XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1189740250.190293.224300@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 13, 3:02 pm, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1189708248.058192.141580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Sep 13, 10:17 am, Leif  wrote:   
   >> >> On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> > "Spaz"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >> >news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > > "RSweeney"  wrote in message   
   >> >> > >news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > > > its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not   
   >> >> > > > be   
   >> >> > > > infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that   
   >> >> > > > it   
   >> >> > > > shall   
   >> >> > > > not be infringed by Congress.   
   >>   
   >> >> > > That's true.  So there's no reason the local government of San   
   >> >> > > Francisco   
   >> >> > > can't implement their own gun ban.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Except it violates State law.....   
   >> >> > And cities can not violate state law   
   >>   
   >> >> Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local   
   >> >> government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.- Hide   
   >> >> quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> - Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:  The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people   
   >> > from abuse by the FEDERAL government.   
   >>   
   >> I accept your admission that most, if not all, federal gun control laws   
   >> are   
   >> Unconstitutional.   
   >>   
   >> > The 4th Amendment protects the   
   >> > people as individuals, the 2nd Amendment protects the people as a   
   >> > community.   
   >>   
   >> "The right of the people" vs "the right of the people".....   
   >>   
   >> Excuse me if I fail to see the difference between the individuals and the   
   >> community that you claim exists.   
   >>   
   >> > If the Framers had thought it necessary to protect the personal arms   
   >> > rights of individuals, it would simply have added the word "arms" to   
   >> > the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their   
   >> > persons, houses, ARMS, papers, and effects..."   
   >>   
   >> Arms are effects. So it is already included. Thus by your argument the   
   >> Framers protected the personal arms rights of individuals in the 4th   
   >> Amendment.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  The rejected Pennsylvania Minority, often quoted by   
   > Guns Unlimited folks,   
      
   Cite this, I am unaware of any 'Guns Unlimited".   
      
   >understood the difference between individual gun   
   > rights and community gun rights perfectly well.   
      
   "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them   
   all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum   
   of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,   
   1789.   
      
      
      
   They certainly did.   
      
      
      
   With no individual right to guns there could be no collective right to guns.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)