longbough

Thanks for your input. I appreciate hearing your views.

But I don't understand that line of reasoning. How does the restriction of firearms among the mentally ill and felons make the case that firearms possession is not my right as a law-abiding citizen?

Felons and mentally ill are restricted from owning guns, but, they are restricted from voting as well.

If your argument rests on the notion of gun ownership as a "privilege" then what you say should hold for the act of voting as a "privilege" well.

---------
Whether gun ownership is a "right" or "privilege" is a point of contention on which you and I will not, realistically, agree. It doesn't matter what argument I might introduce because it's just a fundamental difference between our views.

Truly productive discourse requires that involved parties share common premises. If the premises are fundamentally dissimilar then the remainder of discussion is pointless - and will amount to little more than "yes it is"/"no it isn't" exchange. In other words, we just disagree and I'd rather spare us both from having to argue that point.
A discussion about lawsuits filed is a separate issue.
But don't be quick to assume that people who oppose the principle of a gun ban also complain about the ACLU. That's a dangerous stereotype.

Are you insinuating that I, as a law-abiding citizen, should have no qualms about violating the law in this regard? ...or that I can be assured that I should not worry about arrest if caught under those circumstances? That's a bold and dangerous assumption by all standards.

As I said before - I'm not against the democratic process. I do not live in SF proper - but is it not my "right" to voice an opinion about the effecacy of such a ban?

I would also voice outrage about state laws that criminalize sodomy - I don't have to live in that state to have an opinion.
What happens then? Does the law just ... go away? will it be repealed? I'm not sure that would happen. If that were the case I wouldn't be as passionately concerned. But laws of this type rarely work in the other direction. I fear an increase in violent crime will be, paradoxically, interpreted as a rationale for applying even more strict control measures. Take a look at Washington D.C.

I fear a no-win situation for law abiding, responsible gun-owners (yes, many of us do exist).
If violent crime decreases - stronger laws will go into effect.
If violent crime increases - stronger laws will go into effect (conceivably with the rationale that guns from surrounding counties must be banned as well).
Maybe you and I differ in this respect. A majority can be wrong when it promotes legislation that selectively affects a minority in an adverse and unfair way. No doubt, advocates of anti-sodomy laws have little or no personal interest in the matter, but exercise their right to criminalize it in vote. That doesn't make it right IMO.

A law against "sodomy" is still wrong in my book regardless of the major opinion in the community. Pure democracy practiced in a vacuum isn't a flawless or even effective mechanism.

As one of many law-abiding gun owners I feel as if I'm a part of a similar minority whose position is in danger of being quashed by the opinion of the voting majority (who aren't directly affected by blind-comprehensive gun bans).
This has nothing to do with the gun-ban issue unless you think that people, like myself, actually hold those views.

Let's not reduce the entire issue to a matter of right vs. left. That would be unfair to the issue at hand.
Point taken.
Perhaps we're just focused on different ends of the subject, despite some overlapping discussion.