Call a turd a turd
The Geek notes that the city attorney that defended the handgun ban in San Fran position was:
We’re disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession,
I don’t think an outright ban (Mr. and Mr. San Francisco, turn them in) is a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession.
Update: What, no comment on the Mr. and Mr. San Francisco thing? Must be slipping with the gay jokes. I bet if I’d said Mrs. and Mrs., you’d have liked that. Everyone seems to like the lesbian stuff. Well, except Bob Corker.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:41 am
No, you and I wouldn’t. Sadly, many will, especially those in the press.
But that’s the problem with taking people at their word. It’s where I’m afeared that our friend the PGP is failing, and as I tried to get across here, mealy-mouthed words and platitudes aren’t enough. You can’t just take what someone says as truth, until you know what they mean by it.
Not when the words are under “Clintonian” definition.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:48 am
What could be narrower than an outright ban? And what could be more reasonable than a desire for fewer San Francisco shootings? I’m certain such narrow-minded thinking is reasonably widespread in SF. That said, I do know a few gun nuts in SF, so such views are not universal.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
We should thank the attorney for finally coming out of the closet and defining what the gun-
baner, –control, ah, that is SAFETY groups consider “reasonable and narrowly tailored.”Of course, we’ve known that all along, but it’s nice that someone on the other side finally admitted it, in print no less!
June 16th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I only hope this makes it’s way to the SCOTUS so they will be forced to rule on the constitutionality of anti-gun laws.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Kevin: good point. From now on, any time anyone argues for “reasonable” or even “narrow” gun control bills, we can point to this idiot attorney (but I repeat myself) and say “you mean, like that ‘reasonable’ and ‘narrow’ handgun ban they passed in Frisco?”
Civis: don’t bet on it. California’s preemption law is pretty clear, so the likelihood of the decision being overturned on appeal is slim to none. Unless it’s overturned, the ban remains dead, and the Second Amendment question is moot. Given the Ninth Circuit’s abysmal record on the Second Amendment, that’s probably just as well.
June 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I’m certain such narrow-minded thinking is reasonably widespread in SF.
Prop H was passed by 58% of the voters. When you consider that there are many propositions that pass or fail by 70-30 margins, this was a lot closer than most. I know a lot of people who voted against who didn’t own guns, didn’t have plans to buy one, but didn’t feel that a ban was right for a variety of reasons.
June 16th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
What could be narrower than an outright ban?
WTF??? Is this a perfect example of inverted logic, or what? An outright ban is as broad and sweeping an action as you can get.
And what could be more reasonable than a desire for fewer San Francisco shootings?
Who said it wasn’t reasonable? Not us! We just happen to be the ones that understand that eliminating guns won’t leave us in a warm, fuzzy, everybody-take-a-toke-and-share-a-hug world. But maybe you have some evidence that thugs don’t know how to use knives, bats, tire irons, and fists?
June 16th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Aught not the Bob Corker comment warrant a link?
If not to the whole story, then at least to his daughters pics????
June 18th, 2006 at 9:28 am
No, but he does have evidence that some blog commenters can’t read irony.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:40 am
No, but he does have evidence that some blog commenters can’t read irony.
Perhaps if the irony detector is to be tripped, the irony should be a little less spot-on mimicry for a moonbat troll. 🙂