Quote of the Day: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee’s Feeling Frisky Edition


“San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is very frustrated with the level of gun violence, especially in the southeastern part of our city. We can’t keep doing the same thing. We need to get better results and the mayor has clearly stated to the community that he is willing to try something edgy, something controversial. However, he’s not willing to infringe on anyone’s civil rights.” –  spokeswoman Christine Falvey on “stop ‘n frisk” policing [via sfexaminer.com]

comments

  1. avatar liquidflorian says:

    “…However, he’s not willing to infringe on anyone’s civil rights.” Yes he is, he won’t let the law abiding carry arms.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Actually, that would be the Sheriff of San Francisco. The last sheriff hated CC and the current one, although a gun owner himself, is of the same ilk, apart from being in hot water with the mayor (who is after his job because of his DV incident). San Francisco’s ban on possession of firearms was held invalid under state pre-emption grounds years ago, so it really is only the CCW issue. And for those who don’t know, the southeast side of San Francisco is the equivalent of the southside of Chicago–gangs, rundown housing, etc. I had to go there once in order to get my car out of lock up after it’d been towed. My girlfriend and I were the ony white folks on the bus to get there. The police station has bullet proof glass, and business is conducted through a drawer like at a bank. Lovely part of town.

      1. avatar liquidflorian says:

        I still think they hose down parts of the Tenderloin with bleach and water. Its sad what they’ve done to that town…

        1. avatar DrewN says:

          The ‘loin might be a little dirty, but it’s like 75% hipster kids these days. I’m perfectly comfortable walking around unarmed at 3 am leaving the bars.

    2. avatar Will says:

      Irregardless of whether the mayor is anti-gun or pro-gun is a moot point at this time… the State government has placed all the bans that are in place right now, not the cities.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Not true. CCWs are governed by state law, but issued by local sheriff’s on a discretionary basis. Up here in Northern California, CCWs are fairly easy to obtain, essentially shall issue; it is the urban areas where it is difficult or impossible. Yes, the gun bans are creatures of state law–which is both good and bad. San Francisco and LA would ban guns if they had the legislative authority. SF also tried to ban all discharges of firearms within city limits–even in self-defense, but has wisely backed off that stance after CalGuns threatened to sue.) Efforts to pverturn the “safe hand gun” law and the assault weapons ban are under way (although I don’t hold out much hope for them no matter how ridiculous and irrational they are).

        1. avatar Will says:

          Thanks for correcting me on that.

          I surely do hope reason prevails over the irrational alternate-reality that spews out and demands draconian gestapo controls.

  2. avatar Chas says:

    Why do politicians keep ignoring the fact that when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, the crime rate drops? Why is that so hard to understand and/or accept?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You assume (incorrectly in my opinion) that politicians are actually interested in reducing crime.

    2. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      why give the pesents pitch forks…

    3. avatar Will says:

      They ignore facts when it is inconvenient truth… (that and they’re afraid of the real men in black.)

  3. avatar IdahoPete says:

    He can easily avoid racial profiling by adopting the same screening procedures used in airports by the TSA: conduct strip searches and full body cavity searches only on people that are not likely to be criminals. I would recommend Swedish grandmothers – they probably won’t resist, and they are not one of the protected classes in Frisco.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And the grandmothers won’t get a perverse kick out of a free knob rub.

  4. avatar Qajaqon says:

    “…something edgy, something controversial.”

    How about this: guns(and other weapons) are not the problem. Humans are behavioral and some humans are behaviorally ‘bad’. Prepare for this reality. Stop blaming inanimate objects and tools.

    Nous Defions

    1. avatar Will says:

      but that would mean taking responsibility. That would mean exposing that one doesn’t warp their kids with honest punishments for wrong actions. That would expose that little johnny’s rampage with the ak-47 from the gang-banger (who has a good size illegally obtained supply that no law would stop him from obtaining) was because he felt he had the right, the privileged, and no consequences to his shooting things, especially things that told him he couldn’t do whatever he wanted to do.

      After all… johnny wouldn’t act this way except he just played the lastest ultra-violent video game, donkey kong’s revenge… and just happened to grab a fully loaded, full-auto laying around in the streets waiting for just anybody to happen by and grab it. It has nothing to do with he knows no boundaries and has no respect for anyone or anything.

  5. avatar Greg Camp says:

    The situation in California is a whole bunch of small problems trying to push their way to the forefront through all the big problems. Certainly one of those problems is a failure to recognize that gun control isn’t working. There are many others.

    1. avatar liquidflorian says:

      This!

      You can’t believe how flabbergasted I was when Calguns forum members would stump for Moonbeam because he hadn’t come after anyone as AG and wrote an amicus brief for Heller. California is a box full of fail and its gun laws aren’t even close to the bigger problems we residents face.

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Yup pretty much..

  6. avatar MotoJB says:

    “However, he’s not willing to infringe on anyone’s civil rights” REEEEALLY??

  7. avatar Phil Pistol says:

    CA voted for Jerry Brown for gov. and Nancy(i want to suck your blood{wallet}) Pelosi for thier rep. Finstien and Boxer as Sen. CA can fall off into the ocean and the country will be the better. I do feel bad for the few normal people there.

    1. avatar liquidflorian says:

      The fix is in. Unless they’re primaried they’re not going to leave office while they still draw breath. The redistricting just cemented the Gerrymandering, so things really aren’t going to get any better. Same with local districts as well. Normal folks out number the commies and nut cases, but they cheat.

    2. avatar GA Koenig says:

      Excepting the fact that Californians pay the federal income taxes that basically pull loser southern states out of third world country status (Alabama, Mississippi).

      1. avatar Stant says:

        Nice….

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        We might be better off if CA paid it’s own bills instead of running massive deficits.

        1. avatar GAKoenig says:

          http://visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tax.jpg

          For every $1 California residents ship off to the feeding troughs of DC, only $0.78 returns to the state in Fed spending. Where would the California budget be if that money stayed in the state?

          Instead, that money does go to states like Mississippi (who receives $2.02 for every $1 their residents pay to DC) or Alabama ($1.66 to $1).

          While there are states who’s residents load more of their cash into the DC feeding trough, California’s federal subsidy is far higher than the others due to the state’s substantial size, large number of military instillations (which count as federal spending, but do not dissipate into the state economy like other spending) and overall higher income of CA residents.

          In short, California plays Germany to the New Mexico/Mississippi/Alaska/Louisiana/W. Virginia Greece.

        2. avatar liquidflorian says:

          It would go to public sector unions through increased dues and pension payments, and we’d still be billions in the hole. The Govenator summed it up rather sufficiently, CA has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    3. avatar Civil Liberty says:

      Brown, a gun owner, has been good on gun rights compared to many Republicans. Last year he signed the law to standardize issuance of CCW statewide. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is the one who signed the ban on 50 calibers and handgun ammunition. Same in other states. Do you think Republican Rudy Giuliani was gun-friendly in New York? He sued manufacturers and severely restricted gun ownership rights. How about Governor Pataki, also Republican, who passed the nation’s strictest gun control laws? Hell, Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill in 1981. Ask gun-owners in Massachusetts if they trust Mitt Romney to uphold their civil liberties. He signed the “Assault Weapons” ban and imposed expensive fees on gun owners. In contrast, you can’t name one anti-gun action under Obama other than Fast & Furious. Wake up! This is a civil liberties issue and the Republicans have a very poor record when it comes to defending civil liberty.

  8. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Yeah well I am in the central valley near Sacramento. Nancy is an embarrassment.

    1. avatar Bryan says:

      She’s even worse up here in Sacramento.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    When it comes to violating civil rights, who can compare with Little Mikey Bloomberg?

    1. avatar Civil Liberty says:

      Republican Rudy Giuliani who sued 26 gun manufacturers and severely restricted gun ownership rights? Governor Pataki, also Republican, who passed the strictest gun control laws in the nation? Ronald Reagan, who supported the Brady Bill in 1981?

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Bloomberg would change our underwear for us if he thought he could get away with it. Not saying what others did was bad, but when you outlaw sodas you pretty much have gone light years beyond hot button issues like guns. Just force everyone to eat salads to while your at it. Oh how about outlaw the extra large candy bars too, don’t forget donuts. Oh wait can’t outlaw donuts, the LEO’s would strike over it!

      1. avatar Civil Liberty says:

        Fair point. Just want to be clear that Bloomberg and now Lee have poor records because of action they’ve taken, not whether they have a D or an R after their name. So let’s recognize and reward those who tale action to defend the Constitution–regardless of party affiliation–and decry all who don’t. There are liberal politicians ready to support gun rights if they thought gun owners would ever support them.

  10. avatar Civil Liberty says:

    What do San Francisco, Stockton and Chicago all have in common? Soaring murder rates and politicians who refuse to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57463951-504083/report-stockton-calif-has-more-murders-per-capita-than-chicago/
    Society is safer when the criminal don’t know who is armed.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not entirely a fair comparison. You can actually get a CCW in Stockton (321 issued), unlike San Francisco which has exactly none issued. Nearby Fresno has gone virtually shall issue. Stockton’s biggest problem is gangs killing each other over the drug trade, something CCWs won’t solve.

      1. avatar Sanchanim says:

        Mark I think when I looked they had 2. One included Diane F BTW.
        Is Modesto in San Joaquin county? If so I could probably go there for a CCW. Minus the $500 cost, but I could. I live in Tracy which isn’t that far away. Heck I have friends in Oakdale which is out past that. Nice and quiet there, very much red neck country. 🙂

      2. avatar GAKoenig says:

        You touch on the thing most of us gun owners don’t grock – we can sit here and bitch about the violence in places like Chicago, SF and Stockton all we want, but the problem isn’t thugs praying on the good citizens… the numbers are driven by gangbangers killing one another.

        This isn’t a problem CCW will solve. It isn’t even a problem arming the good citizens in general will solve.

        Frankly, the paranoia of my fellow gun owners is often nothing short of comical. Violent crime is not just about a number; it is about communities and distributions. The basic reality is that us OFWGs who chew the cud about guns are not, nor have we ever been, significant victims of violent crime in this country.

        1. avatar matt says:

          gang bangers/black youths have been committing large numbers of mob attacks against businesses and people here in Chicago and elsewhere.

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Don’t forget Oakland and heck San Jose isn’t that far behind.
      Pretty much everywhere you look this is what I see.
      Murder rates are up, gangs are out of control. People are out of work, money is tight, even for me.

      Stockton specifically is filling bankruptcy. I don’t think CA will be far behind it. Stockton dumped 24% of it’s police force. Of course crime is rampant.

      As more and more cities and counties have to start making deep cuts to remain solvent, crime will rise. The only thing that can stop that crime is citizens like you and me who can protect themselves. It is like the volunteer fire fighters in small town America. They didn’t have money or the need for a real fire department so you have community volunteers.

      If things get bad enough lawlessness will break out. Then the national guard gets called in. Once the first innocent kid gets shot because of some stupid reason all hell will break loose. Get your bug out bags ready lol

      Even if we change the political landscape, here in CA at least, they would rather disarm everyone thinking it will stop things instead of looking 300 miles south to Mexico. It didn’t work there and it won’t work here either.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email