Printable View
Most of you probably already know what I think of this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141672,00.html
While most of my fellow progunners look at this and go "its commiefornia what d' ya' expect!" I fear it may spread, and if that happens were in trouble:hide:
I will hop in the debate when it gets started.
finally a new topic
It's unconstitutional ? How will the good people overthrow tyrannical governments without their handguns ? Surely, those who have proposed this are communist terrorists !
~:cheers:
Thats funny.....If I remember right handguns saved thousands of belginians from going into a depression not so long ago.....any one remember John Moses Browning and FN Herstal? The handgun deal they struck saved a city.
Anyway hand guns may no be the best thing to over throw the gov. But they sure cant hurt. And they can also be used against
stalkers
home invaders
pedophiles
rapist
muggers
carjackers
The one crazy group of animal rights activist who kill hunters(it happens)
and thugs in general
lets not forget animals too
Ceasar when you said that handguns saved lots of Belgians of depression, I initially thought of something else entirely ~;)
Personally I think that handguns are the only guns that should be legal, but that's my opinion. But hey, SA is having a vote over it- what better way to decide the issue?
The city of liege was in an economic depression, JMB made a deal for them to produce a handgun(the first one he ever made), And the factory was saved. I hear they still call any handgun a "browning" in belgium.
I fear it may spread, and if that happens were in trouble
So if people vote for something it will be passed . oh that damn democracy ....its evil I tell you EVILLLLLLLL
Uhhh if you want to change the constitution do it the right way dont ignore it.
And where in the constitution does it say that a city in California cannot have a vote about laws in its own jurisdiction ?
Oh but that would be an impossibility wouldn't it ~;)
So since you mean the amendment to the constitution , does that specify anything about types of arms that can be bourne .No .
So if you wish to get stricltly constitutional then you are only allowed black powder flintlocks Ceaser as those are the only firearms that that document could possibly have been refering to .
So if the city does vote for the ban whats the problem ?
You had a little terrorist uprising to give yourselves government of the people by the people , if the people and the peoples government pass a law what is the issue?????
Ah but its guns , that is the issue , democracy shall always take second place to guns~D ~D ~D
Tribes men if you go strictly constitutional you can have any weapon....It says you can have arms....and imposes no limits!
awesome, I know where to go to mug people now!
The constitution has no such statement in it. It only states That a well regulated Militia and the right to bear arms will not be infringed. Now the meaning of that can be debated until one is blue in the face - but it does not mention what type of weapon one can own. If you want to be strict consitutional you have to argue that the Militia clause is the primary purpose of the second admendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No problem at all - let them vote and then let the lawyers play with the constitutional law aspects of it. Someone will make some money off of it - and the City of San Francisco will have to pay for the defense of the new law. The crime rate of San Francisco will show wether it was a good move or a bad one.Quote:
So if the city does vote for the ban whats the problem ?
Edit for Spelling
Well shouldn't be any more crime in San Francisco.... since all the people that obey the law won't have guns anymore....~:confused:
Well we both know which direction the crime rate of San Francisco is most likely to go. The question remains do the citizens of San Francisco know what direction that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
However this is where the measure doesn't pass the Constitutional test - it is banning weapons - not placing a restriction such as no conceal carry permits, or a requirement that every gun be registered - it is actually seeming to have the wording to place an out right ban on the handguns, and required citizens to give up their weapons, and the article does not mention how the city plans to pay for enforcement of such a ban, nor does it mention paying the citizens for the property that they turn in.
To many loopholes in the article - and if the wording of the measure is reflected in part by the article - the ban won't pass any constitutional review.
It seems to be more of a political stunt - then anything else
It will be overturned in state courts due to California's preemption laws, just like the last time SF tried to ban guns.
The only effect this will have is to embolden criminals and disarm defesless women:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG30G33SM1.DTL
One good quote:
Here's an article about the realities of how gangs get guns in Cali:Quote:
Hurst denounces all those arguments, saying that there are simply too many guns out there to ban them all and that having a weapon levels the playing field against an attacker, who is likely to be armed.
"Assuming I'd be able to make a 911 call in the first place, you're looking at six or seven minutes realistically before police can get here," Hurst said. "You can get killed many times over in that length of time."
"Or raped and maimed and then killed," B.C. added.
http://www.sbsun.com/troubledtown/ci_3274277
A good quote:
Quote:
Gun laws, such as the federal Assault Weapons Ban and waiting periods for handgun purchases in California, do little to stem the tide of gun use among street gangs, police said.
In California, many assault rifles and their copies are illegal, deputies said. The state has strong gun laws despite the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban last year.
But laws have little impact on gang members - until they are charged and convicted - because they generally do not get their guns lawfully.
"They're not registering them, and there's no waiting period for that," Espindola said.
Laws also have no effect on young gang members who have grown up in the lifestyle and watched as their grandfathers, fathers, uncles and brothers all participated in the same gang.
They have a state preemption law that prohibits cities and counties from passing even more anti-gun laws than the state already has.Quote:
And where in the constitution does it say that a city in California cannot have a vote about laws in its own jurisdiction ?
Wrong. The founders purposely said arms and meant all sorts of weaponry avalible then (cannons and whatnot) and that would become avaliable in the future.Quote:
Oh but that would be an impossibility wouldn't it
So since you mean the amendment to the constitution , does that specify anything about types of arms that can be bourne .No .
So if you wish to get stricltly constitutional then you are only allowed black powder flintlocks Ceaser as those are the only firearms that that document could possibly have been refering to .
Your reasoning is foolish. By your logic, freedom of the press would apply only to newspapers using 18th century presses and public speakers without public address systems.
It goes against human rights, and against the aforementioned state preemption law.Quote:
So if the city does vote for the ban whats the problem ?
Wrong again. The 'terrorist uprising' was a rebellion, the American forces did not terrorize people.Quote:
You had a little terrorist uprising to give yourselves government of the people by the people , if the people and the peoples government pass a law what is the issue?????
Ah but its guns , that is the issue , democracy shall always take second place to guns
Furthermore, democracy is held in check by such documents as the constitution to ensure 51% of the people don't enslave the other 49%. There are fundamental rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, that cannot be taken from you by other people, even if they vote on it. Democracy takes second place to liberty.
Crazed Rabbit
If you want to be strict consitutional you have to argue that the Militia clause is the primary purpose of the second admendment.
Interesting Red , now forgive me if I am wrong , but this amendment (like the other early ones)was appended for a reason was it not .
What was the reason why Massachusetts wanted the additions , this second one in particular ?
Slightly OT but as you writeNow the meaning of that can be debated until one is blue in the face
It has always struck me that the wording used for such an important issue is extremely vauge and badly put together
Well, it isn't a federal law, so the second amendment doesn't necessarily apply 100%. The fourteenth amendment's protection only goes so far, especially depending on who is in SCOTUS at the time.
Edit: The reasoning behind the amendment doesn't matter. It's gaurantee is there, and the only way to take it away is to pass another amendment. However, it neither makes exceptions nor is it absolute in what arms are protected, etc., etc.
What the framers may or may not have intended is secondary to the actual text, if you want SCOTUS to keep personal opinions out of their judicial opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Mer, What? The last time I looked, owning a gun wasn't a human or God given right. At the time of ratification, and for many years after, the second amendment was only a federal right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Apperantly you don't know about what the "patriots" did to the loyalists on many occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In theory only. There are so many exceptions to our "liberties" that it is depressing. We should give up SCOTUS and go to the British system. At least then the changes in ourQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Constitutionconstitution would be from the american people rather than nine people who all have agendas.
If I remember my constitutional history correctly - the 2nd Amendment like all of the first 10 amendments were done to help get all 13 states to agree upon the consititution. The states were concerned about the Federal Government taking to much power from the state. ( I would say individual - but initially it the country was governed under a loose confedercy at the time of the Constitutional Conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I believe the answer above address this question also - many history texts will provide more detailed answer then above.Quote:
What was the reason why Massachusetts wanted the additions , this second one in particular ?
Parts of the constitition uses words that can be interpated in various ways, I believe this was done on purpose to allow the government and the country to grow and adapt to changes of the time, without losing the fundmental principles of the founding document.Quote:
Slightly OT but as you writeNow the meaning of that can be debated until one is blue in the face
It has always struck me that the wording used for such an important issue is extremely vauge and badly put together
Edit for grammer and content
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Constitution or not its a god given right to have the tools needed to protect your self.
The constitution doesn't recognize it as "God given" and as such, that idea has no legal merit.
The amendments were ratified two years after the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
All I can say is it's ridiculous. California is stupid. Nice weather, and hot women though!:san_wink:
They were promised so to get Virginia (and others) to support the Constitution, I believe. That they were ratified later only means the new Union kept their end of the bargain 2 years "late." The Bill of Rights was originally intended to keep the federal power from overwhelming the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Guns are not God-given rights. Constitutional rights or not, I am not knowledgable enough to debate. But God-given rights!? :san_undecided: "Thou shalt have guns and shoot thy neighbors!"
But if we are to adhere only to the principles of democracy, San Francisco has decided its choice in the gun-control issue; of course, in the United States the Constitution is above the will of the people...though not seemingly the lobbyists. :san_sad: Eminent domain anyone?
I believe you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
According to this site
http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...of_rights.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Hey, I'm not complaining, the arms industry is pretty much the only thing that keeps our French speaking countrymen part of the economy (well, that and Brussels). However, most of the money gets made selling automatics to those African countries that seem to be at constant war, or have a lot of rebel armies marching about. Great service to the black continent we're providing ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Seriously though, there's about one illegal gun (type not specified) for every ten people in Belgium. And we have the city with the highest crime rate in Europe (funny stories though...), I'm not really a believer in a gun ban. :san_rolleyes:
Carrying a handgun is quite different from owning one, It thought it was almost impossible to get a CnC in Cali anyway.
according to the article it is a total ban, owner would be required to give up there firearms within 90 days, that is what will make it uncontitional by both the federal and state of california constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Quote:
E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
San Francisco Proposes Handgun Ban
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO — City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns (search) to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.
If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.
The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.
Firearms would be allowed only for police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment," according to the measure.
Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: "We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."
True, any interpretation of the second amendment as it affects the states through the fourteenth would never pass w/ an outright ban.
Another good reason to move to San Francisco. I love that place. But I'll stay here in San Diego and support the same measure.
Rather than me rewriting all my opinions about guns in a civilized society, just search the archives. We had a bigtime debate a few years back, and I posted a lot of material. Other people with similar opinions wrote even better stuff.
One thing I didn't mention then. If you really want to protect yourself and loved ones, why don't you invest in racecar-like roll cages and crash helmets for riding in cars. You are far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than by a "bad man with a gun".
The issue is not really about safety. It's about fearful American men who feel powerless and inadequate, or simply have a gun fetish.
The Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms, not carry handguns. "Arms" also include: knives, rifles, clubs, shotguns. You can still own these if handguns are banned. "Arms" also includes hand grenades, thermonuclear missiles, and WMDs. Are you pro-gun people suggesting we make them legal as well?
The point is: if you can make laws restricting hand grenades without violating the 2nd Amendment, then you can make one restricting handguns as well. Rifles and shotguns are arms and you still have the right to own them.
Perhaps you should check out the links I posted, about the otherwise defenseless women who wanted to have guns?Quote:
Another good reason to move to San Francisco. I love that place. But I'll stay here in San Diego and support the same measure.
And I don't see how making sure the criminals know everyone is defenseless will make it a safer place.
And why do you think that DC and Chicago, with gun bans similar to this, have such high murder rates? Hmmm?
Ever heard of 'better to have and not need then need and not have'? Not getting a gun because you probably won't need it is a symptom of a naive, blissfully ignorant mental state.Quote:
One thing I didn't mention then. If you really want to protect yourself and loved ones, why don't you invest in racecar-like roll cages and crash helmets for riding in cars. You are far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than by a "bad man with a gun".
What a steaming load of BS. Have any facts to back that up? I didn't think so. And what would explain the women with guns for protection?Quote:
The issue is not really about safety. It's about fearful American men who feel powerless and inadequate, or simply have a gun fetish.
Well that's a new and thoroughly stupid argument. The second admendment does not say 'certain arms' it says arms. As handguns are arms, they are constitutionally protected. Nor does the 2nd say 'an arm'. Saying that since you're only partly breaking the constitution makes it alright is ridiculus.Quote:
The Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms, not carry handguns. "Arms" also include: knives, rifles, clubs, shotguns. You can still own these if handguns are banned. "Arms" also includes hand grenades, thermonuclear missiles, and WMDs. Are you pro-gun people suggesting we make them legal as well?
And we should be able to legally own machine guns and grenades. I suspect owning grenades was legal after this country was founded.
You can't, just as one cannot, in theory, ban guns. But legislatures do. One cannot cite an unconstitutional law as proof of the legitamacy of a different unconsitutional law.Quote:
The point is: if you can make laws restricting hand grenades without violating the 2nd Amendment, then you can make one restricting handguns as well. Rifles and shotguns are arms and you still have the right to own them.
That's interesting. For most of the anti-gun groups here, handguns are the thing they want to ban first. Why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
Crazed Rabbit
That's the barnd they're sold under in the States. The guns go as FN in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010