Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
I generally agree with you in that. The thing is I really think this is what would happen elsewhere in the country too given the same scenario. But compliance is going to happen even if you don't turn in your gun. You might no longer carry it in your car because a traffic stop could result in a gun felony. Even in your home you may have your gun more hidden than normal, reducing your access to it in an emergency. You might feel compelled to move, but this also would be a form of compliance, removing your gun from the city.
I know it is easy to say, well that's SF, and we all know they are just a bunch of lefties, but there are some real conservative folks there too. Why wouldn't they act the same as a Texas conservative (I've been both places, and in fact Cali right-wingers can be a lot more reactionary than Texas righties at times). I mean to contemplate the passage of a national law, one would have to assume that it could only be done in a political climate similar to the one that led to SF's ban, but on a national scale. If the fact that they are surrounded by a liberal majority cows the actions of SF conservatives, wouldn't the same thing apply nationally, if that were the political climate (we are obviously talking hypothetical)?
|
on a local scale, if SF bans guns, like I said, you will not see a violent resistance mainly because there are still places that the gunowner, who refuses, can go to. The violent opposition we'll see is if it goes national. With no place left to go to, those that have had enough, will say 'enough'. Now, with that said, those localities will have to decide whether the loss of a tax base (depending on how many move out) was worth it, the rise in crime was worth it, or if it even worked at all. Local gun bans will not stop crime, violent or property, as evidenced in places like morton grove, evanston, and especially chicago IL. All it will do is allow the spread of rhetoric from gun grabbers saying that its easy weapons from (put any other location here) allowing crime to continue here, and the pressure will continue.
Now, not that i'm advocating a mass exodus for pro-gunners, I'm almost of the mindset that I think California, Illinois, and New Jersey should just outright ban guns, all of them. Let those who want to move out go to any other state, and see how the bans work out. Maybe that would show the anti's, once and for all, that gun bans don't work, but i'm afraid that it would just end up the same. They would start the rhetoric that only a national ban would work and we'd be at the same place we are now.