San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.
Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.
Excellent idea! Gun control never works, thus the solution is tighter restriction on legal gun ownership. Makes perfect sense.
There's a term for nations where only government officials have guns; they're called police states.
And how exactly does banning guns within San Francisco fight crime? Most criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels; most law-abiding citizens do. I'd love to hear an explanation how targeting those who obey the law for the actions of criminal thugs aids in decreasing crime. Criminals, by definition, flout the law. Telling them that owning a gun is illegal is worse than pointless.
Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals over night with the stroke of a pen doesn't strike me as a very imaginative or intelligent solution. Whether the voters came out in droves in favor of this proposition or not, it's unconstitutional, and a clear infringement on the rights of those who own firearms.
Of course, in leftist dystopias, results don't matter. Neither do personal rights, unless they contribute to the cause. Only intentions and putting on airs are of importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment