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:1189744550.229127.155690@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 13, 10:46 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> Leif  wrote   
   >> innews: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.  The 4th Amendment protects the   
   >> > people as individuals, the 2nd Amendment protects the people as a   
   >> > community.   
   >>   
   >> Not to be too blunt, but bullshit.  The people in the 2d amendment are   
   >> looked at the same as those in the 4th.   
   >>   
   >> > 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..."   
   >>   
   >> If they have meant it to be a collective right belonging to the militia   
   >> they would have said that.  They didn't.   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >> RD (The Sandman)   
   >>   
   >> "Once you sacrifice rights, it's hard to get those rights protected   
   >> again."   
   >>   
   >> Senator Dianne Feinstein, on White House pressure to expand government   
   >> surveillance, meant for suspected terrorists.   
   >>   
   >> Too bad she doesn't feel that way about other rights like the right to   
   >> keep and bear arms.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  Those who look upon "the people" of the 2nd amendment   
   > as being the same as those in the 4th are simply wrong.   
      
   "the people" =/= "the people"   
      
   only according to Lief.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)