JohnRich 4 #1 September 1, 2010 News:San Francisco Flips Transit Policy; Ad Promotes Gun Rights Conference More than 15 huge advertisements promoting the 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference are up at prominent transit locations around the City of San Francisco, amounting to something of a coup for the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted that the advertisements show a woman holding a shotgun and staring through a curtain, under the headline, "A violent criminal is breaking through your front door. Can you afford to be unarmed?" What is remarkable about the advertisement is that it appears the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has violated its own guidelines, which prohibit advertising that "appears to promote the use of firearms." The MTA recently caused a flap by doctoring movie posters for a movie called "The Other Guys," removing handguns from the actors' hands and replacing them with a can of mace, a badge or just bare fists...Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/san-francisco-flips-transit-policy-ad-promotes-gun-rights-conference-101900788.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 September 1, 2010 Is it a "flip" in policy, or simply something that fell through the cracks? Seems to be an awful lot of conjecture in that.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 September 1, 2010 QuoteIs it a "flip" in policy, or simply something that fell through the cracks? nothing subtle about that ad - it didn't slip through. Someone, authorized or not, make a conscious decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,119 #4 September 1, 2010 Is it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #5 September 1, 2010 QuoteIs it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? Breaking through my front door IS an act of violence in my book. So no would be my thought.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,119 #6 September 1, 2010 And why is the girl looking out her window if somebody is breaking through her front door? The whole add really makes no logical sense, nice play on emotion I guess though. Small variation from "won't anybody think about the children". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #7 September 1, 2010 You asked, QuoteIs it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? Then I responded. Now you're asking about the attached pic (which you never stated in your first question). My response is maybe she's looking at someone about to break in her front door. I dont know I'm not a psychic. As far as "the children" I really coudn't care less one way or the other. Anyone who knows me knows that at best Ill put up with children, but I usually just remove myself from the vicinity if they come around.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 September 1, 2010 Quote Is it a "flip" in policy, or simply something that fell through the cracks? Read the whole article, and it explains how the SAF has sued San Fran before over their gun policies, and won. The SAF has a tremendous record for winning gun lawsuits. So perhaps San Fran was not anxious to get sued again, and decided that allowing the ad was better than spending millions on a lawsuit. That decision must have really chafed 'em, though. Quote Is it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? Sure, if you want to trust your life to the hands of a criminal. That's your personal choice to make. Many people prefer, wisely, to not trust criminals, and they should have the option to be armed in that case. Quote And why is the girl looking out her window if somebody is breaking through her front door? How else is she going to see who is breaking down her door? X-ray vision? Should she wait until they're inside the house to find out? No, it's better to know what you're up against, before they get inside. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 September 1, 2010 QuoteQuote Is it a "flip" in policy, or simply something that fell through the cracks? Read the whole article, and it explains how the SAF has sued San Fran before over their gun policies, and won. The SAF has a tremendous record for winning gun lawsuits. So perhaps San Fran was not anxious to get sued again, and decided that allowing the ad was better than spending millions on a lawsuit. But that's still nothing more than speculation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #10 September 1, 2010 Quote You asked, Quote Is it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? Then I responded. Now you're asking about the attached pic (which you never stated in your first question). My response is maybe she's looking at someone about to break in her front door. I dont know I'm not a psychic. As far as "the children" I really coudn't care less one way or the other. Anyone who knows me knows that at best Ill put up with children, but I usually just remove myself from the vicinity if they come around. She is watching her unarmed liberal anti gun neighbors get robbed blind. She did call 911 though.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #11 September 1, 2010 Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #12 September 2, 2010 are you feeling ok you forgot to make this a poll? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,119 #13 September 2, 2010 QuoteShe is watching her unarmed liberal anti gun neighbors get robbed blind. She did call 911 though. Clearly not Texas then, there you would shoot them in the back as they run away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 185 #14 September 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteShe is watching her unarmed liberal anti gun neighbors get robbed blind. She did call 911 though. Clearly not Texas then, there you would shoot them in the back as they run away. If they fail to keep their hands in view while running away, cause of death is listed as "suicide." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,119 #15 September 2, 2010 QuoteIf they fail to keep their hands in view while running away, cause of death is listed as "suicide." That's soooo cool, I mean kewl.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #16 September 2, 2010 QuoteClearly not Texas then, there you would shoot them in the back as they run away. But of course, no one from anywhere else would ever do that. Only Texans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #17 September 2, 2010 QuoteIs it ok to be unarmed when a non-violent criminal breaks through your front door? You have the right not to do anything and let the criminal proceed to continue their crime spree while you exchange Hugs and Teddy Bears with each other. However when someone is breaking into your home and you happen to be there, what are the chances that an encounter will not lead to some sort of conflict? You don't know how you or the criminal will react until you find yourselves in that scenario. We should be allowed to have the choice of protecting ourselves just as we should be allowed the choice to just do nothing and be a victim of whatever the criminal wants to do to us. The difference here is I am advocating giving people choices. Where do you stand? Do you feel people should not be allowed to protect themselves when criminals want to prey on us? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #18 September 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteClearly not Texas then, there you would shoot them in the back as they run away. Ah yes, another fine display of bigotry. The least you could have done was to put a smiley-face after it to pretend that it was a joke. If texas was a race - Skydekker would be openly racist.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #19 September 2, 2010 Quote If texas was a race - Skydekker would be openly racist. Don't forget Amazon also holds no shortage of pure unadulterated hatred towards Texas as well. I have never been to Texas so I just don't know what life is like there. But I have met tons of people from there and many of them were good people. There are good and bad people everywhere in this world. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 September 3, 2010 QuoteBut that's still nothing more than speculation. More insight: Muni Admits Ban on Ads 'Promoting Use of Firearms' May Be Illegal "...It turns out that Muni's anti-firearm advertising policy may have to give -- give way, that is. "The transit agency's ad stipulations -- which also prohibit "obscene and pornographic" ads or billboards that "promote alcoholic beverages or tobacco products" -- were vetted by the city attorney's office in 2007. In June of this year, however, the Supreme Court handed gun-rights advocates a huge legal victory with a 5-4 ruling enshrining the Second Amendment's right to bear arms as fundamental -- and untouchable by state and local regulations. "Muni spokesman Paul Rose acknowledged that this ruling may render the agency's ad policy illegal -- and it is currently reviewing the matter..."Full Story: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/muni_admits_barring_ads_promot.php Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
