http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_el_ge/san_francisco_measures


Someone tells me I can't keep a gun in my house I'll shove my gun up their ass.
No military recruiting?...pfft.  No military means no protection which means when the terrorist strike next (hopefully in San Fran) there won't be any repercussions

How often do you see gun-related incidents in San Francisco, anyway?  I would think that if it's high, then this ban is justifiable.

Cops & robbers arae gonna be the only ones with guns now, how does that make anything better?

And as I understood it, no citizen can own a gun PERIOD, with a dot.  Like not even locked in a gun safe buried in their backyard under a swimming pool, sheesh

What the fuck?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13190.msg133331#msg133331 date=1131575797]
Cops & robbers arae gonna be the only ones with guns now, how does that make anything better?

And as I understood it, no citizen can own a gun PERIOD, with a dot.  Like not even locked in a gun safe buried in their backyard under a swimming pool, sheesh
[/quote]

Where I live, the only legal guns are for hunting.  I've never seen a gun, and I don't know anybody (or even OF anybody) in my city who has been killed by a gun (except for by the police).  We get ~15-20 murders/year in my city, and they all tend to be beatings and similar. 

The argument you make SOUNDS good, but take it from somebody who's seen it in practice: it somehow works!

We have a murder or two every DAY.

Umm, the moral principles for such an argument are invalid, as this is legalizing the nullification of the Constitution by local governments.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=13190.msg133354#msg133354 date=1131584927]
Umm, the moral principles for such an argument are invalid, as this is legalizing the nullification of the Constitution by local governments.
[/quote]Word.

There is a whole little bit in the other thread about the Constitution being over written

Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated?  If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written?  This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?

Sorry for bringing up religion, but I'm trying to give you all something to think about here.  If you discount the Bible for being outdated (as I'm sure some of you do), you have to consider that the constitution might be, too. 

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13190.msg133352#msg133352 date=1131583660]
We have a murder or two every DAY.
[/quote]You seriously live in Compton?

[quote author=iago link=topic=13190.msg133388#msg133388 date=1131598224]
Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated? If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written? This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?

Sorry for bringing up religion, but I'm trying to give you all something to think about here. If you discount the Bible for being outdated (as I'm sure some of you do), you have to consider that the constitution might be, too.
[/quote]People who say the bible is outdated obviously don't read it very often anyhow =p

[quote]You seriously live in Compton?[/quote]
That is common for most big cities...

[quote author=iago link=topic=13190.msg133388#msg133388 date=1131598224]
Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated?  If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written?  This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?

Sorry for bringing up religion, but I'm trying to give you all something to think about here.  If you discount the Bible for being outdated (as I'm sure some of you do), you have to consider that the constitution might be, too. 
[/quote]Like 215 years ago ;).  Anyways, but is there a portion of the Constitution that has to do with how many slaves I can own? 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13190.msg133388#msg133388 date=1131598224]Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated?  If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written?  This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?[/quote]

This type of thinking is exactly what you are being programmed to think.  Did you read the link I provided earlier?

[color=darkred]The constitution is a list of powers given to our federal government.  All other powers remain with the states.  The only way any new power may be given to the federal government is by constitutional amendment.[/color]

iago, that's what it is all about, but that is not what is happening anymore.  Our government is heavily corrupted and our democracy is long gone.  A political philosopher once said that democracy can only sustain itself until those in power realize they can vote themselves wealth from the treasury.  That started happening with the 16th amendment only 70 years ago.  Now the government has you working 35% of the year for them and that is endentured servitude, or slavery.  Our nation's creators were never victims to the level of tyranny we have now.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
-Michael Savage

I am embarrassed to live in San Francisco. I also do not understand the logical thinking behind Preparation H. So all the people in the city that use their hand guns for protection and for recreational reasons will have to turn them in and the only people left with guns are the criminals and police.

My father owns a jewelry store with his partner and both of them keep a gun in the store for protection. Now with this new proposition they are not allowed to do that. The idiots that wrote this proposition don't even have a plan on a way to collect the firearms from people.

The constitution in this country once stood for something but now it's a mockery.
Unlike other countries the United States once-upon-a-time gave power to the people and not the government but now liberalism and corruption has us in a downward spin. Republicans and Democrats are all the same, corrupt liars.

Now on to military recruiters. I believe that this is absurd that people say that "our kids are not mature enough to be contacted by the recruiters and make those types of decisions" those same people pass out condoms in schools and those same people voted that a 13 year old girl can go have an abortion w/o letting her parents know about it.

Imagine a minority student that is in high school and his family can't afford for him to go to college. With military not being an option where would this person wind up?
Military is an option. When recruiters talk to you they always end up talking to your family if you are interested. They will never force you to do anything you don't want to do.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133417#msg133417 date=1131641434]
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
-Michael Savage

I am embarrassed to live in San Francisco. I also do not understand the logical thinking behind Preparation H. So all the people in the city that use their hand guns for protection and for recreational reasons will have to turn them in and the only people left with guns are the criminals and police.

My father owns a jewelry store with his partner and both of them keep a gun in the store for protection. Now with this new proposition they are not allowed to do that. The idiots that wrote this proposition don't even have a plan on a way to collect the firearms from people.

The constitution in this country once stood for something but now it's a mockery.
Unlike other countries the United States once-upon-a-time gave power to the people and not the government but now liberalism and corruption has us in a downward spin. Republicans and Democrats are all the same, corrupt liars.

Now on to military recruiters. I believe that this is absurd that people say that "our kids are not mature enough to be contacted by the recruiters and make those types of decisions" those same people pass out condoms in schools and those same people voted that a 13 year old girl can go have an abortion w/o letting her parents know about it.

Imagine a minority student that is in high school and his family can't afford for him to go to college. With military not being an option where would this person wind up?
Military is an option. When recruiters talk to you they always end up talking to your family if you are interested. They will never force you to do anything you don't want to do.
[/quote]

Wow I didn't know people took Michael Savage seriously. He must be a good brainwa...err talker.

You always mention liberalism as the sole cause of every thing wrong. Blah blah blah. Bush has probably given more power to the feds than any other president.

There is a difference between actively going and telling kids to have sex and allowing easy access to condoms (not they don't foricble give them condoms). Recruiting them for the military falls would be the same as teachers telling their kids to have sex. Allowing easy access to condoms knowing with high probability they'll have sex is the same as the military setting up shop across the street from schools and waiting for the kids to come to them. See the difference?

Nice burn on with the "minority student" stereotypically crap. But what happens to a poor white kid when there is no military option? I guess it isn't the same as what happens to the minority kid.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133417#msg133417 date=1131641434]
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
-Michael Savage
[/quote]

Well, if he believes that, he's an idiot. Liberals ended slavery. Liberals established medicare and social security. Liberals gave women and black people the vote. Liberals ended segregation and passed the civil rights act.

So far as I know, conservatives opposed all of those things at the time.

Note that my use of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' refer to philosophies, not to any party affiliation.

Uhmj, condoms are handd out in school as are military fliers.  Maybe you need to get out of that pointless ivy league & attend the real world.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133427#msg133427 date=1131652881]
So far as I know, conservatives opposed all of those things at the time.
[/quote]

That's by definition. He's referring to contemporary liberalism, I think.

[quote]
Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated?  If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written?  This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?
[/quote]

It's called a constitutional amendment. And they didn't do one for this.

Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13190.msg133462#msg133462 date=1131675187]
Uhmj, condoms are handd out in school as are military fliers.  Maybe you need to get out of that pointless ivy league & attend the real world.
[/quote]

At my high school they never handed out condoms nor was I forced to take condoms. I knew they were available in the health office in a small basket but no one came up to me and said "Here take this." I was given a military flyer though, and the assholes near my house always try to recruit my brother and me, even after many refusals. They're like the mormons who always come to my door.

Note that I had to go to a (public) high school to get where I am. And I probably know more about the "real world" than you ever will. You're just as bitter like $t0rm.

Contemporary liberalism? Define please?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13190.msg133504#msg133504 date=1131691183]
Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?
[/quote]States must comply w/the Constitution & their own state constitution.  If a city banned free speech people would burn the city.  They should burn the city (or change it) for banning arms too

EDIT:typo

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13190.msg133504#msg133504 date=1131691183]
Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?
[/quote]

As the Constitution and amendments were supposed to be enumerating the powers given to the federal government, I don't understand how the 2nd amendment really works with regards to state raising and maintaing militias.  It should not need to be said.  The states maintained ALL rights and ALL powers that were not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution as given to the federal government.  There was much fear that a federal government would try to take over the states, maybe thats why it had to be spelled out in the 2nd amendment a states right.

In my opinion, that was a mistake.  Perhaps it was because the federal government was specified to provide for the national defense, maybe the feds tried to tell the states they could not have their own armies, that the power belonged to the feds.

States militias were of course individuals bearing arms, not quite the same as federal payroll armed forces.

I still don't agree that:

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

is the same as:

[quote]
Anyone who wants a gun can have one.
[/quote]

I think that the first part -- "A well regulated militia"-- establishes a clear context upon which the rest of the amendment is predicated, and provides significant scope for the enactment of arms control legislation.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, this was a ballot measure -- eg, a referendum -- upon which people voted. Given that, I'm not sure how anyone can bitch about it, really. Things don't get much more democratic than that.

Arta it's not about being democratic.  Without taking a stance myself I will try to explain the objection.

The Declaration of Independence sets up power coming first from God, then to man, and from man to government.  The document enumerates rights belonging to man that are inalienable.  The Constitution was framed later based on the concept that man had rights which could not be taken away, legislated away, or given away from man to government.  Other rights belonged to the union-states, in fact, most powers layed with the states.  The federal government was established by the Constitution to list which restricted powers it would have.

So the 2nd amendment still confuses me as to why it exists.  It's an individual rights vs. states rights issue, and not one at the federal level.  States should not need to list their rights in the Constitution.  That they do means I am misunderstanding its purpose.

MyndFyre care to explain why you think the 2nd amendment is in correct contexxt of the Constitution?

If individual rights to bear arms is covered by the 2nd amendment, then (weirdly) that power is enumerated and enforced at the federal level.  Thus, a town vote cannot remove powers which are granted to the federal control by the Constitution.

The town vote should be judged unconstitutional.  However, two other cities have done it, and have they been challenged and lost in court?

Perhaps it was intended to prevent the federal government from passing laws of this kind, and in so doing, prevented states (supposedly) from doing it to.

Either way, I'm not so sure that it is unconstitutional. Having a handgun under your bed has nothing to do with keeping a well-regulated militia.

You're half right.

The Constitution sets up what the federal government CAN DO.  By definition they cannot do anything else.

Everything else CAN BE DONE by the states, and all powers are held by the states where they do not belong to Man.

Thus, the federal government cannot pass laws or act on anything that is not a power granted to them by the Constitution.

The state government can do whatever they want, as long as its not a power given to the feds by the Constitution, or not a right owned by Man.

Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133567#msg133567 date=1131735244]
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?
[/quote]

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133574#msg133574 date=1131736675]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133567#msg133567 date=1131735244]
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?
[/quote]

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
[/quote]

Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!

@ CrAz3d: You taking the pretty liberal interpretation of the Constitution with your stance. I thought the Constitution was not a living document, but meant to be strictly interpreted?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13190.msg133577#msg133577 date=1131736898]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133574#msg133574 date=1131736675]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133567#msg133567 date=1131735244]
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?
[/quote]

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
[/quote]
Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!
[/quote]

There is a comma after the 1st 13 words. The 1st part allows us to assemble a regulated militia if need be for the protection of freedom and the 2nd part allows us to bear arms.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133574#msg133574 date=1131736675]
Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
[/quote]

I'm not sure about that. Read the rest of my posts in this thead.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13190.msg133570#msg133570 date=1131735734]
Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?
[/quote]

I don't know. That's why I don't understand Grok's point fully.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133583#msg133583 date=1131737535]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133574#msg133574 date=1131736675]
Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
[/quote]

I'm not sure about that. Read the rest of my posts in this thead.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13190.msg133570#msg133570 date=1131735734]
Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?
[/quote]

I don't know. That's why I don't understand Grok's point fully.
[/quote]

Arta if you don't know the answer to that question you are ignorant on this whole entire matter and should not participate in this discussion.

Well, I would have thought there is a good argument (an unassailably iron-clad one, in fact) for banning free speech being unconstitutional, but then I read Grok's posts, which seem to indicate that it might not be. Thus, I am now confused. I'm quite sure I've just misunderstood Grok's point.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13190.msg133577#msg133577 date=1131736898]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13190.msg133574#msg133574 date=1131736675]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13190.msg133567#msg133567 date=1131735244]
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?
[/quote]

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
[/quote]

Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!

@ CrAz3d: You taking the pretty liberal interpretation of the Constitution with your stance. I thought the Constitution was not a living document, but meant to be strictly interpreted?
[/quote]What do ya mean?...