From SCI

Submitted by Bill Haynes on 10/12/05 at 3:46 PM. ( )

San Francisco to Impose Major Gun Ban
If voters have their way next month, San Francisco will enact one of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Proposition H, if approved, would completely ban all hand guns within city limits and force people who already have hand guns to turn them over to authorities. This "anti-crime initiative) has the blessing of most city supervisors and many local and national gun-control organizations. Sportsmen and women who want to get involved in the fight should visit For more news stories on this issue, visit

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

Being San Francisco

This response submitted by Foie Gras on 10/12/05 at 4:06 PM. ( )

It should titeled be Preparation H.

That's not going to stop anything

This response submitted by Evelyn on 10/12/05 at 4:06 PM. ( )

The crooks gonna keep their guns while the law a biding citizen will have to give up theirs. I guess it will be easier for the criminals to gun down their victims now in San Francisco. I'm glad to live in TX and in the country outside any city limits.

I can see automatic assault rifles to be illegal (i.e. Uzis, AK47s and such), but handguns? Sounds like overkill (pun intended) to me.

Why do you see that Evelyn?

This response submitted by Craig on 10/12/05 at 10:58 PM. ( )

ANY kind of gun control is INFRINGEMENT. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Maybe you live in another country.

If it is OK to outlaw and confiscate any gun it is alright to confiscate all guns. One leads to the other. One would think the gay rights people would be all over this being they are the ones normally targeted by certain crimes.


This response submitted by Evelyn on 10/13/05 at 9:29 AM. ( )

You need an AK47 to protect yourself? Why is it all or nothing with some people all the time. There has to be some control on firearms in my view. Handguns are for self protection and so are hunting rifles, but automatic assault rifles should only belong to military and police.

When the constitution was written there were no assault rifles. Does that mean you should be able to own your own cruise missiles, granate launchers, and dirty bombs too?

I know you will not agree with me on that and that is fine. We just going to agree to disagree.

You forgot tanks and roof mounted rocket launchers...

This response submitted by Craig on 10/13/05 at 12:47 PM. ( )

We can buy a Hummer now, at least let us arm it, lol. Just Kidding. If the law-abiding private citizen can afford it it should be available "IF" the government has it. That includes all small arms. See, those SAW (Squad Automatic Weapons)are owned by the military and now many police agencies, for what I can only imagine. I've heard to fight terrorism but also for armed insurrection by the people in our own country (like that would ever happen, lol). They cost about $65,000 each which takes it right out of my budget not to mention buying bullets to run through the thing. I think that money could be used much more wisely for other purposes in Law Enforcement, but they are probably justified in their Homeland Security funding. You know how it works, if they don't use it they lose it. Nukes are probably way up there too but I have to agree the common citizen doesn't need them at all. But let's keep this realistic. I don't need hand grenades or plastic explosives as there are many alternatives you can purchase at your local farm supply. Hell, gasoline in a bottle with a rag tied on it was used during World War 2, can you say maltave cocktail. I watched a stupid video the other day where these kids mixed chlorine and another substance and shook it up and guess what? It exploded. But an AK47 or an AR15, which function the same way our hunting rifles function, should not even be mentioned in this debate. I never said just anyone should be able to get their hands on a submachime gun. But the versions of assault rifles available to Americans today are just like our hunting guns, other than looks. And sub machine guns are legal to own in all but 7 states. You just need to obtain the neccessary permits just like you do for pistols in most states. When the Second Amendment was written, the people, which at that time were the government, owned flintlock rifles and pistols. They were all considered assault rifles as that's mainly what they were used for, assaulting other people. Our own history is filled with wars where the common flintlock or percussion cap was the main means of destruction and they killed many with those means. Geeze, the Native Americans used bows, arrows, tomahawks, and knives. Although they eventually obtained firearms they still lost the war.

If our forefathers had technology that was equivalent of today's modern arms I really wonder if they would have thought of gun control. But then again today's politicians are not even 1/3 as educated, concerning history and world issues and foresight, as our founding fathers were.

Every day and night many people are killed in our own cities with knives, baseball bats, and unregistered handguns. They don't need ASSAULT RIFLES, just the desire to do another person harm. These people should be caught and locked up for life. The cops should hope they ask for "suicide by cop" as that's the only way some of these people should be treated. Yep, gun control works, NOT! I simply think crime control works better. Lock up the violent criminal and throw away the key in a prison system that takes away their civil rights like it is supposed to. An eye for an eye!

All I know is if the handguns were taken from the citizens in San Francisco, and if I was a citizen of that city, I would not waste any time moving myself, my family, and/or my business out of that city. I guess I could always get a riot shotgun and keep that handy but they might already be illegal to own in California because it is considered to fall under the description of an "Assault Weapon".

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu