Gun Ban passes

[IHL]

Well, the libs have managed to pass another ban on guns. Proposition H, the San Francisco gun ban has passed.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3196613

Gun violence, and violent crimes in San Francisco will rise. Guaranteed. The number of homosides and burglaries will also increase if this bill is not repealed. Those that voted for this will have that blood on their hands.

The NRA is going to file suit to reverse this illegal bill but it's hard to say how that will turn out. If you think the liberals aren't after your guns, think again. This is just the beginning for them.

The funny thing is that no matter how much crime increases in SF - and it will - they will not admit that it will be in part due to the fact that the citizens in SF are not unable to defend themselves. This is only good news to the criminals.

[Mars05]

Great, and now they're banning military recruiters from campuses?! Michael Savage was right when he said that liberals are launching a full-scall war against our military.

I think I'll change my position on the Iraq war - instead of bombing conservatives overseas, we should bomb liberals at home.

[Oi_Ve]

What are you all bitching about? This is just what we needed!

How long do you think it'll take for someone to test this bill? I give it three monthes, six tops.
It'll go to the Supreme Court, who just happens to be swinging in our favor right now, and they'll shoot down the law.
This arguement will finally be one step closer to an end!
Way to go, Frisco! You've sown the seeds of your own destruction!

[LovetoSki]

I dont understand how a city can ban something that is guaranteed by our Constitution? Doesnt that trump any local law?

[Schmitty27]

I think soon they'll be proposing a new bill outlawing water pistols. Little kids DO NOT need to be under the influence of something that looks like a gun. Soon they'll graduate to BB guns, paintball guns, and finally feel like they need to go and kill people with a handgun.

I'm glad I live in western Pennsylvania. I think half the people out here go to vote with their hunting rifles strapped across their backs.

[Dagummit]

What are you all bitching about? This is just what we needed!

How long do you think it'll take for someone to test this bill? I give it three monthes, six tops.
It'll go to the Supreme Court, who just happens to be swinging in our favor right now, and they'll shoot down the law.
This arguement will finally be one step closer to an end!
Way to go, Frisco! You've sown the seeds of your own destruction!

If that were true, then why hasn't anyone taken on DC or Chicago about their outright hand gun bans???

[Dagummit]

Let san fransico collapse into the damn sea...

[Bumblebee]

I wonder why I haven't heard about this. when I checked to see how San Francisco voted, all it showed how they voted down all the good propositions Arnold tried to get passed. They don't even mention it in the news over here.

[Oi_Ve]

If that were true, then why hasn't anyone taken on DC or Chicago about their outright hand gun bans???

They have, but the Court wouldn't hear the case

[Guns R Cool]

It's in San Francisco, who cares? Anyone who dies as a result will be a liberal.

[FKLBRLS]

Well, surprisingly I am surprised. I don't think I should be but I am. HOW ON ====ING EARTH DO YOU MANAGE TO PASS A LAW IN DIRECT VIOLATION TO THE CONSTITUTION?!?!?!!! The liberals claim their gun bans are illegal based on one clause in the second amendment, which reads: "states have the rights to form militias, the right to bear arms shall not be violated" The claims that this means that only state militias should be allowed to have guns. But THAT IS NOT TRUE! All this says is that people have the right to own guns AND form militias, and it says this in the same sentence. Man, IF ONLY that comma was replaced by a period, this wouldn't be happening. Plus, for the amendment to claim that only militias can have guns is historically innaccurate, because all of the founding father wrote time and again that people should have the right to bear arms. I mean, the Revolution started when the British tried to seize an "American" stockpile of weapons in Massachusetts. The Revolution started because Americans want to keep their guns! So to say that the founding fathers thought that only militias should have guns is JUST PLAIN WRONG!

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit. This is wrong. And outlawing ROTC and things of the like in schools too? DAMMMITT!!! WHAT THE ==== IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? I'll tell you what, it is that SF has been the hippie capital of the world since the 1960s. My dad lived in Walnut Creek, 20 miles north, at that time and it was a crazy city then and it is just as crazy now. Although this may also have something to do with there being a lot of gun-fearing gays in San Francisco.

Dammit, Dammit, Dammit!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Dagummit]

Here let me give you the dagummit interpretation of the 2nd amendment:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Now let's break it down so even the dumbass libs can follow along--

A well regulated Militia = this is referring to individuals that are non-criminal (non-felons) and mentally sane enough (not crazy) to INDIVIDUALLY gather to form a group

being necessary to the security of a free State = this is the primal reason, the excuse clause, that is emphasized why Americans need to have the right to own and use firearms. "A free State" is looked at as to maintain a non-intrusive gov't (to keep them in check). (Read my signature quote below in bold from Thomas Jefferson for why this is to be done). "A free State" is also looked at as protected land and protected abodes (homes), so in order to have a free country, we have to also have security within our domiciles (the personal protection clause).

the right of the people = again, referring to the individual right, not a collective right such as some libs would say. Hell, they also say this is reserved passage for the Nat'l Guard, in which was founded long after this amendment was framed.

to keep and bear Arms = easy enough, this means to own them and carry them on your person AND in your home/ property. It also doesn't say where you can't carry them (courthouses, schools, etc) and doesn't specify what kind of arms (just rifles and pistols or those and cannons and other larger arms). So in my interpretation, if you want to own a Vulcan Mini-gun, you have the right to do so.

shall not be infringed = probably the most "overlooked" part of the amendment. It means that no gov't in the US; be it feds, state, local, etc., can forbid ownership and the carrying of firearms under ANY circumstance (as long as it meets the well-regulated portion of the amendment).

So, with this said. I feel that all but about maybe 5 gun laws on record in the entire US are unconstitutional. Again, I feel that a law abiding (and sane) citizen has the absolute right to own a howitzer if he so chooses.

[Mr. Glass]

So here's a classic question.... which is more important.

The First Ammendment, or the Second?

discuss....

[Oi_Ve]

Tough question Glass. But lets define important.

Is it what makes America great and unique? What makes America, America?

Then its most certainly the First Amendment.

You can't be America without freedom of speech, religion, protest etc.

However, the Second Amendment is designed to protect the First.

The First Amendment is more important in making America, America.

But the Second Amendment is more important in keeping America, America

[Wadi66]

The First Amendment is more important in making America, America.

But the Second Amendment is more important in keeping America, AmericaI like that Oi, in fact that qualifies for a darn good signature.

I wonder how a lib would counter it??

[Dr. Madd]

Dag: Howitzer!? Me want! Me want! *Jumps up and down*

Look at it like this: If it doesn't kill all the morons who voted it in, then maybe the suffering incurred will serve as a deterrant. If not, I can only hope that someone kills the whole theory before it spreads tumor-like across the continent.

[PolyPartisan]

So here's a classic question.... which is more important.

The First Ammendment, or the Second?

discuss....

Oi_Ve summed it up. As long as there is an armed civilian population, the First Ammendment can only go away if we allow it to.

[Dr. Madd]

1st vs. 2nd. Without the 2nd, we can have no 1st. The 2nd protects all the others. Every evil, oppressionist regime in history took away the guns before it really the high notes of thuggery.