XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: heekster@iwxt.net   
      
   On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:59:40 -0700, Leif    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Sep 13, 11:26 am, Natman  wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:48 -0700, Leif    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >> Well at least you admit your inconsistency. Sorry but you don't get to   
   >> pick and choose which amendments you want to follow. It's a package   
   >> deal.   
   >>   
   >> >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..."   
   >>   
   >> They probably thought it wasn't necessary since they had already   
   >> protected the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Second.   
   >>   
   >> The contortions you people will go through to justify your positions   
   >> are simply amazing.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   >Leif speaking:  I'm very appreciative of the Second Amendment.   
      
   Damned shame that you don't understand it.   
      
   >  It,   
   >along with Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution have given us   
   >the modern militia, the National Guard.   
      
   The NG is not a militia, unless considered as a "select" militia.   
      
   > Without it, a military draft   
   >would no doubt now be in effect.   
      
   You missed the 60's in its entirety, didn't you?   
   There was an NG, and a draft, concurrently, until about 1973.   
      
   > I wouldn't look forward to that.   
      
   Why would a supposed WWII vet make a statement like that?   
   --   
   the heekster, BS#4, preposterous   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)