So, as we all know by now, the San Francisco gun ban has gone down in flames, and as Tam said, the victim disarmament advocates are furious...
"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."
As the old saying goes, same shit, different day. But this is a clear window into the way these people think. "Reasonable" to them means taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens -- taking the guns out of the hands of the people who aren't the problem. It hasn't worked in Chicago, it hasn't worked in Washington, D.C., it hasn't worked in Great Britain, what the hell makes the morons who run San Francisco think their city's going to be -- or, rather, would have been -- any different? Just because they see things through different lenses than the rest of us doesn't mean that view is reality. I know that's perfectly obvious to most people outside the San Francisco city limits, but I still don't understand why they think the way they do, on the issue of violence perpetrated with guns or anything else. Justice was served, no matter what those leftist jagoffs and their slimy attorneys think. We should all hope it remains so, because even if San Fran is chock-full of wrong-headed people, they're still humans, with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities.
Now, as for the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, who brought the suit to strike down the gun ban, David Codrea brings up an interesting question that he's raised before, that apparently has yet to be answered:
Here's the NRA statement on the legal defeat of the San Francisco handgun ban:This ruling supports the premise of NRA's argument.
The NRA filed it's lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed...
The NRA is determined not to see this gross injustice happen again...
Meanwhile, true to form, here's the statement from SAF:“We’re proud to have worked once again with the National Rifle Association..."
Once again, SAF shares credit and NRA claims it all for themselves.
Why
does this
keep happening?
I have a feeling I know why: because the NRA is, arguably, the largest kid on the gun-rights-advocacy block, and they want to keep that title so as to keep the lion's share of gun owners' dues-and-donations money. And if they started giving any credit to the other organizations they worked with, it might cause more than a few gun owners to look into these organizations and find that their less moderate -- less-compromising, shall we say -- stance on the natural right to arms is more to their liking and shift their NRA dues and donations to those other organizations. Is it right? Hell no, it's not right. And I think every NRA member deserves to know, straight from Wayne LaPierre and the other folks in Fairfax just what the hell they're afraid of. Dave and any other NRA member reading, have you asked them why this is? I am. We deserve to know. And in any event, I really, really think it'd be to the benefit of gun owners everywhere if all the gun-rights-advocacy organizations joined and worked together on Capitol Hill. I am just one person, but I will do my part, with what limited funds I have, to make that happen. As Ben Franklin said,
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
|