to YOU to prove it is not just another one of your idiotic opinions and is indeed fact. If you choose not to do so, everyone will again understand that you are just a lying asshole.

One very large city right next to the state capital. If they can make it work there (that means any decrease that they can take credit for) then it goes on the road. Why? Just like everyone said, the surrounding areas haven't done it yet. Take New York City, they have restrictive gun laws. They don't seem to work. What do they do? Complain that the other cities and states around them are screwing up their efforts. What are the odds that San Fran will in the very near future demand that Oakland, Sacramento, et. al. follow suit? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Or community college towns in Oregon.

Damon inconvenient of someone to shoot a bunch of people just in the middle of another "what's wrong with guns" rant. Wonder what the casualty and fatality numbers would have been if the nut was using a baseball bat instead?

One very large city right next to the state capital. If they can make it work there (that means any decrease that they can take credit for) then it goes on the road. Why? Just like everyone said, the surrounding areas haven't done it yet. Take New York City, they have restrictive gun laws. They don't seem to work. What do they do? Complain that the other cities and states around them are screwing up their efforts. What are the odds that San Fran will in the very near future demand that Oakland, Sacramento, et. al. follow suit? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'd like to know what crime statistics you are looking at. You should try supporting your statements with facts rather than just expressing opinions.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Violent crime in NYC had 1,180.9 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1990. 381,8 in 2014. In 1990 NY was the 2nd most populous state and was 2nd in number of violent crimes. In 2013 NY was the 3rd most populous state and was 19th in number of violent crimes. Seems to me that New York's gun control laws have been working VERY well over the last 20-25 years.

San Francisco is a safe city. Doesn't even make this website's list of the 100 most
dangerous cities in the U.S.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...p100dangerous/

This despite being the 11th largest city in the U.S. I find your mention of Oakland rather ironic. Oakland is the 5th most dangerous city in the U.S. according to the article. Maybe Oakland should enact some of the gun control laws that exist in S.F.

San Francisco laws, very similar to D.C.'s before Heller, impose wholly unreasonable limitations on gun owners, speedy. Only two individuals -- out of a population of nearly one million -- have permits, and one of those assholes helped write the fuckin' laws that keep everyone else from having permits, speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I got tired of your refusal to cite a source for your inane comments so I did my best to find anything to back up your statements. The closest I could come is that laws in S.F. make it very difficult to get a CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE. Three permits have been approved since 2013 and two remain active. So I assume that this is what you were talking about. I would agree that this seems overly restrictive. Would it have been that difficult for YOU to supply the link to the article?

But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Heller decision which determined that an individual has the right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes. People in S.F. have always had that right. The people in D.C. did not prior to the Heller decision. The Heller decision did not address the legal right of people to carry firearms in public.

One very large city right next to the state capital. If they can make it work there (that means any decrease that they can take credit for) then it goes on the road. Why? Just like everyone said, the surrounding areas haven't done it yet. Take New York City, they have restrictive gun laws. They don't seem to work. What do they do? Complain that the other cities and states around them are screwing up their efforts. What are the odds that San Fran will in the very near future demand that Oakland, Sacramento, et. al. follow suit? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

RIGHT next to the State Capital?

Using a pocket map again I see, JDrunk!

And ranting nonsensically again, as usual.

I got tired of your refusal to cite a source for your inane comments so I did my best to find anything to back up your statements. The closest I could come is that laws in S.F. make it very difficult to get a CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE. Three permits have been approved since 2013 and two remain active. So I assume that this is what you were talking about. I would agree that this seems overly restrictive. Would it have been that difficult for YOU to supply the link to the article?

But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Heller decision which determined that an individual has the right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes. People in S.F. have always had that right. The people in D.C. did not prior to the Heller decision. The Heller decision did not address the legal right of people to carry firearms in public. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're a fuckin' drooling idiot if you can't see that SF's requirements to completely disable -- render useless -- a weapon in the home isn't almost exactly like D.C.'s requirement to disable a weapon in the home pre-Heller, speedy.

You made the statement. It's up to YOU to prove it is not just another one of your idiotic opinions and is indeed fact. If you choose not to do so, everyone will again understand that you are just a lying asshole. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're a fuckin' drooling idiot if you can't see that SF's requirements to completely disable -- render useless -- a weapon in the home isn't almost exactly like D.C.'s requirement to disable a weapon in the home pre-Heller, speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just continue to validate my prior statement that "You are, by far, the dumbest person on this forum." Prior to the Heller decision, here was the law in D.C.:

Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

There is no such law in San Francisco or anything close to it. In D.C. you could not own a handgun. In SF you can own a handgun but:

"A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires residents to keep handguns under lock and key or to use trigger locks when they are not carrying their weapons. Another law, dating to 1994, bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, or hollow-point bullets."

People filed suit to do away with the law and it eventually reached SCOTUS where only 2 of the 9 justices voted to review the case. And SCOTUS is a Conservative court. You, and the NRA, lose again. Sorry about that, idiot. Either you believe in our system of government or you do not.

You just continue to validate my prior statement that "You are, by far, the dumbest person on this forum." Prior to the Heller decision, here was the law in D.C.:

Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

There is no such law in San Francisco or anything close to it. In D.C. you could not own a handgun. In SF you can own a handgun but:

"A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires residents to keep handguns under lock and key or to use trigger locks when they are not carrying their weapons. Another law, dating to 1994, bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, or hollow-point bullets."

People filed suit to do away with the law and it eventually reached SCOTUS where only 2 of the 9 justices voted to review the case. And SCOTUS is a Conservative court. You, and the NRA, lose again. Sorry about that, idiot. Either you believe in our system of government or you do not. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your dissembling only proves that you are a lying nincompoop, speedy. Mr. Heller had a hand-gun, speedy.

Your dissembling only proves that you are a lying nincompoop, speedy. Mr. Heller had a hand-gun, speedy.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And exactly what am I lying about? Everything in my posts is 100% FACT. Just because you don't like those facts does not make them lies.

Drive 10 minutes across the bridge to Oakland and you can get just about any type of gun you wish, both legal and illegal.

The NRA and wacko right have been screaming "They are coming to take your guns" for the last 20 years, haven't seen it happen yet and I doubt that I ever will. Originally Posted by novacain

So this morning, I went and collected a jar of ocean water. I examined it carefully. There were no fish in the jar.

I did the same thing yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, for several years. Collect ocean water in a jar, examined it, and found no fish.

My conclusion: There are no fish in the ocean.

Your argument has exactly as much logic as the above scenario. So just keep sampling that ocean water son.

And exactly what am I lying about? Everything in my posts is 100% FACT. Just because you don't like those facts does not make them lies. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Mr. Heller already had a hand-gun, speedy, he just wanted a permit to store it at home, you dissembling and perpetual jackass. And you're also lying when you deny the similarity of San Francisco gun-laws and D.C.'s pre-Heller gun-laws, speedy. And there's this you were denying -- (AKA "lying about"), speedy:

Or community college towns in Oregon.

Damon inconvenient of someone to shoot a bunch of people just in the middle of another "what's wrong with guns" rant. Wonder what the casualty and fatality numbers would have been if the nut was using a baseball bat instead? Originally Posted by Old-T

Care to consider if the college had allowed the concealed carry veteran to go over with his buddies to intervene? Another gun free zone filled with carnage. Why doesn't this happen in Israel? or Switzerland? They have automatic weapons available to them.

I'd like to know what crime statistics you are looking at. You should try supporting your statements with facts rather than just expressing opinions.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Violent crime in NYC had 1,180.9 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1990. 381,8 in 2014. In 1990 NY was the 2nd most populous state and was 2nd in number of violent crimes. In 2013 NY was the 3rd most populous state and was 19th in number of violent crimes. Seems to me that New York's gun control laws have been working VERY well over the last 20-25 years.

San Francisco is a safe city. Doesn't even make this website's list of the 100 most
dangerous cities in the U.S.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...p100dangerous/

This despite being the 11th largest city in the U.S. I find your mention of Oakland rather ironic. Oakland is the 5th most dangerous city in the U.S. according to the article. Maybe Oakland should enact some of the gun control laws that exist in S.F. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So many things....why didn't you cite Chicago with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Should be one safe city don't you think?

I lived in San Fran for a few months about 15 years ago. As for crime, most people don't even report the low level crime in that town because if it is not reported, it didn't happen. I watched a couple of drug deals go down in broad daylight was advised that if they act like they don't see me then I don't see them. San Fran is not as safe as they would have you believe. Especially if you're female and illegals are around.

I'd like you to come up with a theory why Oakland is so violent and San Fran is so peaceful (as you say).

Most people give credit for the reduction in crime in New York Ciy in the 90s to Guilani and aggressive policing not the gun laws.

You just continue to validate my prior statement that "You are, by far, the dumbest person on this forum." Prior to the Heller decision, here was the law in D.C.:

Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

There is no such law in San Francisco or anything close to it. In D.C. you could not own a handgun. In SF you can own a handgun but:

"A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires residents to keep handguns under lock and key or to use trigger locks when they are not carrying their weapons. Another law, dating to 1994, bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, or hollow-point bullets."

People filed suit to do away with the law and it eventually reached SCOTUS where only 2 of the 9 justices voted to review the case. And SCOTUS is a Conservative court. You, and the NRA, lose again. Sorry about that, idiot. Either you believe in our system of government or you do not. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Actually you could own an automatic weapon, assault style rifle, or hand gun in DC...if you knew the right people.
Liberal columnist Carl Rowan shot a teenager who was using his pool with a .22 caliber handgun. The teen was drunk (as was his buddy) and Carl was not under any fear for his life. The gun belonged to his FBI agent son (that was his story but why does a FBI agent carry a .22?). Anyway, no charges were filed.
A bodyguard for Ted Kennedy believing there was trouble popped out a fully automatic Uzi and pointed out the crowd. The weapons (he also had an unregistered pistol) were not registered and illegal to own in DC. No charges were filed.
Some democratic politician in a perennial display of stupidity broke an AK47 style rifle into the House chamber before a vote on an assault weapons ban. He did not clear it with security and it was unregistered. No charges were filed.