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:1189827170.070741.151040@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 14, 1:44 am, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1189740446.175586.157220@57g2000hsv.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:  What definition do you use that says that arms are   
   >> > "effects" but that houses and papers are not?   
   >>   
   >> Movable property with intrinsic value. A house is not normally movable   
   >> property, and papers are not normally considered to have intrinsic   
   >> value.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  I have a few papers that have intrinsic value.   
   > wish I had more.   
      
   Fine, so you have a few items are covered under different categories. So   
   what's your point? That papers with intrinsic value somehow alter the fact   
   that personal guns are effects, and that by your own admission means they   
   were protected by the Founding Fathers?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)