Quotes of the Day: Hypocritical Fascists Edition
SAN FRANCISCO — The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its handgun ban in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project as plaintiffs.
The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the city's ban as good for public safety.
Quote of the Day I:
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the city's violent, gay-bashing bigots."
OK, that's not exactly what he said, but it's hard to argue that isn't precisely what he's saying here. Not to mention, his tacit admission that the current gun ban has been nothing but a big bucket of fail.
More to the point, I wish these assholes would get their story straight.
From one side of their mouths they're telling us that gay bashing is so prevalent in this country that we need a whole new realm of federal hate crime legislation to deal with this violent crime wave.
Then, without even pausing to take a breath, they tell us out of the other side of their mouths that anyone expressing the desire to protect himself or herself from violent, gay-bashing thugs is just being paranoid and that no such threat exists.
1. Gay-bashing is a very real and serious problem.
2. Gay people do not have the right to self-defense.
3. Vote for us. We care.
Can someone please explain to me how this isn't indicative of a serious mental disorder? Or am I just not "progressive" enough to understand?
Quote of the Day II:
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he was "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."
So, according to this reality-detached nutball, people living in public housing do not have the right to keep a gun in their homes, because they're not in their "homes", but are living on "government property".
Looks like someone just got a new pair of Captain Hypocrisy Underoos for his birthday.
I suppose Herrera would also have no problem allowing for unwarranted wiretapping of the phone lines of any person living in public housing. Likewise, I can only assume he'd be OK with the police entering these people's homes unannounced, with no search warrants, whenever they like, and searching them for contraband.
And, if some city in Texas or South Carolina were to pass a law prohibiting consensual anal intercourse between adults living in public housing, I'm sure Dennis Herrara would be first in line to sign his name to the amicus brief in support of such a law, right?
I mean, it's not like any of these these peasants should expect to be secure in their homes, when they don't actually live in "homes", but in buildings owned and controlled by the government, right?
Something tells me Herrara's been reading this blog.
No Looking Backwards - March 2008:
OK, now it's not every day I voluntarily lend my superior intellectual powers to my ideological foes, but I'm going to help out Mumbles and Fenty on this one.
So, don't say I never did you assholes any favors.
Gentlemen, you don't need to ask permission.
Here, I'll spell it out for you.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The 4th Amendment obviously protects the right of the people to be secure in their houses.
2. Clearly, the word "their" implies possession (i.e. ownership) of the houses in question.
3. So, as long as the cops only go kicking in the doors of renters and people living in subsidized public housing, what's the big deal? It's not like it "their" house.
Wow, this constitutional law stuff is easy.
As I'm wont to say, I wish I was making this shit up.
UPDATE: What was I thinking?