XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: Nope@noway.net   
      
   Scout wrote:   
   > "Leif"  wrote in message   
   > news:1189738780.317181.17430@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   >> 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.  It,   
   >> along with Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution have given us   
   >> the modern militia, the National Guard.   
   >   
   > A select militia, which now acts a part of the standing army. Two principles   
   > that were utterly rejected by the Founding Fathers.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Without it, a military draft   
   >> would no doubt now be in effect.   
   >   
   > 13th Amendment.   
   >   
      
   Hmmm... even then, a draft into the *Militia* only for the express   
   purposes of "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections   
   and repel Invasions" is probably Constitutional.   
      
      
      
   >> I wouldn't look forward to that.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)