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:1189835947.040609.275430@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 7:48 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
> wrote:
>> Leif wrote
>> innews: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 of
>> > the 4th amendment is made up of the general public. The people of the
>> > 2nd amendment consists only of those who are capable of bearing arms.
>>
>> Interestingly, the USSC disagrees with you.
>>
>> --
>> 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: I don't think its that clear that the Supreme Court
> disagrees with me.
Actually, it's quite clear that your position has been denounced by SCOTUS
in prior rulings.
> Anyway, maybe they need to think a little more on
> the subject, since they volunteered that their definition of "the
> people" was based on an "exegsis" that was by no means conclusive.
True, but it certainly is suggestive and certainly more reasonable that some
sort of application that changes without rhyme or reason based on your
misinterpretations and bias.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
