not for San Franciscans. Dastardly villains in San Francisco thought that, because the majority voted to ban guns in their city, that democracy rules? Hah! For shame on them. Don't they know that democracy is only for Republicans?!
Bend over, Democracy, and prepare to take it up the rear!
 |
Hmm, that Democracy is kinda foxy... damned shame she's reserved for Republican cornholing, eh?
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Note: Actually, I am a staunch defender of the Bill of Rights, *all* of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment... I was just pointing out Republican hypocrisy in touting "democracy", then f**king it up the rear at every turn.
Thanks for the NOT safe for work notification.
ReplyDelete;-)
Yeah, thanks for the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) warning. My manager would have been quite amused if she had walked in while I was viewing that page (and viewing it again, and again, and again...). :-(
ReplyDeleteAs for San Francisco, it's more a matter of observing the hierachy of laws than of democracy. I mean, if every smaller unit of government could vote which federal laws it wanted and which it didn't, then what would keep my state from voting that it wanted slavery? What would keep my town from voting that it didn't like the idea of free speach (since so many people critize the local government leaders)? What if my neighborhood didn't like the weapon control laws since they want to build their own military to toss a nuke at the next town over (Those fools deserve it, too!)? No, such a system of government wouldn't be a democracy, it would be an anarchy.
However, it is rather strange that the US keeps emphasizing democracy, when, in fact, the US itself isn't a true pure democracy, but rather a republic or representative democracy, although some may claim that it's become more of an oligarchy than anything. Then, again, one wonders whether the Dear Leader considers himself as head of a monarchy? Fortunately, though, it doesn't look too much like we'll slip into being a theoracy, despite the intentions of some people.
Dave
I'm a San Francisco resident and I am absolutely not a fan of the gun culture of large parts of America, but I have to politely disagree with you on this particular post.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as Dave above me already said, it's a matter of obeying the laws that are already in place. This isn't the first time that voters in a certain locale passed a law only to have it overturned by higher courts, and it's not just left-leaning ballot initiatives that have been overruled by higher courts. Back in 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, the draconian legislation that would have really cracked down on illegal aliens, but that was ruled unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken, the same thing has happened with at least one voter-approved gay-marriage ban in this country.
What's more, I firmly agreed with the intent, but not the methods or legislation, behind the handgun band. I'm all for reducing the use of guns, but the SF city handgun ban wasn't the best way to do so. Because it applied only within the SF city limits, it would have been useless in stopping the flow of guns to criminals in this city from other parts of the state -- especially since Oakland is right across the Bay Bridge from us and that city has even more gun crime than we do. At best, the SF gun ban would have given prosecutors an extra law to use against suspects being brought to trial.
I'm not surprised in the least that the SF gun ban was overturned, nor am I particularly riled up about it. Just like Prop. 187, which was also voter-approved and court-overruled but on the other side of the ideological fence, I thought the SF gun ban would cause more problems than it would solve.
For the record, I believe that rights granted unto us by our Creator (or by the Constitution) are not amenable to being taken away by the whim of the majority. I.e., I'm not saying that I agreed with the SF gun ban. Just saying that for Republicans, democracy is apparently a good thing only when democracy votes for the same things that Republicans want, and otherwise is to be detested.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "not safe for work", hmm, maybe :-).
-BT
Okay, so I changed the image. Satisfied? :-).
ReplyDelete- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
The new image should have been labelled "Not Safe For Digestion." I had just eaten lunch before I clicked on your site, and oy, my stomach doesn't feel so good now.
ReplyDeleteTsk tsk, you liberals are never satisfied, are you? What are you going to whine about next? Faux cowboy leaders who attack the wrong country? Sheesh!
ReplyDelete- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
I'm not saying that I agreed with the SF gun ban. Just saying that for Republicans, democracy is apparently a good thing only when democracy votes for the same things that Republicans want, and otherwise is to be detested.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm not arguing with that point at all. Same thing with freedom and liberty, no matter how much the Right has appropriated it as a mindless catchphrase for its own ends.
But we knew that regardless of the SF gun ban, didn't we. And the point I was making in my first post was that the SF gun ban being overturned isn't related to that.
And yeah, that newer image is definitely not so appetizing. How about a hyperlink instead of springing that image on us poor unsuspecting readers? Bleechh!