« Home | Query 9, possibly... » | That Title Goes too Far Must we make it about Tha... » | Q 8: With my joining, I believe, RotS becomes H... » | sUbJecT #7: Where did Generation X fail? » | SUBJECT #5: Do you spend more time on the Internet... » | SuBjEcT SiX: What was the most embarrassing moment... » | SUBJECT #4: What is your favorite guitar chord and... » | SUBJECT #3: Why does everyone hate the media? (ple... » | I have a reading assignment for everyone. I want ... » | A reading suggestion: "An Interrupted Life: The D... » 

Wednesday, November 09, 2005 

Tenth Subject

So yesterday, my fellow San Franciscans and I voted to make guns illegal within the city (guns may no longer be manufactured or owned within city limits, current gun owners have until April 1st to turn thier weapons in to the city). The city also voted in a measure that discourages, but does not prohibit, military recruiting in public schools.

So what do you all think? Can peace be legislated? Is San Francisco protecting the freedoms of its citizens (by prohibiting instruments of violence within city limits), or curtailing the freedom to choose? Am I living in a burgoning utopia, or are we heading for an overly legislated distopia?
Entry By Nora

Interesting debate. . .especially if say. . .the Mayor decides to take over with guns.

I think SF is actually quite stupid -- and that's a word I use seldomly, much, much less than, say, Shaw does.

Who will patrol your city borders to ensure that outsiders cannot bring in guns? If the answer is "nobody" (or, more likely, "somebody, but it seems hard to do effectively"), then I'd say you've just voted yourselves into being ducks in a barrel. The reason they can get away with this in Great Britain is that GB IS AN ISLAND, and all airports have serious security innately.

Also true: the gun turn-in is voluntary, right? If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. So much for self-defense.

As for the dicotomy of legislated peace vs. curtailed freedoms: there are so many false dichotomies out there, it's nice to see one that's real. Frowning on military recruiting while allowing obesity-driven advertising on products sold in schools? Not making me like SF much, no way.

The resident conservative libertarian says pooh on your silly vote. Making it easier for outlaws to HIDE guns while making it illegal for the morally upright to keep theirs can only lead to serious badness.

Heh, heh. . .you said libertarian. =D

Honestly, not being a libertarian, I think blanketing conservatism and libertarian together just tries to simplify a very complicated "thing."

Is there such a thing as a liberal libertarian in a dichotomous relation to a conservative libertarian? If so, what's the difference?

I think a liberal libertairian would be an anarchist.

boyhowdy -- while I agree with (or at least sympathize with) a lot of your points, I don't quite get how this legislation will "easier for outlaws to HIDE guns." Surely outlaws' ability to hide guns will be at worst unaffected by this new law?

you must remember. we have 48 states, a repbublic [vt] and and experiment [ca]

if a city passes an ordinance against ordnance that is simply contradictory to the bill of rights, said city will get sued PDQ.

and lose!

47 - Don't forget we have a Commonwealth [ma]

46? Pretty sure one of the Virginias is a commonwealth, too. Or Delaware. or something.

As for the residual comments above:

1. Nora, since the gun check-in is presented as voluntary (no compensation? Que'lle horrible!), IMHO at least some folks would be willing to SELL their guns to their outlaw neighbor with a legal address outside the city rather than turn them in for no compensation. Guns aren't cheap -- why lose the dough? Hence: slightly more guns in the hands of local outlaws.

As for the conservative libertarian thingie: Like Republicanism or Democratism, Lbertarianism is an issue of what rights you believe people should have -- specifically, where you think governmental power should not apply, and on what scale (local vs. federal solutions is the big diff. between Rep and Derms, usually). But conservative/liberal dichotomies address strategy (by conserving what we have and working within it to change it, for example, as vs. making new rubrics to address the same ends). Hence: libertarianism is an end, while conservativism is a preferred strategy to reach that end. Capische?

Post a Comment