San Francisco’s last gun shop closes
Well, the gun grabbers have won in San Francisco. It seems that the last gun shop in the city will close because the burden of regulations has made it almost impossible for them to continue, according to Fox News;
The proposed new city regulations, which could only be aimed at High Bridge Arms, would have required the shop to take and preserve video of all transactions and turn customers’ personal data over to police on a weekly basis. General Manager Steven Alcairo said the shop’s owners finally threw in the towel after years of what they consider being unfairly targeted with burdensome rules and regulations. Past regulations have required the shop to bar ads and displays from its windows and install cameras and barriers around its exterior. The shop has 17 cameras as it is, and turns video over to police on request, he said.
“This time, it’s the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods,” Alcairo said. “We feel this is a tactic designed to discourage customers from coming to us.
So, it looks like San Francisco will soon be free of gun violence because they drove the last stalwart gun dealer out of business.
Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said the proposed regulations are not onerous and said “video evidence is a critical component in bringing lawbreakers to justice.”
Yeah, so are police reviewing videos for criminals? Are they even glancing at the gun registration forms when they begin a manhunt for murderers or thieves? No, they’re not. Everything that they do after a NICS check is mental masturbation so people feel safer, kind of like the body scans at TSA checkpoints. That’s what government does best – give the illusion of safety at the cost of our freedoms.
So good job, San Francisco, when you figure out a way to video those gun sales in back alleys and dark parking lots, let me know.
Thanks to Bobo and Andy11M for the links.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Sounds like Chicago. Even though the courts struck down a prohibition of gun shops in the city, the onerous rules to allow one to exist (including video taping of transactions) amounts to a de facto ban.
That place is the most assbackward place in the country. I’m sure Commissar loves it though.
Too expensive, too much traffic, and too much revenue/rent seeking by the government targeting the poor and middle class to compensate for the unwillingness to sufficiently tax the wealthy and politically connected class.
Also, I am not against gun ownership. I consider it to be one of our most critical freedoms.
I admire what government is supposed to do by investing in those public goods that facilitate prosperity and opportunity, and provide necessary security.
I just do not trust the government to do it. Instead government usually ends up controlled by oligarchic class that manipulates political economic structures to extract wealth from the middle class and poor and transfer it to the oligarchy.
That is what guns are for. To reset that cycle of exploitation and wrest political power away from the oligarchy and back into the hands of the people.
I didn’t know it was possible for one person to drink that much leftist economic Kool-Aid. Kudos, thirsty one!
Funny that, I have read every single major economic theorist that has ever published, all sides of the spectrum. including the most rabidly conservative of the lot.
I have also studied over 150 years of empirical data on the way our economy functions and the way our political economic structures shape the flow of money in our society.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to dismiss what I wrote.
Perhaps you should stop studying and start living. Real life does not come from a book filled with theory.
I have a shit ton of life experience. Perhaps more people should study instead of relying on long debunked ideological assumptions.
I and I’m sure that others here see you as an insecure thin-skinned self-important little moonbat with plenty of book studying and near zero common sense.
Where’s the !#@$%#$^ Like button for this!!!!
Governments need money to run their own businesses. Money comes from taxes. Taxes come from the public. The only viable economic system that has EVER worked in the history of the human species is capitalism.
Capitalism works. Communism does not. You wanna talk about cronyism and oligarchy? Can we discuss membership in the Communist Party in the days of Krushchev and oh, who was it? – Oh, yeah – Stalin! Yeah, that was it! Joey Stalin! Or how about Chairman Mao and the Gang of Four?
Oligarchy? Gimme a fucking break, would you, Lars? I do not think you have the slightest comprehension of that term, nor does it mean what you think it means.
See, if it’s all about cash-flow, you need to understand that low flow is what made the Communist Chinese government (flat broke) decide to adopt a capitalist economy. They know something about economics. Practical application, and all that.
You, on the other, have all the practical app experience of a roll of unused toilet paper.
What a dork!
Oh, lest I forget, Lars wasn’t around during the real days of the Cold War, nor was he living under the rule of Communism like Nicki was.
I’m sure she’d have a few things to say about her very own, personal experience in a crappy non-capitalist economy.
First, I was around during the cold war.
Second, I am not a communist nor do I advocate communism. I believe we should have a market economy.
Third, nearly every single country that has already implemented the economic theories I support score higher than the US in every single measure of quality of life including social and political freedoms. The empirical evidence not only proves it could work here, but in the 1950s and 1960s it essentially DID work here (yes, during the cold war).
There is more than one form of market society. Our does not work. It is overextended and near collapse and clinging to outdated and long debunked theories and ideological assumptions just weakens our nation in the long run.
You’re absolutely full of shit as usual, my harebrained little unicorn-lusting bunny fart. The current Government policies in place, namely over-taxation and over-regulation are putting a stranglehold on our economy, 0bamacare being one fine example!
False. And you a full of shit for clinging to assumptions that are absolutely disproved by the historical empirical evidence with respect to tax rates, who pays taxes, and economic performance of an economy both in the US under different tax and spending regimes and globally compared to other countries’ market structures. Our economy is strangled for the same reason an engine that did not have an oil pump would die. The parts doing all the work are not getting enough lubrication in the economy too keep things running. We extended the life of our economy by encouraging the population to spend on credit, and when that failed we transferred massive amount of wealth to keep things afloat- much of it on credit, and the government is keeping things running by also spending on credit. However, the reality too much money is being extracted from the bottom 85% for the average family to continue to be the driver of demand for goods and services they once were. The middle class is dying in this economy and our political influence along with it. And it is because of structural changes through the 1970s until now that have shifted the flow of money so that is transfers wealth from the bottom 85% to the top 0.1%. (Much of the rest of the 5th quintile is doing about as well as they had in the past). Much of our current perceived economic prosperity is due to borrowing from the productivity and prosperity of future generations. It will take 5 generations to pay off the prosperity the baby boomers enjoyed and they are the primary demographic clinging to the same damn economic assumptions that is allowing them to essentially steal the future prosperity of the next 5 generations while simultaneously cutting off investment in all the public goods that would allow future generations to have the market capacity to pay that debt. We waste huge amounts of public wealth on wasteful consumption of services, the transfer of public goods to private hands for pennies on the dollar, and even massive DIRECT wealth transfers to… Read more »
i kept up for a while but you finally lost me with your bullshit.
Did you just claim that he government wastes money while at the same time stealing from the poor to give to the rich, and the conservative immigration policies are hypocritical?
Part of the government waste is going to support the illegal immigrants that are accepting every dime they can get while putting nothing back in. I am paying taxes that are used to support chronic welfare recipients and illegal aliens who put nothing back in
Well I kept Up for a while but you finally lost me with your bullshit.
Did you just say that the government is wasting money while at the same time stealing from the Poor to give to the rich?
AND conservatives are hypocrites because of their immigration policies?
I am Lost, because part of the government waste is going to support chronic welfare recipients and illegal aliens. Just imagine how much money would be left over if we were not paying for them.
I pay taxes supporting these two groups and will never see any return on my investment.
Use all the fancy words that you wish and show off that Berkley education. I felt like you almost made sense earlier but the more you say the more you can’t hide the leftist bullshit rolling around in the place where your brain should be.
As a country we have to have a “rich” class of people. They are the ones that pay the rest of us. I have never worked for a poor man. There would less burton on our economy if those that could work, would, AND if the illegals had to put back some of what they are taking.to me these two groups make up more of the waste than Warren Buffet not paying what the left feels is enough.
I don’t know if anything I said makes any sense or not, but neither does your blathering.
The free market to the liberals is literally free shit for the lazy while the workers pay for it.
Theories are NOT reality. Our model DOES work, despite your lack of comprehension of real-world economics. If OUR model does not work, then why did the Chinese adopt it? Why did the Russian Federation adopt it?
BECAUSE IT WORKS, YOU CLODPOLE.
And OUR economy is less likely to collapse than the socialist economies of the European Union. Greece is still on the verge of collapse and has only been saved from it by a BAILOUT from the EU. Greece is another one of those socialist economies. The rest of the EU is close to it, too, and if the flood of refugees is not controlled, then the $1.1 billion the EU is proposing to spend on them will make the entire EU structure collapse.
I don’t read up on theories, you see, because they are theories. They are not PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS. There is a difference, but you only know what you find in books, and you barely understand that.
Yellen said she would not raise the Fed’s rate this time. If she raises it, there WILL be a recession. That does not mean economic collapse, but rather job losses followed by LOSSES IN TAX REVENUES.
That is the REAL WORLD, not book theories.
Is that simple enough for you?
PH2 – Have you read some of the shit Lars spews out?
It wouldn’t be simple enough for him if you were to draw it out for him in crayon and give him directions using only one syllable words.
Yes. Yes, I have. While a semester of remedial English with a good instructor would be beneficial, he would probably spend it arguing with the instructor about trivial details like commas and semicolons.
Leaning into yours, BTW. Good stuff. Will get back 2U ASAP.
Guess now murderers will have to get more creative, like by stealing guns from the cars of government employees forced to leave their guns in cars due to gun-free xzones. Sure hope the bad guys don’t think of that… oh, wait…
San Francisco is where crazy people hang out and do vile things in public, regularly and without consequence. This has been documented at Zombietime. If you go there, take some eye bleach.
Our founders recognized the need for ordered liberty. They also knew that, for liberty to have proper order, the populace must enact reasonable laws. This is the foundation for the notion that nation itself must have some moral character if it is to survive.
San Francisco has embraced the notion that anything goes, from sex in public to illegal immigration by felons. It is no surprise that they would embrace another bad public policy, namely stripping legal protection from lawful gun owners, as a consequence of getting somebody killed by a criminal illegal alien sheltered by their corrupt system.
The consequence of their disordered law is not liberty, but death.
valerie, I thought it was Berkeley that he documented?
http://zombietime.com/
Same thing, isn’t it?
I was on an aircrew with a guy who claimed (I still can’t believe he did) that he went to NROTC at Bezerkley.
Wha?!!!!
When I was going to Russian language school, went to Berkley for the “Bread and Roses” concert (is that still around?). Interesting characters. Very interesting characters.
I used to go to San Fran alot when I was in Monterey, but after the several times they’ve shit on the military, I’ve vowed never to enter that city again. Such a beautiful place filled with such crazy motherfuckers.
Oh, and I worked with another guy who grew up in Berkley and went to the UC there. One morning I came to work and he had a, believe it or not, little red book of Obama’s speeches on the desk. I really don’t think he understand the reference to another little red book we all know and hate.
Back in the day there was an LBJ Little Red Book and I understood the reference and bought one. It was among the memorabilia I donated to the Texas Tech VN Archives some years ago.
http://edisoneffect.blogspot.com/2011/06/lbjs-little-red-book-little-political.html
I like this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Chairman-Malcolm-Capitalists-Handbook/dp/0060113596/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443212310&sr=1-1
Mustang, when were you at Monterey?
“
San FranciscoCalifruitsandnuts is where crazy people hang out and do vile things in public, regularly and without consequence”. FIFY. A minor correction, to be sure.The Bay Area – where one learns that “Californication” is not only the name of a TV show, but is also descriptive of local politics and behavior.
The same is true in the LA basin, reputedly.
Absolutely. Only place I ever went where some skank was wailing on her horn outside the Santa Monica VA hospital because a 80+ vet took 3 seconds too long to get across the street.
Closest I ever got to road rage or hitting a woman.
The gun store will probably be replaced by a shop selling transgendered sex toys…
Well in most towns in America “freedom” loving Americans drive out the sex toy shops and keep the gun stores.
It is no OK, nor is it supporting “freedom” to do that either.
I’m OK with that, o harebrained little fanny-puffer! Sex shops typical attract an unwanted genre of people. What makes one want to visit a Sporting Goods store that caters to Outdoorsmen or a Gun Shop? NO my candyassed little farthuffer, we don’t live up to any of your stereotypes, 99.999999% of the time it’s honest everyday working folks interested in say, stocking up on some ammo for a day at the range, someone looking for the latest in personal defense ammo or someone stocking up for hunting, things that booger-eating thumbsuckers sneer at over your overpriced $8 cup of coffe with a snooty two foot long name. Larsie-poo, YOU HAVE a mind that’s like concrete, it’s permanently set and all mixed up!
Will someone please find an explanation of the concept of “Federalism” in simple enough language for Lars to comprehend? Like maybe one consisting entirely of short, common words?
Yo, Lars: last time I checked, the Constitution didn’t specifically grant US citizens the right to “keep and bare adult toys”. It does firearms. That means the latter has a higher legal bar regarding regulation than does the former.
You might also want to think about the SCOTUS principle of “Contemporary community standards”. Yes, I know quite well that Miller v. CA was an obscenity case, not one involving the regulation of commerce. The principle and test still seems instructive.
And yes, the malaprop pun above was intentional. (smile)
“bare adult toys” – was that intentional?
Might want to re-read the last sentence in the comment. (smile)
I understand Federalism. While the Constitution, under our federalist system, is the supreme law of the land, this issue skirts constitutional 2nd amendment protections by regulating the manner in which a business selling guns operates rather than by directly trying to impinge on gun ownership.
I was drawing a parallel to how communities use zoning and other business regulations, and barriers to force businesses out of the community while avoiding direct constitutional challenges.
These tactics of infringing on people’s rights indirectly through municipal ordinances that make it impossible for the business to function is an old tactic that has been used for a very long time despite their questionable constitutionality.
Keep in mind that freedom of privacy is not specifically enumerated in the constitution but that does not mean government has a blanket right to invade our privacy nor does it mean the “right to privacy” is any less important or legitimate than the “right to bare arms.” Driving out sex shops and sex toys are as directly related to our right to privacy from government intrusion in our private sexual activities as driving out a gun store is related to impinging on private gun ownership.
The “trigger” that pushed this store out of business was “the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods,” Alcairo said. “We feel this is a tactic designed to discourage customers from coming to us.”
So fundamentally this is a issue of customer privacy.
Imagine if this tactic of forcing the store to film customers buying sex toys was used to drive a sex shop out of business.
My bet is a sex shop being forced to film customers buying sex toys would have a much stronger constitutional challenge than the gun store being forced to film customers despite the fact that the right to own a dildo is not enumerated in the constitution and the right to own guns is.
And there you have it, folks: according to Lars the Infallible, people have a right to privacy when they buy sex toys – but don’t have the same right to privacy when buying a firearm.
Why? Because Lars said so!
Hey, Mr. Infallible: unless it’s a private club, a retail store is generally considered a “public accommodation”. That usually means it’s open to the general public.
One has no expectation of privacy when in a location freely accessible by the general public – like the sales floor of a retail store. Specifically, retail sales floors are areas open to the general public, albeit perhaps with age restrictions. That’s why stores can use security cameras without fear of getting sued for invasion of privacy, providing they don’t install them in bathrooms and dressing rooms.
Sheesh – do you really believe the bullsh!t you spew here, or are you just retyping talking points someone else gives you without actually reading them?
That is not what I said. What happened to this gun shop is wrong. But no less wrong that the tactics used by municipalities to skirt constitutional protections and drive other businesses out of town.
While you may not have said that outright, you indeed implied exactly that.
You specifically stated that a sex shop forced to film customers “would have a much stronger constitutional challenge than the gun store being forced to film customers”. That is an exact quote from one of your previous comments.
Both a sex shop and a gun shop are public accommodations engaged in lawful commerce. Based on that fact, one has the exact same expectation of privacy against being filmed in either.
Being filmed is binary: either it happens or it does not. Ergo, one either can be filmed without their consent lawfully, or they cannot. There’s no “split-the-baby” option.
Above, you assert the sex shop would have a “stronger Constitutional challenge” against being required to film its customers than would the gun shop. Since filming is binary (e.g., occurs or does not occur), if the sex shop has a “stronger constitutional challenge”, that logically implies that the sex shop would likely have the right to refuse to film their customers – while the gun shop possibly would not. (I add the term “likely” above as the SCOTUS would make the ultimate call, and they’re notoriously unpredictable.)
Or, to speak plainly: the sex shop’s customers would have an expectation of privacy regarding their purchases, while the gun shop customers would not.
The constitutional argument is the same in both cases. It’s not affected by the type of business involved. Provided both businesses are lawful, trying to make a distinction by type of business is akin to discrimination against speech based on content.
It is not a binary Hondo. The right to privacy is weighed against the public good and the government’s obligation to protect the public. Our rights to privacy are often constitutionally “infringed” for reasons of providing security to the community.
Sex toys present a far lower risk to the safety of a community than owning a gun. So a federal court when evaluating the “reasonableness” of requiring gun shop owners film all gun purchases would be much more likely to conclude it is reasonable based on the threat guns CAN pose to the community. I federal court is far less likely to conclude that filming customers buying sex toys is “reasonable” for the safety of the community.
So even if we were to accept that they are exactly equal to the extent to which they invade a person’s privacy the courts are much more likely to find filming un purchases as “reasonable” since guns present a greater danger to the community than a sex toy.
I do not think EITHER case is reasonable, but a court may very well think the gun store camera is reasonable.
However, the camera in a gun store is not even the same level of infringement on a persons privacy as the camera in the sex shop despite the fact that they are both public businesses. This is because sex shop purchases reveal a great deal more about a person’s private life than a gun purchase does.
Geez, do you have reading comprehension problems? What part of the following is unclear: “Being filmed is binary: either it happens or it does not.” I wasn’t talking about the right to privacy being “binary”. I clearly stated above that being recorded was binary – it either happens or it doesn’t. The fact that there are numerous exceptions (3rd party exception) and corner cases (exigency searches, “stop and frisk”) regarding privacy law and/or searches and seizures proves that privacy law is hardly binary. However, in this case, when comparing the two stores it turns out this case really is binary. Under Federal law, each store will be treated exactly the same. (State law may elect to treat them differently, but I’m not about to try and address 50 different scenarios.) The controlling precedent would appear to be Katz vs. US (1967). There, the SCOTUS ruled that an individual had privacy rights only when in an area where there was a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. A business’ sales floor does not qualify. It’s an established legal principle that when one is in a place open to the public, in general you do not have any “reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Bathrooms and dressing rooms in commercial establishments, along with hotel rooms, are exceptions; one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those.) An open sales floor of either a sex shop or a gun store is by definition open to the public; therefore, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in either. Anyone in the store (or looking in the window) can often observe what someone else is purchasing. The business owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning their business records. However, the business’ customers, having provided data to the business volutarily, don’t retain privacy rights under Federal law for data provided in conjunction with purchases. (Third party doctrine; see Smith v. Maryland, 1979. A customer’s privacy rights under state law in such a situation may well differ by state.) There is thus no Federal legal prohibition on privacy grounds that would prevent either a sex shop or a gun shop… Read more »
Careful Hondo, that wall you’re banging your head against is going to make you start bleeding soon.
What happened to this gun shop is wrong.
You could have just posted that one sentence only and been just fine.
Yeah, but making a KISS statement doesn’t make him feel as special as when he makes an empty longwinded huff!! 😀
Pffffffft
They should pull all law enforcement out of San Fran because they have guns too. Just put a big fence around it and say, “See? You’re all FREE of guns now. Enjoy!”
I’d give it about 3 seconds before they start dialing 911.
Some where, Dirty Harry has to be weeping. Make my day, indeed.
No, no, no… ALL they need to do is to officially declare all of San Foo-foo a “Gun-Free Zone”, post signs everywhere saying so while singing “Kum-ba-yah”, and *POOF!*, ALL of the crime will disappear, Barbara boxer even said so! /SARC
The people in SF who make a reasonable living (and who aren’t brain-dead fools) will simply go somewhere else to purchase a firearm. SF will lose out on taxing the sale.
It’s the poorer law-abiding folks in SF that will take it in the shorts here. Their ability to procure a legal weapon for personal defense just took a major hit, particularly those who don’t have a car and who depend on mass transit.
From what I’ve been hearing the past few years, gentrification and rent-seeking have turned San Fran into a dual-class city; the very affluent and the very poor. Alas, the latter can’t afford to live there any more, but can barely afford to move.
What’s (not really) funny is that all the non-white lower-income minorities are being driven out, while the rich white people agonize over the city’s lack of “diversity.” I don’t doubt those remaining fully support the policies of their People’s Republic.
Harry Callahan was not available for comment.
It’s not just SF, it’s everywhere anymore, and the reason is simple: ‘house flipping’ for money. It’s driven the land prices through the roof on any property that isn’t simply condemned.
Sounds like Haiti…
Yeah, there are still 19 gun shops within 30 miles of this one. Most citizens already went outside the city to buy guns. Ironically, local law enforcement were this store’s largest customer base.
Wow, 19 whole gun shops in an area nearly the size of Rhode Island! You’re being overrun!
Wow! This is great news and a windfall for the folks in San Fran. Just think of all the tax money that will be saved by not having to pay for firearms and firearms training for the SFPD and other law enforcement/security personnel. I mean, no guns stores = no guns = no bad guys with guns, so there’s no need for good guys to have guns. Am I right?
This is a win-win all around and Jonn should’ve put this as a Friday Morning Feel-Good story. I’m gonna go get my sitar and sing kumbaya.
I lived in San Francisco, that wretched hole of shit for a couple of years after I got out of the Army.
The whole state sucks but San Francisco is the anus of the entire state.
I don’t even like flying over the place.
where do you live now? Kentucky? Alabama? Northern Florida?
Engage in stereotyping much, Lars?
He probably thinks they all wear Klan hoods and have the “confederate flag*” tattooed on their chest.
*AKA the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
Flag of the Army of Tennessee or the 2nd Confederate Navy Jack, actually.
The flag of the Army of NoVA was generally square. The Army of Tennessee version was rectangular, as was the 2nd Confederate Navy Jack.
All 3 used the “southern cross” pattern associated with what is today incorrectly considered the “Confederate Flag”. The blue used on the 2nd Confederate Navy Jack was somewhat lighter than on the battle flags.
None were ever the national flag of the Confederacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
“The whole state sucks…”
Given the framing of the conversation I think stereotyping is well within the rules of engagement on this topic.
Really? You actually “went there”?
All I get from ‘Stixx comment above is that – based on having lived there – he doesn’t like CA, and really doesn’t like ‘Frisco. Since both CA and ‘Frisco are quite diverse, I don’t see any obvious reason to infer prejudice or stereotyping.
Your reply, however, provides such a reason. Specifically, it lists 3 areas assumed by many (well, by many ignorant fools) to be overwhelmingly conservative, “backward”, and bigoted. (Case in point showing the “ignorant” part: Huntsville, AL, is in northern AL – and not too long ago had the 3rd highest concentration of math/sci/eng jobs in the USA after Silicon Valley and the Boston tech corridor.)
That selection of locales implies some fairly gross (and inaccurate) prejudice on your part based on assumed political viewpoint, geographical location, urban v. rural, or some combination thereof. That’s pretty damn pathetic, actually. However, in my experience it’s actually also fairly common coming from those of a leftist political bent.
And then you actually had the gall to try and justify your prejudice (e.g., use of stereotyping) when called on it. That’s even more pathetic.
Now, why don’t you just head back to some Berkeley-based, sociology-department-led leftist-Progressive verbal circlejerk; I’m sure you know where to find any number of those. You can tell them all about how mean we are here at TAH for calling you out on being prejudiced and using stereotypes.
His comment was not based on an objective evaluation of the state without any personal cultural and political biases. And neither was mine.
He lived there, you asshole. If that is not ‘PERSONAL’ enough, what is it? Is it taffy-pulling for fun? How can you justify making the moronic statements you spout and think you won’t get called on them?
WTF? How does having lived there make his choice of whether he like it any less personal?
This is a bullshit discussion. Living somewhere does not make you an objective adjudicator of whether you like the place. The entire choice is based on PERSONAL preferences. And he disliked the entire state. Even all the places he never lived and never visited. Despite the fact that California is bigger than Alabama, Kentucky, and Northern Florida combined. I have been to Alabama, Kentucky, and Northern Florida. My family is from Kentucky. Does that make me objective on my evaluation of whether I like them?
Really? That is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far, Lars.
I lived in Chicago for 30 years. Count ’em. I know that city like the back of my hand. It was bad enough when the Daleys ran it, but it’s worse than ever now. Can’t stand the place, wouldn’t go back there if I were paid to.
If you think living some place does not allow fair judgment of it, you have rocks in that empty skull of yours. It just blows my mind how you repeatedly let us know how thickheaded and plain old DUMB
DUMB you are.
Once before I asked if you stayed up at night thinking about this stuff or just let it fly ad lib.
This makes me lean more towards you just doing Trump-isms.
Call me on my statements then, but stop being an “asshole” and doing it for moronic reasons.
Try creating an original statement occasionally, Lars. Copying someone else’s stuff is just another demonstration of your dumb fuckery.
Copying stuff, who?
You are. You copied what I said. You can’t even come up with your own vocabulary.
And this kind of manufactured indignation is bullshit, Hondo. There are many areas of the world, that while objectively beautiful and enjoyable with respect to climate and geography, you would dislike sufficiently enough based entirely on cultural and ideological biases to not wish to live. Implying it is something only “leftists” would do is absurd.
These kind of cultural preferences are INHERENTLY based on sweeping generalizations of the overall nature of living within that community. Afghanistan had some great people, but, I hate the place. I would never want to live there.
I lived in some very rural areas in my life. I lived in a county of 1500 square miles with a population of 1500 people. I have lived in other small town as well. Some I love a great deal despite their rural and generally conservative nature.
Hell, most of my family is from Kentucky.
But to say that I would not want to live in some states based on the political, ideological, and cultural presences of this states overall is something ALL of us do.
There are cool people in all those places I mentioned, but that does not make the places any less shitty to me based on my own personal preferences. Just as Thunderstixx’s preferences lead him to conclude California is a horrible place to live.
It’s chock full of harebrained liberal bunny farts like you, thus I concur with him!
Seeing that I’m a CA native, I think I have the right to say it.
And it does suck.
CALIFORNIA is pretty much THE LARGEST bowl of granola in all of World History. Get rid of all the fruits and nuts out there, and all you’ll have left is FLAKES. I offer Larsie-boy, Nannt Lugosi, Barbara Boxer and CA Governor “Moonbeam” Brown as specimens of proof!! 😀
BREAKING NEWS:
Leather shop to open at former location of last gun shop in San Franfabulous!
Dunno, Chief. Since the gun store was located in The Mission, I’m going with either a new mariachi supply, or a parking lot for taco trucks. All the fabulous kinky leather places tend to be over in The Castro.
You know way too much about this.
I would not know, but thanks for the very specific update!
(sarc)
I’m certain the gun shops outside the city are pleased to have one less competitor at this point….
We need to have a federal administration that will enforce those issues where local authority can not and should not supersede federal rights under the constitution. We won’t get that with any candidate on either side in the upcoming entertainment but it would be nice to dream a little dream from time to time.
Don’t think that this is a Federal issue, VOV.
Many places allow the private possession of liquor, but ban sale to the public without special taxes, permits, or other conditions. (Hell, some places allow distillation but ban sales to the public entirely; the Jack Daniels distillery in Tennessee is in a freaking dry county!) That’s no different than what SF did here.
A city has the right to enact stupid tax and/or anti-business policies if they so choose. While a city can’t ban gun ownership outright due to the 2nd Amendment, they can ban (or make exceptionally difficult through deliberate over-regulation) the local retail sales thereof.
Here SF has done exactly the latter, but they haven’t tried to ban private possession of firearms. I don’t doubt they’d love to do exactly that, but to my knowledge they haven’t yet tried.
What this means is that the wealthy will be mildly inconvenienced – and the poor end up much worse off. Somehow, it seems that’s what we always get when libidiots are calling the shots.
And to think, Dirty Harry was from SF…
I’ve rarely visited San Francisco. It’s nice enough to visit, but expensive as fuck, plus the commies and hippies get irritating fast (though there actually are some normal people there too), and the novelty of the cable car ride was kinda ruined by the fat butch lesbians (Lars’s mommies, perhaps?) fingering eachother on the passenger bench.
Of course, I wasn’t without a .45 and spare mags, and once the sun went down, I stayed wide of every corner, alley, and doorway. The only place I didn’t worry was the touristy section of Chinatown.
Yes, I was armed. The hippies can suck it.
There’s only one way these guys are going to keep their gun shop open, and go on like nothing ever happened.
“ELECT DONALD TRUMP COME ELECTION TIME”. What eles could go wrong in SF????????????
I do not get the connection to Trump.
Is this Lawrence Taylor?
STOP SMOKING CRACK!
It’s Commissar, Master Chief.
You don’t get the connection to a hell of a lot of things, Lars, including reality.
Not surprised that a city that embraced Jim Jones would do that….
Amen to that. Pass the Kool Aid.
just cross the bridge to Alameda county. There are gun stores on every corner, Parking lot, and alley way. They only take cash but the paperwork and background checks are minimal, if any. The free market will always find a workaround.
Might want to put a “/sarc” tag on the next such bit of humor you write, RiR. Otherwise, Lars the Infallible might take you seriously. He seems a bit slow on the uptake at times.
Hondo, why all the obnoxious attacks? I know he is referring to street sales.
Oakland, (the largest municipality in Alameda county) is actually trying to ban guns in city limits and is challenging in court for the right to do so. A huge waste of time and money since these bans fail in the courts and they do not reduce gun violence.
What makes you an objective adjudicator of whether something is obnoxious or not?
Yeah we have those too up in these parts.
Those type of shops and transactions need to be shut down.
Freedom lovin’ responsible citizens don’t mind paying for and processing appropriate chits for their guns.
All this talk about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is ridiculous.
We should be talking about proper arming of responsible citizens, so when we are comfronted with the aformentioned, there is a rather speedy and lawful resolution to the situation.
But what do I know …
Oh, here: let’s dissect Lars, shall we?
Here’s some Larsism:
“I have read every single major economic theorist that has ever published, all sides of the spectrum. including the most rabidly conservative of the lot.
I have also studied over 150 years of empirical data on the way our economy functions and the way our political economic structures shape the flow of money in our society.”
Aside from the pompous asshattery, the simple fact that he completely lacks comprehension of anything is in his response to Hondo’s statement here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62014&cpage=1#comment-2680538
Seriously, Lars is thicker than Mississippi gumbo in the wet season.
IMHO, Lars has a concrete mind – permanently set and all mixed up!
Gumbo actually serves a purpose. Lars, on the other hand…
He’s as useful as a snowblower in the Florida Everglades!
You give Lars too much credit. The snowblower could be useful….
Trying to get a point across to someone whose mind is freeze-dried like Lars is nearly impossible. He has no comprehension of anything that doesn’t exist in books and theories.
For example, the weekly financial column that I read is forecasting reversals in long-term cycles of interest rates. That starts late this year and extends into late 2016. The writer of the column has a 97% accuracy rate. I’d take his word for this over any academician’s theory in a heartbeat, because his forecasts are based on EXPERIENCE and practical knowledge.
But try to tell Lars the Dim something like this?
You might as well go piss into the wind, because that would at least water the petunias.
Ol’ Lars thinks that immigration policies are racist and conservative. I have no idea where he gets that hogwash, because the physical evidence flies in the face of that statement by him. See his comment on this above.
What I would like to know is how many illegal immigrants he’s going to put up in his house at his own expense… except that he most likely doesn’t have a house but shacks up with his girlfriend (remember her?) and thinks that all those ME refugees are nothing but poor souls fleeing destruction in their homeland.
He also seems to think that people who rose from nothing to being wealthy are horrible, evil people who somehow managed to get all that cash illegally and should be forced to just hand it over, period.
See, if my little authorship enterprise, which is just getting started and is embryonic, succeeds as I hope it will, I can truthfully say that like Chris Gardner (the Happyness guy), I started this with nothing, period. But if it succeeds as well as I hope, then in the view of Lars the Social Moron Personified will point at me and say I’m a horrible person for having all that cash and I should get rid of it.
In his jealousy of people who are financially successful, he fails to understand the basic principle of that kind of thing: if you EARNED it, as Gardner did and I am doing, it is YOURS, and yeah, I DID build that.
He’s like those people who clip the wings of birds, because they themselves can’t fly. They despise successful people because they themselves are NOT successful.
There are thousands of people who are quite successful because they work hard and earn their success, but to a whining, mingy jerk like Lars, they are just horrible because they are successful and he isn’t.
Anyone want to add to that?
Waiting for The Immutable Law of Unintended Consequences to kick in, in 3. . . . . 2. . . . . 1. . . .
Being that Claw posted first in the weekend open thread, and as such, I feel like the universe is sufficiently anchored on its proper axis once again; I will agree with Lars.
Although I don’t usually agree with a stated premise that sounds like it was copied out of The Unibomber Manifesto, and you will never hear me rail against the one percenters or side with the “occupy” movement… I think Lars is on the correct side of the argument here. He just suffers from Arrogant Rhetoric Disorder, which is probably service connected but maybe not.
Our economy is replete with evidence of a system that is both broke and broken. The whole “financial services sector” is a freakin con, enabled and supported by our government. We continue to spend money that we (collectively) don’t have. We live under a hugely complex tax code that even someone as smart as Lars cannot fully understand.
The only thing I will take issue with, is Lar’s use of the term “immigrants”. Dude, that’s half racist. Jorge Ramos said so. The proper term is “migrants” now. Get with the program. Doesn’t Berkeley teach you nothin?
GDContractor, I would take issue with your ‘economy is broken’, because it is too general.
If you’re referring to private business, that is doing quite well and will weather the next recession.
If you’re referring to the fact that the USGovt has this year taken in $2Trillion in taxes, a record amount, but is going further and further into debt, I agree with that completely. However, the cause of that is directly related to the spendthrift mindset of people who run the government, not people in the private sector. Taxpayers are seen as an endless source of cash, which is completely NOT true. The Chinese are devaluing the Yuan to separate it from the USDollar. The EU is proposing to fund the migrants to the tune of $1.1BN while the economies of each member state are sagging.
If Janet Yellen, the Chairman of The FRB, does raise interest rates, she not only contradicts herself when she said last week that she wouldn’t. She will also head the US economy into a recession. This not coming from me; it comes from a financial analyst.
It does not mean this country is going into the toilet. Geez, my mother had a job in Chicago during the Depression, for Pete’s sake. There was work.
We have to get people into office who do not act as though we, the taxpayers, are a bottomless pit of cash, because we are not.
There are a lot of financial analyst out there. I hope the one you listen to is not a Viking that mistypes drunk German and is an expert in advanced stochastics.