Ban Ammunition/Gun/Parts Sales to SF Agencies

Forget This Thread: Just Donate to NRA/GOA Don't Spend Money in SF

It is clear that any form of boycott will not work. We can't even agree as to a course of action. Just support the legal action and hope that is goes well. I live in Marin County, just on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. I would expect such a proposition here to pass easily. Two-thirds voted against all the propositions, including parental notification for a minor's abortion, extending teacher's tenure to five years and the like. I use to sit at the NRA's booth at the county fair. Women would on rare occasion actually spit at us. I don't think that we have a booth any longer. This county use to be conservative, but now it is unthinkingly liberal.
 
Look, you guys wanna get all boo-boo lipped and storm the gates, have at it, just leave the cops alone, they did nothing to deserve having their safety impacted.

Boycott Rice-A-Roni for all I care, just dont screw with the police. You are talking lives....
Click to expand...
sendec--
not that I believe that we can generate enough of a boycott to result in any significant pressure upon the city, but you know as well as I do that boycotts on arms supplied to the SFPD would not interfere with the cops getting their weapons. Even if the boycott got 99% of the suppliers to refuse to sell directly to SFPD(science fiction!), somewhere a wholesaler would be willing to make the money at a significant mark-up. Thus the City would get a minor bill increase. (We who have studied the situation know that the weapons line item is a tiny part of the budget in police departments of even fairly minor size. For big cities, it just ain't much of a hit, next to OT, medical, basic pay, vehicles and maintenance, or even uniform expenditures.)

Let's not get silly, here. Any boycott talked about here would be mostly symbolic. Still, symbolic gestures sometimes have an effect. [shrug]
 
Long Path, I've called the police on you for stealing the words from my mouth. :p

+1 to you sir. :)

If I thought in the very least that any boycott would put an officer in danger (as sendec has repeatedly insinuated), I would refrain from doing so.
 
So the fact that the police went on record against the band is irrelevent, screw'em huh?

With friends like you.....It really is "us vs them":rolleyes:
 
"If I thought in the very least that any boycott would put an officer in danger (as sendec has repeatedly insinuated), I would refrain from doing so."

Lets see, the goal is to deprive the police of ammo, guns, and parts, yep, no way that could hurt'em.....why dont you just pin a target on their backs?
 
Maybe I'm Wrong

Explain the logic of taking your wrath out on the police because the citizens voted for something you dont like.
 
To make the citizens who voted that way suffer with police that can't adequate protect them; to make those citizens feel the pinch of stepping on our 2nd Amendment rights; to drive them to feeling the need to call off the dogs, so to speak, against gun owners. You know, a return to logic, reason and sanity after delving into anti-gun stupidity.


sendec said:
So the fact that the police went on record against the band is irrelevent, screw'em huh?
Click to expand...


What band would that be? Guns -n- Roses? :p


-blackmind
 
sendec said:
Trip20 said:
"If I thought in the very least that any boycott would put an officer in danger (as sendec has repeatedly insinuated), I would refrain from doing so."
Click to expand...

Lets see, the goal is to deprive the police of ammo, guns, and parts, yep, no way that could hurt'em.....why dont you just pin a target on their backs?
Click to expand...

Did I stutter? My father is retired LEO, and as I stated if I thought this would really put officers in danger I wouldn’t even entertain the idea.

No matter how much you'd like to believe (or make others believe) a ban would reduce the officers to a bunch of unarmed sitting ducks, you know as well as I do it will not happen. Your inserting emotionally charged statements in place of reality, logic, and plausibility in an attempt to... to what? Here’s just a few snippets of your rhetoric:

sendec said:
Y'all have taken upon yourselves to be the saviors of San Francisco and subvert the democratic process by endangering cops...
Click to expand...
sendec said:
Look, you guys wanna get all boo-boo lipped and storm the gates, have at it, just leave the cops alone, they did nothing to deserve having their safety impacted.
Click to expand...
sendec said:
That's rich, ya wanna jam it to the cops,
Click to expand...
sendec said:
...why dont you just pin a target on their backs?
Click to expand...

Pin a target on their backs? Endangering cops? Could you be any more melodramatic?

Get real sendec. The cops on the street wouldn't even know any attempts of a ban had transpired unless their politically connected higher-ups sent down a memorandum.

So please, continue to equate our discussion of sending a message to a city/politicians/citizens, with disarming officers and putting a target on their backs.

When your ready to throw out the emotionally charged oratory, get back to me, as I have no problem chatting about the realistic impact of a ban.
 
Moot.

The SFPOA went public opposing the ban. Most are not comfortable with taking it out on the SFPD, symbolically or not. The "incite a boycott" crowd isn't exactly reaching critical mass - maybe a half dozen here.

I'm also less than comfortable with the entire concept expressed by:

"If Beretta is willing to do without the revenue from sales in SF..."
and
"the SFPD officers are free to resign in protest..."

There's a portion of the political spectrum that routinely gets denigrated on these forums for their propensity for spending other peoples' money. But it's suddenly Okie-dokie if we suggest others spend their money for our ideals. Doesn't matter if it's Beretta's profits or a patrolman's salary, it's somebody else's money and it's beneath us. At least until we go first.

SanFran's voters elected to disallow themselves handguns in a legal referendum. We might be a touch distressed by the matter, particularly in how it affects their law enforcement officers, but THEY did it.

It is generally conceded that the correct approach to a majority election that you don't like is through the courts. Push back from the keyboard and send a check to NRA-ILA.

The fine folks of SF have already seen to it that their LEO's are unarmed when off duty. Does anybody honestly think this same crowd is going to be cowed by the (symbolic) threat theat the LEO's might be a little less armed while on duty?!. Face it people, THEY DON'T CARE.
 
Tell ya what, I'll bow out of this discussion and let the 6 of you mount your boycott, if one of you has the balls to write the SFPD association, thank them for their opposal to the ban, and tell'em that you are gonna set them up. Explain to them that, you really dont believe that the citizen's votes count for anything and that you know what's best for San Francisco. Explain that you want any firearms companies that do business with them to quit, so no new guns or ammo.

Explain that you're just playing pollitics, we all know what esteem we hold that in.

Go ahead, pull the trigger.
 
sendec:

If another city passed a law that all Catholics would become slaves, would you mount a protest? The majority can not be allowed to disallow the constitutional rights of the minority. Having said that, it is clear that any boycott would not garner much support.
 
And if people in yet another city voted to require that everyone be armed, and the Brady Bunch stepped in from outside and started a campaign to quash the vote, you'd be cool with that, right?
 
Jart said:
I'm also less than comfortable with the entire concept expressed by:

"If Beretta is willing to do without the revenue from sales in SF..."
and
"the SFPD officers are free to resign in protest..."

There's a portion of the political spectrum that routinely gets denigrated on these forums for their propensity for spending other peoples' money. But it's suddenly Okie-dokie if we suggest others spend their money for our ideals. Doesn't matter if it's Beretta's profits or a patrolman's salary, it's somebody else's money and it's beneath us. At least until we go first.
Click to expand...


We're not "spending Beretta's money" by suggesting that they do without the SFPD revenues for as long as it takes to get the city to reverse the ban. After all, we must recognize that if SOMEONE does not hold out against the push to ban guns in more and more cities, eventually Beretta won't have legal civilian markets anywhere -- if you wanna talk about hurting their bottom line.

They either fight now, which might "spend some of their money," or they can kiss business goodbye on a much grander scale, if SF-style bans get a foothold.

I think that what Ford did about the Crown Vic patrol cars is the most sensible thing that companies can do. It states, in effect, "Oh yeah? Our products are so crappy that you want to sue us over them? Why should we be your friend, then, and provide you with them? You're only gonna sue us later over them, so screw you!"

The same should have been done to any and all cities that took part in the lawsuits against gun companies.

Any city suing gun companies (or any company) on the premise that their products are defective simply because they can be lethal even when used properly, doesn't deserve to be supplied by the companies they sue.


Gun companies sure as hell better realize that they'll be unable to sustain themselves if the only market they have left in the U.S. is the law enforcement market. Remember, not ever gun company has military or L.E. contracts. Those would up and disappear completely. Companies like GLOCK, Colt, Smith and Wesson, might still have L.E. orders, but how strong would a company be with only those revenues coming in. What would they use for new product development budgets?

Who believes that without a legitimate civilian market, companies like GLOCK or others would thrive and be able to come up with modern, well-conceived designs? If the companies leave it to us, their buyers alone, to fight for our right to buy their products, without getting involved in the fight themselves, they will have themselves to blame if unaided, we fail, and as a result they go bankrupt.



-blackmind
 
And if people in yet another city voted to require that everyone be armed, and the Brady Bunch stepped in from outside and started a campaign to quash the vote, you'd be cool with that, right?
Click to expand...


It's one thing to pass a law that requires people to use their rights.
It's quite another thing to pass a law that forbids people to use their rights.


Did HCI go into Kennesaw with their lawyers to fight the law they have requiring households to have guns?


I think it's safe to say that if they thought they could get that law struck down for some reason, they'd have tried. As it is, the law is strike-proof because it grants people exceptions for religious convictions and other matters of conscience. It's largely symbolic.


-blackmind
 
"The constitution doesn't require that citizens be armed, only that government doesn't disarm them."

Dont dodge the question, either you are OK with the tactic or you are not, level playing field and all that.

BTW, if this is such a burning crisis, what did you do before the election to try and stop it? Dont you think that someone with actual standing will take this to court and get it overturned?
 
Last edited:
No, the police can have handguns when off-duty. It is just the rest of SF that can't.
- Gary H
Click to expand...

This is from SFPOA - perhaps I'm not reading it right:
Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt while “carrying out the functions of his or her government employment.” But does this mean that San Francisco police officers or F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave their weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The danger associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law enforcement is stated in the proposal.
Click to expand...

Blackmind: You raise some good points.
Nevertheless, it's worth a little cred with me personally if someone hits their hip in addition to agitating for others to act.
 
Sendec:

It is clear that you are comfortable with the majority voting to deprive the minority of a constitutionally protected right. This said, there really isn't anything more to discuss. Our two positions can not be reconciled.

There is no constitutional call for every citizen to be armed. I see no reason to support such a law.

Perhaps one of your constitutional guarantees will be abolished by a vote. Which one do you want to give up?

Jart:

During the promotion of this proposition, it was stated that off duty LEO and security officers would be able to keep their weapons.
 
Gary H:

Are you saying local announcements were stating something contrary to what's on the SFPOA site?

That's interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top