They’re at it again out in San Francisco—once again supplying proof that at least half of the voters are pacifistic idiots.
In yesterday’s elections the so called responsible adults in the city passed two voter initiatives that virtually guarantee the inability of their citizens to protect themselves. In fact, if the entire country chose to take the same track and pass Proposition I, we’d completely emasculate the military’s recruiting efforts:
Proposition I, dubbed "College Not Combat," would oppose the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.
Instead, Proposition I 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.
So in a world where the bleeding heart liberals lament the lack of good employment and educational opportunities for young people, the citizens of San Francisco are “suggesting” that recruiters not be allowed to recruit in public schools in California. The resolution is symbolic and non-binding because they want to make an anti-military statement while still remaining ellegible to receive federal funding.
People in San Francisco don’t want to send THEIR own young men and women into the military. Instead they want the rest of us to be responsible for their national security.
Then there is Proposition H, another load of pacifist crappola:
Proposition H would prohibit the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.
Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.
This means that all of the gun shops in the city limits will be closed down, and everyone has to either sell their pistols to someone outside of the city limits or GIVE their gun to “the authorities.”
Let me lay this out for you.
It was already against the existing laws to use a handgun in the commission of a crime like robbery or burglary. Further, it was already against the law to shoot and wound or kill someone. Using a gun against people has always been a crime, but that's not good enough in San Francisco (and New York and Chicago.)
Now the morons in the government and the imbeciles that exercise their right to vote have made it against the law for a law abiding citizen to keep a handgun in their glove box or nightstand to protect themselves against the people that might choose to commit a crime against them while wielding a weapon.
Do you see the insanity here? People that are criminals already are breaking the law by their actions. Does anyone honestly believe that adding a charge for the possession of a pistol will keep someone from beating your head in with said pistol while robbing a Pizza Hut Restaurant?
I say not.
If I lived in San Francisco (something I would never, ever do in a million years—even if you gave me a free house), I would comply with the law by selling my old Smith & Wesson Model 41 pistol:
Then I'd buy one of these, a Robinson XCR L5.56 Close Quarter Combat Rifle with folding stock, a weapon that just happens to still be legal under their new laws:
I'd also go out and get one of these to go with my new XCR, just in case I run out of bullets:
Then I'd sit on my front porch in downtown San Francisco every Saturday morning and clean my new gun and sharpen the chain on my new chain saw.
That aught to make all of the liberal weenies head's spin around real fast. Every once in a while I'd yell out:
"Hey all you robbers and burglers (and anti-gun government pacifists), YOU WANT SOME OF THIS???"
No comments:
Post a Comment