or are we just sharing?
Superannuated hippie I would buy. There's no evidence that Frye is in fact a bitch, and she turns out to have been the least ditzy of the entire crew downtown.
OTOH, I have wondered if submissive micromanagement is the best way to handle this, or if hard-ball litigation isn't a better way to do it; and whether Sanders can legitimately be associated with the Monolithic White Boys' Republican Golf Club. Some of us Republican White Boys do have ideas of our own. Yes, I am a Republican White Boy.
Propositions are too easily floated and distorted by special interests. There needs to be a higher threshold to get one on the ballot. That said, I listen to the advice of an ex-legislator: "if there's ANY doubt, vote no".
But you gotta know that princiPALS run schools; princiPLES are like values, or concepts. I learned that from a teacher [wink]
Has the tipping point tipped? It looks that way:
California
(Yep you got it, Arnold's bullshit special election -- costing the Calif public $60 million.........................................)
THE RESULTS SO FAR ARE (with 83.9% of Precincts reporting):
Proposition 73: Minor's pregnancy
Yes 48.2
No 51.8
Proposition 74: Teacher's tenure
Yes 46.0
No 54.0
Proposition 75: Public union dues
Yes 48.1
No 51.9
Proposition 76: Spending limits
Yes 39.0
No 61.0
Proposition 77: Redistricting
Yes 41.8
No 58.2
Proposition 78: Drug discounts (Rx industry backed)
Yes 41.6
No 58.4
Proposition 79: Drug discounts (consumer groups backed)
Yes 38.6
No 61.4
PLUS: NJ and Virginia Governorships...
The other size had a few wins -- but not like ours though...they are on the run.
Hopfully we can keep on the run...
I am sure JBIRDCA will point out how much better off we will be and how I am wrong about Jerry Sanders, but I am truly saddened to see San Diego once again voting in the "establishment backed" candidate instead of actually trying to change something here. People painted Donna Frye out as being a nutcase, but that was mostly smearing. San Diego politics need to be shaken up...BADLY... and that is the last thing that Colonel Sanders is going to do. Four more years of the fucking establishment. Sigh. 
Hmm!
Sanders elected GOP Mayor of San Diego.
Predictions for the coming year:
Continued stonewalling on pension budget crisis: Check
Continued inability of San Diego to issue municipal bonds: Check
New stadium and land giveaway to the Chargers-Spanos: Check
More closures of libraries and failure to fill potholes: Check
No cutbacks in SD-LE vice stings of hobbyists/providers: Check & Double-check
Not even sworn in and Sanders made a number of public statements addrssing your "predicitons"
2"sense" wrote:
"Predictions for the coming year:
Continued stonewalling on pension budget crisis: Check"
Sanders: He said that one of his first orders of business will be getting the city's $1.4 billion pension crisis under control.
Request emergency authority from the City Council to take certain steps intended to restore the city's financial stability, including prohibiting any extension of consulting contracts, salary increases and non-essential spending.
Propose restructuring the pension plan with labor unions, with negotiations with the unions to begin in January.
Ask for a 10 percent reduction in staff in all departments other than public safety if the unions refuse to return to the bargaining table.
On Wednesday he reiterated that it will be up to the courts to decide if the controversial pension benefits increases granted over the last few years are legal.
Sanders has repeatedly said he will not raise taxes to cover the city's obligations, and instead has called for a bond issue to help reduce the pension debt, and the selling of some of city-owned land.
2"sense" wrote: "Continued inability of San Diego to issue municipal bonds: Check"
Sanders: Establish clear expectations on deadlines for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 city audits.
Determine what needs to be done to expedite the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation into city finances and complete it.
2"sense" wrote: "New stadium and land giveaway to the Chargers-Spanos: Check"
Not even Sanders started this shenaningan.
"I do think it's important to have the Chargers in San Diego," said Sanders, the city's former police chief. "I think it's important that San Diego remain a Super Bowl city. But I also think it's important to protect the taxpayers first."
Said Frye, a councilwoman whose district includes the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site: "It's important to keep them in San Diego for civic and cultural reasons. It's fun to have sports venues and home teams to root for. It builds enthusiasm and is good for the community."
Both also oppose giving the Chargers 60 acres at the Mission Valley site for free so the organization and a development partner can build a mix of housing and commercial projects to pay for a new $450 million stadium – a plan the Chargers want to put before San Diego voters in November 2006.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20051030-9999-1m30stadium.html
"In a closed meeting, the council voted 6-0 to hire Paul Jacobs, a Denver lawyer and sports business consultant, to work with city negotiators in discussions with the Chargers. The city's other negotiators are council members Donna Frye and Scott Peters, City Attorney Michael Aguirre and City Auditor John Torell."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20051101-9999-1bn02charger.html
Now, tell em again who is on the negotiating team-oh yeah, Donna Frye. And that pesky 6-0 vote. I guess Frye didn't want to be an obstructionist on this plan. BTW-Sanders isn't aprt of the City Council.
2"sense" wrote:"More closures of libraries and failure to fill potholes: Check"
I haven't seen anything from Sanders yet, but why isn't the CURRENT City Council (which includes Donna Frye) addressing this issue?
2"sense" finished his post with: "No cutbacks in SD-LE vice stings of hobbyists/providers: Check & Double-check"
This is a chronic problem in San Diego, as well as other metro areas. It's a BS charge as a cheap shot. You want legalized prostitution, move to Nevada.
Glad to keep you entertained, especially since the rest of yesterday's returns must have been such a bummer for you.
Like Sanders, I've heard a lot from your GOP pals about how they were going to 'revolutionize' government, starting day one
With George W., they were going to bring back respect and decency to the Whitehouse. Check?
With Arnie, he was going to bring back clean government, and not be beholden to any special interests. Check?
With Sanders, he's going to pull us out of the $1.4 billion pension deficit (actually, more like $4 billion, see Don Bauder in The Reader), even though it's his GOP pals/supporters who got us into this fix in the first place. Check?????
Still, we won't have long to see whether the 'Screamin' Eagle' or I have a better take. As Niels Bohr said, "predictions are difficult, especially about the future."
The people of San Diego learned something smart after all, they didn't put a ditzy bitch in control. The people in Nasty City said hell no to a sales tax increase.
As for the Props, let me see.........
73- Parental Notification: Bothers me more on an intellectual level. I don't have kids and don't ever plan on having kids-so in one sense I don't have anything personal about it either way. But, I noticed on the news that it was referred to as parental notification AND parental consent by the same newscaster. Could be that it failed becuase people were unclear-and THAT would be the NO crowd's distortion of the proposition.
74- Teacher Tenure: In reality, I doubt it would have made a difference. Both sides were distorting this one. Changing the waiting period from 2 to 5 years for a lifetime position, BFD..... It wouldn't help education enough to matter. But the opposition lied through their teeth about principles having the ability to "fire" a teacher. Sorry chumps, that's the school district, not the actual schools that control hiring and firing.
75-Union dues: I'm a bit surprised, I'll admit. But if union members really DON'T want control of their money-fuck 'em. I don't work in a union environment. The NO crowd said it was something they already had, so it was unnecessary. If so,why fight it to the tune of 3 to 1 in dollars? Yeah, it might have had "some" impact on union control in Suckramento, but the mafia (sorry, I mean the Union Officals) would have found some way around it.
76-Live within our means: Just means that we're in for another round of fees and tax increases. If the people can't understand the concept of a budget and only spending the amount of money that you receive, oh well. When we hit 75% of our paychecks going to state and local taxes (or a tax system similar to Great Britain), maybe another Jarvis will rise up and lead the revolt.
77- Redistricting: It's kinda sad when the state legislagture approval rating is lower than anything, yet people still won't move to change it. But I wan't keen on 3 judges doing the redistricting. I'd rather see it done in a randomized manner based upon population distribution with a computer program.
78 & 79 - The Rx Plans: Hell, I didn't understand either one, nor do I think anyone else really did accept as another way to screw the public.
80- Power Re-Regulation: Wiat a minute, THAT was a plan endorsed by the Dem's! And it flamed out!
There may have been "some" anger at Arnold for calling this election, but there's more to it than the simple minded, I hate Arnold group can understand. These were all issues Arnold promised the people he would address. So he kept his promise. He tried and didn't win. That's politics. I also think this was the people sending the message that they want the government to stay the hell out of their business.
I did like that the war chests were tilted 3 to 1 on this. It brought out the issues, maybe we'll see some alternate solutions to the lgitimate problems (I doubt it, but I have a streak of optimism). Thsi was an offbeat election and I don't think you can draw anything serious from it. The 2006 elections will guage the nation a lot better.
But, all the leftwingers can have their moment now. Enjoy the celebration for the moment.
"ditzy bitch". Yeah, whatever, dude. Keep the stoic men in suits in there, you might get some ditzy bitch instead.
I do have to credit you for one thing, though...you spin better than anyone I have ever seen on here. You have a career calling you in politics.
If I went into politics, I'd be the worst MF dictator you guys had ever seen. You'd all be reminiscing back to the "good old day's of GWB".
King JB's first decree, shoot all the lawyers-except the ACLU clowns-THEY get locked in giant hampster wheels to supply "green" electrical power.
Second decree, knock off al the atheists so they can finally have an answer.
what does Jesus have to say about your, ah, association with us whoremongers?
And I want to know if you've gotten your lawyers' [sic] advice about 'shooting all the lawyers'. $5 will get you 10 that you're feeding more of them than the county pays a dozen public defenders.
or are we just sharing?
Superannuated hippie I would buy. There's no evidence that Frye is in fact a bitch, and she turns out to have been the least ditzy of the entire crew downtown.
OTOH, I have wondered if submissive micromanagement is the best way to handle this, or if hard-ball litigation isn't a better way to do it; and whether Sanders can legitimately be associated with the Monolithic White Boys' Republican Golf Club. Some of us Republican White Boys do have ideas of our own. Yes, I am a Republican White Boy.
Propositions are too easily floated and distorted by special interests. There needs to be a higher threshold to get one on the ballot. That said, I listen to the advice of an ex-legislator: "if there's ANY doubt, vote no".
But you gotta know that princiPALS run schools; princiPLES are like values, or concepts. I learned that from a teacher [wink]
a guy like Sanders, with Aguirre and Frye looking over his shoulder reminding him he can be replaced.
As for the 'chronic problem', I think we would all agree that there's a spectrum of 'problems', and the only 'problem' we would recognize is where there is an effect on 3rd parties, eg where there is a close and continuing association with ongoing drug running, 'white slave' trade, etc. That is a distinction most voters don't make, and the 6 oclock news and your ex's lawyer WILL equate TER or craigslist with trolling the streets for junkies in skirts.
We can continue to knockup teenage girls, get them to flush the babies, and their parents will never know.
What a thrilling win for the Great Society!
You think up that one yourself, BK, or did God personally deliver it to you?
You must be happy to see that Roe vs Wade is on death row. At least all those babies in more enlightened states like Mississippi will be saved from us bloodthirsty butchers out here in Cali.
Let me get this straight, if I had a daughter and she needed medical attention in a hospital, unless it was life threatening, they would have to get my permission and I would be held liable for her care. Her school can't even hand out an aspirin.
But if she's silly and gets pregnant, I cannot even be notified that she's going to have a medical procedure performed. To quote Dana Carvey "Isn't that special......."
If we want to give kids all the same rights as adults, then as they say in the military, RHIPAR-Rank Has It's Privleges And Responsibility. The kids want the rights, they have to carry the responsibilities as well. No more juvenile offender programs. Do the crime, do the time. No more "expunging" or sealing juvenile records. Full three strikes, etc.
Let me pose a hypothetical to you and Billkile, since you each have numerous reviews on TER.
A provider that you have recently visited calls you up, and say "I'm pregnant and you're the only one who could have been responsible - I guess the condom must have broke, or leaked. I'd really like to have an abortion, but will need ~$2K for it. If you can't help me out, I'll just have to have the baby."
Definitely a possibility, as all forms of birth control have a certain failure rate associated with them. Now, of course, these are (still) the days of science, and with advances in genetic testing, the courts can unequivocally establish that you (Billkile or JBIRDCA) are the father.
Do you: 1) fork over the $2K and help the provider obtain an abortion; or 2) protest your faith, rail against godless abortion providers, thereby opening up yourself to child support for the next 18 years, and endanger any existing relationships you may have?
Times up!
My guess is that you'd do what Matriarch Barbara/Laura would do if either of the Bush Twins (Barbara or Jenna) turned up unmarried and pregnant. Hustle her off to have either a Plan B or abortion as fast as you could.
-- Modified on 11/9/2005 7:57:15 PM
-- Modified on 11/9/2005 8:01:45 PM
Wrong answer on your part.
I'm not sure what I would do, except it would be time for some serious discussion with the provider and my family.
Ever heard the expression "if you're gonna play, you have to pay?" There are some options you conveniently "neglected" in your rush to judgement.
Options 3 & 4, which are equally valid.
3. Tell her that's a risk she assumes by her chosen profession, it's her decision and responibility. As far as I'm concerned, she provided a service. {Cold hearted and a definate assholish response, but legitimate).
4. Have the baby and place it up for adoption. No Child support, no responsibilities except for possible medical costs for the birth (didn't see that curve ball, did ya.) Solves the moral dilemma for anti-abortionists, yet it solves the whole child care issue as well.
Now, as for your insane rant about the Bush twins, I suspect that the worst case that you'd see with Mom & Grandma would be option 4, have the babies and adopt out. Probably they'd have the kids and keep 'em in the family for the 2040 election to put a 4th generation Bush in the Whitehouse. The new Kennedy dynasty.
Well, someone's here is in denial, but I'm not sure it's me.
Courts would take a rather dim view of the 'he said, she said' argument that you're presenting. The issue for the courts is always, what's best for the child. As the erstwhile and absent father, I'm afraid that you would have very little recourse if she decides to have the baby and names you as the father on the birth certificate. That is, you would be stuck for child support. The alternatives that you present (get lost, or adopt out) work only if the provider in question accedes to your fantasies. Again, who here is in denial?
Too bad levendi is no longer around to provide a more informed opinion. But even from my limited knowledge, you seem to be stunningly unaware of your actual financial liabilities.
ie, it's less about the abortion and more about who gets to consider it.
You have an under 18 year old (not a provider) who may want an abortion, and her parents are financially responsible for her - as in, she does damage, they pay. Apart from that, it's hard to generalize about what the relationship may be.
Now, does she do what she wants with advice of a random MD (who is probably less of a philosopher than we are) or do her parents get into the loop?
Do we freeze them out on the assumption that she and her MD know best? Or do we mandate notice, realizing that she may not be the most functional, and the clock is ticking on a fetus that may well be on a fastrack to a disfunctional and/or criminal life?
I dunno. I was about 21 when I learned not to make decisions until they needed to be made. And that was a lifetime ago.
if you're confronted with this unlikely situation (maybe a provider fell in love with you and WANTS your baby, ROFLMAO!!!) then neither 3 nor 4 nor any court will protect you in any way.
You can't force her abortion, or force her to have the kid, even if you can prove she's a charter member of al Qaeda.
If the kid is born, and she names you as father, DNA will tell. If you're the daddy, you have 18 years of child support, and I don't think anybody is going to talk about the relationship leading to conception, because nobody's interested.
You're just banking on the chance that no provider is gonna want your baby; or alternatively, that your response will make her willing to snuff those genes in her womb, out of her mighty sense of responsibility to civilization; and I think that's a pretty good bet, LOL!!
That said, the proposition was not so much about abortion, as about who gets involved in a minor's abortion. I think a big imponderable is, who will support the kid when it's born? Ie., will she deliver before she's 18 and surprise the grandparents with a new dependent - or what?
If it takes a village to raise a child (and I'm not saying it does) then the very 1st people involved should probably be the ones closest to the situation, and most likely paying the bills. And I know too many MDs to think they have any special ethical qualifications.
a while like I have, then come and ask me your stupid questions and crack your dumb jokes.
Go ahead, take a few years at it....
....a pick-up basketball game with your bro's down in the hood?
You really are a most admirable fellow.
that must have been the world's absolutely shittiest game.
from people who knocked up some teenager and want to flush the baby down the toilet (whenever it comes, depending how far along she is),
OR is it the girls whose problems will be solved by (a) raising a little bastard alone, or (b) flushing the little bastard down the toilet,
OR WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? or should I even be asking you?
Dude, with your attitude, did you question them about their beliefs before you conseled them on whether to do it or not? You know, if they were liberals, maybe you would have helped the world by...psych! :P
Seriously, though, that's great that you did something like that, but where do you get off presupposing what I or 2sense have or haven't done? For all you know, we did. As it turns out, I didn't work a hotline, but I actually have talked people out of suicide before, not to mention rape counsel ond abortion counsel.
So bite me.
And my jokes are only dumb to you and your ilk.
Neener neener.
sorta guy who ran the gun delivery service for the suicide hotline.
Tho I dunno, he mighta just shot into the phone receiver and figured that was close enough.
..."We don't bring 'em back alive!"
she has to take it out in trade, ie, you take a half dozen more shots at the first medically recorded subsequent pregnancy, then you take her down to the clinic and abort them all.
Hey, that's win-win.
I AM a parent, and 2 of my kids bleed monthly.
It's not about accountability for actions. It's about involving the people who know the most and are most likely to pay the bills, ie, the parents, for the sake of the future.
If you don't know about it, you can't do anything about it. Just because a minor daughter isn't fully functional, is no reason to believe the parents aren't. IMHO, this ain't a purely "medical" decision for some HMO RN; but getting the prospective mom and HER parents on the same sheet of music ASAP seems to have the most likely good result for the long term.
feel comfortable coming to you with their problems is out of the question. If you can't raise your kids right, don't expect the government to be looking over their shoulder to rat them out for you.
the only way a daughter could get PG is if her parents are screwed up.
And the clinic RN who does the D&C sure ain't any more of a philosopher - or bill-payer - in this case than any other random stranger.
I seriously doubt that a medical clinic is an adequate counselor, before after or during. Dealing with a minor's pregnancy is not an entirely medical issue unless the girl is a robot.
"SAN FRANCISCO – 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. "
Seems to me there's this "thing" called the second ammendment, which states: "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."
Where's the ACLU and all the other "Americans Patriots" shouting their outrage about this little bomb? It has problems on two levels, first it violates the 2nd ammendment. Second, it addresses the issue of your personal home. So I guess the Mayor of San Francisco is gonna stop crying about his lost gar marriage licenses and send his little stormtroopers to invade private homes to confiscate all the "illegal" guns now?
Stormtroopers...oh, that's funny.
You know, JBIRD, you really need to tell Hedgecock that he can retire now...you are perfectly poised to take his place.
I love how the "militia" bit is always trotted out...like that concept is even relevant anymore. Oh, wait...we might need to shoot Newsome's Stormtroopers.
Oy...GIVE me a fucking break!
But, as with most liberals, you avoided the question and tried to retort with a rather sad attempt at sarcasm.
Can't come up with a legitimate response except an attempt to trash me? Hell, if I could get hedgecock's gig, I'd b making enough that I wouldn't give a rat's ass about your opinions (hey wait, I don't).....
...Hitler and his lieutenants were competent.
I said that the "militia" defense is not relevent. Whether you think my response is legitimate or not...of course, "I woudln't give a rat's ass".
who make a living moralizing on the air. I mean, at least Jimmy Swaggert had the good sense to go down about something that mattered, ie, pussy
"An intellectual is a person who's found one thing that's more interesting than sex."
On the other hand, Rita Crosby on MSNBC is just coming on with a 'special' on the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. She's sure to make even sex less interesting than everything else.
was made a condition of union, ie, why the various states insisted it be in the bill of rights.
1st, it and the other 9 were originally intended to bind only the Feds, and it's only in bitsnpieces that the 14th amendment etc gets them extended to the states. (I'm interested in the hypothesis that it was intended as an enforcement measure, keeping the states in control of the militia, as you find in many treaties. And of course they'd just ended a war where rights were established at the point of many guns.)
Next question is exactly what the hell does it say, and what does it mean? It and the 3rd are probably the lest litigated provisions of the bill of rights. Nobody really argues about it, not even now. (A "real argument" is somebody paying $300 to take it to court, and I don't see the NRA doing that.)
The real problem is defining it. You gotta admit, it's weird sentence structure, and my 7th grade English composition teacher would have flunked me if I wrote like that.
But if it is what the NRA says, then I see no obstacle to Bill Gates raising an armored cavalry regiment. I personally like the Soviet D-30, so I can protect myself against those Messicans out in the Coronados. OK, so I'd like to shoot seagulls with a 5" HE round.
I suspect that if the NRA ever gets any cojones to file suit, they will hold that there IS a right to personal possession, BUT THAT - even more than alcohol - it can be 'reasonably regulated' all to hell and gone. After all, who is gonna let one of Jerry Springer's guests walk down 5th Ave in NYC with an AK at sling arms, after the WTC?
IOW, I think it's a policy issue. Yeah, it's probably stupid policy to think that you can legislate something out of existence. Otherwise, TER would not exist, eh?
and lots of tourist money rests on it. So cut them some slack, OK?
Do they define a handgun? How far can I saw off my M-16? I wouldn't get excited about the 2nd amendment - there haven't been a dozen precedent lawsuits even TALKING about it since 1789. If you really like the feel of firearms, you really will have to join the militia, since even the NRA won't endorse serious weapons (ie, anything useful in a firefight). I hope you didn't miss your chance to join the militia.
As for "little stormtroopers" invading SF homes, who do you have in mind, these boys? http://www.thesisters.org/ Because real cops have other things to do, and at the same time, usually don't like the idea that somebody they pull over might pull a gun on them.
But the NRA or anybody can easily set up a test case. My belief is that they don't because they think there's too much risk of losing. I would agree. I think the constitutional argument is baloney (like the constitutional equal protection for gay marriage argument is baloney) but that it's a policy issue, and I think in an organization as large as the NRA, they likely have people smart enough to agree with me - so they are pursuing it as a policy issue, and marketing their ideas, which involve a little too much hysterical hype for my taste.
Look at constitutional issues like zoning regulation, and you will find that there are always discusssions of the reasonableness of regulations. I suspect that if this ordinance went to the Supremes, they would hold that it's perfectly reasonable to regulate weapons, and exactly how depends on the circumstances. If I were a SF DA, I'd argue that the SF voters believed that the best way to deal with crime in a crowded city was get as many weapons as possible out of the city, and the non-legislating judges would be hard put to argue with that. Of course, it'd be a much harder argument in Mendocino.
Imagine instead that SF had said, you can have a firearm, BUT you must first prove that you have specific reasonable safety training, to wit, the safety training the armed forces conduct in their recruit training, AND that you had passed their firearm qualification courses. You think that's reasonable?
"Imagine instead that SF had said, you can have a firearm, BUT you must first prove that you have specific reasonable safety training, to wit, the safety training the armed forces conduct in their recruit training, AND that you had passed their firearm qualification courses. You think that's reasonable?"
In one word - Yes.
I think it's totally reasonable to require people to demonstrate the ability to safely handle a weapon, as well as show that they know how to use it. But reasonableness like that position deflates the arguments put forward by both sides of the debate.
Both sides would still argue futile positions, but if you know when and how to use a weapon, the safety issues are mitigated and those are the only real arguments in favor of any type of gun legislation. The rest of the arguments are just extremist on both sides.
than reliability, and there are plenty of sailors who have been so drunk that neither of us would trust with a weapon under any circumstances, BUT there's no way to measure reliability, but hassling people is the next best thing, eh?
But my belief is that it's largely a policy issue, not so much a constitutional one, so if Dubya had the incredible poor sense to appoint me to the Supremes (and I can assure you he's the only one who might) and the NRA found the balls to bring a suit, I would probably say that, (1) the 2nd amendment allows an individual right to possess firearms, but (2) San Francisco can probably, maybe, subject to legislative findings, etc., reasonably say, in their legislative discretion, that they want to deal with a high crime rate in a crowded city by saying that all guns need to be out of town, unless possessed by cops, firemen, etc etc. OTOH, I don't know if Susanville could win with the same argument (not that they'd want to). IOW, they can be regulated all to hell and gone, because they are highly portable things that kill people, which is of course an irretrievable medical condition. (BTW, you might remember that many frontier sheriffs dealt with the 'gun problem' the same way that SF proposes.)
And if somebody says, doesn't the 2nd amendment guarantee my right to self-defense? I would say, no, that's a matter of criminal law and up to the states. Talk to Ahnie about that one. Not a Federal issue.
military recruit training as the only acceptable firearms training, because there's just no connection between all the exceptions and exemptions the military has, and whatever civilian might want to own a weapon.
Personally, though, I find it a little unsettling that almost any inbred moron with a clean record can buy a firearm and wave it around, because when I learned to use firearms, there was always somebody specifically responsible for where they were pointed, who had what sorts of ammunition, whether your safety was on or off, round chambered or not, and of course there were still jerkoffs who fired at the wrong time or target. Call me a control freak - but as I point out, death is an irreversible medical condition.
I think one issue that SF might have is with commercial security guards, eg Brinks, etc carrying weapons. I'm sure the state regulates that, and I doubt that they can conflict. So what if a person has a home business that they want guarded, and they get themselves a security guard certification, and want to keep a .38 in the house? Then what? Is SF gonna deny that? Doncha love bureacracy?