On November 8, San Francisco voters decided to ban handguns in their city (I’m supposing because it worked so well in Washington D.C. – you know, the murder capital of the country…). I’m dumfounded. Criminals break the law. This is what makes them criminals. Do the residents of San Francisco really think their gun ban is going to take guns out of the hands of criminals, or just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who feel comfortable asserting their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms? Shall I repeat myself? Criminals break the law. A gun ban is not going to take guns out of the hands of law-breakers; it will merely ensure that the criminals have a leg-up on their victims.

I challenge gun-phobes to put a sign in their front yard that reads “This home is gun free!!!” (Don’t really do this – you’re just asking for a break-in). What is the one thing that makes thieves think twice before breaking into a house? That the resident may be a gun owner. No, I’m not making this up – Public Defender for the 1st district, David Bautista (a gun-owner), routinely asks his clients that very question…and gets the same answer just about every time.

Another interesting point…it would seem that those who favor gun bans only like some of the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. They like freedom of speech, freedom FROM (not of) religion, and, God forbid anyone take away their freedom of choice. But that pesky old 2nd amendment gets ’em every time. Are you afraid of me because I own a gun? Unless you plan on attacking me sometime in the near future, you shouldn’t be. As a law-abiding citizen I shall only use my gun if my life is in danger (or to decimate a target at the shooting range!), but what happens if my right to carry that gun is taken away? What defense will I have against a gun-wielding rapist? Do pardon me, but I’ll be damned if anyone is going to take away my right to protect myself (so I clearly won’t be moving to San Fran anytime soon.)