XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Magus"  wrote in message   
   news:xjFHi.62785$t9.36840@bignews7.bellsouth.net...   
   > RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   >> Magus  wrote in   
   >> news:yCgHi.63333$U24.54494@bignews5.bellsouth.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.   
   >>   
   >> There have already been a couple of cases on that.  The draft is   
   >> constitutional although unpopular.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Oh, I'm aware of the USSC cases concerning the draft--I believe the   
   > government vastly overstepped its authority and that the USSC wrongly   
   > decided the issue (and went on in later cases to build on bad precedent),   
   > but then I don't have the power to enforce my will on everyone so my   
   > opinion is worth what it'll buy you at wal-mart.   
   >   
   > The Constitution says that Congress has the power to raise armies and   
   > navies, it doesn't say how. I see no section in the Constitution giving   
   > congress the power to draft individuals into the army or navy.   
   >   
   > To call up the militia is a power of congress, and if you're a member of   
   > the militia then you're screwed--you gotta do the nasty.   
      
   Except when you consider the 13th Amendment, at which point involuntary   
   servitude is prohibited, even if that servitude is in the military or the   
   militia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)