Wl> police. It�s about the fact that we do not allow weapons in our
Wl> restaurant. We were uncomfortable, and so we politely asked them
Wl> to leave. It has nothing to do with the fact that they were
Wl> officers, and everything to do with the fact that they were
Wl> carrying guns.� [ABC7, SF Chronicle, SFGate, SFist]
Wl>
Wl> Burn this shithole down.

Who's the snowflake now?

I like how pro-freedom conservatives clutch their pearls if everyone is not
enthusiastically adoring cops in cities with patently "not nice cops" to the
point you think they want everywhere to be a police state (except for their
hometown).

I think it is dumb, since, let's face it, in the US, cops basically make the
laws as they go. They are probably in more physical danger with armed police
there than unarmed civilians (especially in SF, especially if anyone there is
black), but you are just going to make a fucking stink and the police are
going to ultimately do whatever they want to do.

Although the devil is in the details. San Francisco cops have had a bad track
record of using restaurants while on duty to profile, harass, and do cop work
in a private business, making those places less safe. They have been on
record harassing blacks and trans women who have been patrons to then shake
them down for drugs or harass them as potential sex workers. This is kind of
a think in SF. So frankly, I understand *why* but it's not going to make a
difference, because some dumb big boy cop is going put pressure on the city
to make sure they can't be excluded, regardless if they have automatic rifles
and riot gear.

As a conservative, I would imagine you don't like the idea of living in a
totalitarian police state where armed cops can come into private businesses,
when on duty, claim they are customers, and potentially harass whomever then
choose? Right?

So a no gun policy is a good idea, but it will never be enforcible. The cops
will spoil that liberty the moment they can.