Hand Them Over!

B

Bruzilla

Guest
You gotta just shake your head at laws like this. The law states that law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, and that current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April. So, why would cops, guards, and others have a need for weapons after April? I mean, if all the guns are turned in, why do these people need guns for protection? Unless through some fluke of nature criminals won't follow the law, like maybe the folks who are committing crimes today, and that there will still be a threat to cops, guards, and the ill-defined "others." And if that's the case, why are these folks allowed to defend themselves while everyone else just has to dodge the bullets? I think that if cops are so hept up on pushing these laws that the law should also cover them. If being weaponless is good enough for John Q. Public it should be good enough for the cops. Let the cops back up their promises of making the streets safer by switching to batons and whistles like the British do.

And with the huge gay population in San Francisco, many of whom come out in droves to fight for gays to be able to serve in the military, why are they doing everything they can to prevent the military from recruiting? This law just shows again how Gays, like most Liberals, have no real commitment to any cause.
 

kidd 194

Here's your sign!
exactly

Bruzilla said:
You gotta just shake your head at laws like this. The law states that law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, and that current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April. So, why would cops, guards, and others have a need for weapons after April? I mean, if all the guns are turned in, why do these people need guns for protection? Unless through some fluke of nature criminals won't follow the law, like maybe the folks who are committing crimes today, and that there will still be a threat to cops, guards, and the ill-defined "others." And if that's the case, why are these folks allowed to defend themselves while everyone else just has to dodge the bullets? I think that if cops are so hept up on pushing these laws that the law should also cover them. If being weaponless is good enough for John Q. Public it should be good enough for the cops. Let the cops back up their promises of making the streets safer by switching to batons and whistles like the British do.

And with the huge gay population in San Francisco, many of whom come out in droves to fight for gays to be able to serve in the military, why are they doing everything they can to prevent the military from recruiting? This law just shows again how Gays, like most Liberals, have no real commitment to any cause.
:yeahthat:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Only two other major U.S. cities - Washington and Chicago - have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
This is perfectly fine with me. San Francisco is getting ready to see their violent crime rate go straight through the roof. It also means that violent criminals will leave other areas and go to where the pickins are easy.

Kill a Commie for Mommy! :patriot:

It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.
Fine with me as well. There's already a ban on gays in the military, so why would they want to recruit in SF anyway? :confused: That's like recruiting in Berkeley.
 

Sharon

* * * * * * * * *
Staff member
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
San Francisco is getting ready to see their violent crime rate go straight through the roof. It also means that violent criminals will leave other areas and go to where the pickins are easy.

Kill a Commie for Mommy! :patriot:
:high5: :roflmao:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Insane...

San Francisco is getting ready to see their violent crime rate go straight through the roof.

That is exactly what is going to happen.

Quick, what would be the likely outcome if San Francisco banned fire extinguishers in the home and just left the flames to the firemen?

What if they banned seat belts?

And, appropriately, what if they banned condoms?
 
Top