The City that knows how . . . to ignore the Second Amendment

Here's the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think that's pretty clear. A militia, of course, At that time was a citizens' Army. This mean that citizens freely assembling, with their arms, were a militia. Obviously this concept, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, wouldn't work without citizens actually having arms. Here's what just passed in San Francisco, a city that claims for itself the title of "The City that knows how":

Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters. The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

I can't put this any more bluntly than to say that, on its face, this initiative is unconstitutional (as are the same initiatives in Washington, D.C. and Chicago). They're also profoundly stupid. The handgun ban in London proved definitively that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." You see, it turns out the NRA was right all along: it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the culture surrounding the guns. If one generally has a law abiding culture, guns won't change that. If one generally has anarchy, the criminals always know how to get guns. In any event, I take this personally because, while I've never owned a gun, recent events in Louisiana and France have seen me sign up for shooting classes and start investigating firearms. I hope that the plague infecting a City near me doesn't spread. And I hope that a newly reconstituted Supreme Court puts the kybosh on this type of unconstitutional activity. Hat tip: Michelle Malkin UPDATE: Here's a great NRO wrap-up about the gun ban which says everything I wish I'd said.