<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175347,00.html' target='_blank'>NRA to File Suit Against San Francisco Gun Ban</a>

Quote:SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.

What a slap in the face of the Constitution and the founding Fathers of this Country! :mad: I never understood why law abiding citizens would give up their right to own a gun, but I guess they believe that the gang members and criminals will just give up their weapons as well.

I'd be moving out of San Franscisco so quick. And I'm not even a gun owner, at the moment.

So let me get this straight, the only people with guns would be Cops, security, military and criminals. Which group do you think is the largest? It's not like people won't smuggle guns into SF. Are they setting up checkpoints next?

If people want to give up the right, let them.

I just don't know why you would vote to give up your rights :chair:

GrayBeard Wrote:<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175347,00.html' target='_blank'>NRA to File Suit Against San Francisco Gun Ban</a>

Quote:SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.

What a slap in the face of the Constitution and the founding Fathers of this Country! :mad: I never understood why law abiding citizens would give up their right to own a gun, but I guess they believe that the gang members and criminals will just give up their weapons as well.

Yes, because San Fran is just overwhelmed with gangs. haha Never been there before have you? Probobly one of the safest big cities out there...and i can promise you very few people there own a gun as it is.

GrayBeard Wrote:<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175347,00.html' target='_blank'>NRA to File Suit Against San Francisco Gun Ban</a>

Quote:SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.

What a slap in the face of the Constitution and the founding Fathers of this Country! :mad:

the letter of the Constitution seems to indicate that that is excatly what they believed.

it says the militia has the right to bear arms, and one could assume that would include all law enforcment-cops, army, national guard, even rent a cops

but it never explicitly says that the common citizenship should have the right to carry guns.

so we have to interpert it.

Karl Marx once predicted that Democracy would be the road to Socialism, and in some ways he was right.

57% of San Francisco voted to wrestle away the right to bear arms from the remaining 43%.

52% of people voted Bush in while 48% gripe, protest, and complain... I thought that was democracy. Majority Rules

Laettners Legacy Wrote:the letter of the Constitution seems to indicate that that is excatly what they believed.

it says the militia has the right to bear arms, and one could assume that would include all law enforcment-cops, army, national guard, even rent a cops

but it never explicitly says that the common citizenship should have the right to carry guns.

so we have to interpert it.

T-Totally disagree.

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.

The militia was comprised of ordinary citizens. It's there in black and white. The right of the "people".

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.

But couldn't that statement also be interpreted to say that the right to bear arms are necessary only for the purpose of defending the State?

It also states that the militia should be regulated, which can be interpreted that the State should be able to set rules for "some" citizens to be excluded from being a part of the militia and in other words unable to bear arms.

I personally has no problem with the ownership of guns (I do not own any myself, but I was raised with a rifle in the house) as long as the owner takes the proper precautions to protect themselves from accidents.

uhmump95 Wrote:

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.

But couldn't that statement also be interpreted to say that the right to bear arms are necessary only for the purpose of defending the State?

It also states that the militia should be regulated, which can be interpreted that the State should be able to set rules for "some" citizens to be excluded from being a part of the militia and in other words unable to bear arms.

I personally has no problem with the ownership of guns (I do not own any myself, but I was raised with a rifle in the house) as long as the owner takes the proper precautions to protect themselves from accidents.

It's basically saying, "It's a good damn thing we have the right to bear arms because if we are ever attacked, our citizens can stand up and defend the nation."

Sorry, The Bill of Rights, a compromise made at the demand of Thomas Jefferson, are about personal rights. These idiots work for us. You'd have a lotta starvin' mofos if it only meant a "well-regulated militia". Who would hunt? The "well-regulated militia"? What would this mean, that the people would have to rely on government for their venison?

People, use what's between your ears.

I don't remember where I've read/heard this, but the purpose of having guns was not to ward of foreign invaders, but to keep our own government from hogging too much power. We need the right to defend themselves against their own government. I know that rifles and pistols are no matches for tanks and jet fighters, but I heard hat was the original purpose. That's what guarantees freedom, not a piece of paper.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I don't remember where I've read/heard this, but the purpose of having guns was not to ward of foreign invaders, but to keep our own government from hogging too much power. We need the right to defend themselves against their own government. I know that rifles and pistols are no matches for tanks and jet fighters, but I heard hat was the original purpose. That's what guarantees freedom, not a piece of paper.

All enemies, foreign and domestic.

Also BR, you are assuming that all military personnel would turn against his or her own countrymen. If there is a civil war, sides will be taken.

glad I dont really care. my family has guns. we use them in the good ole redneck way of shooting cans and stuff.

if they were banned, whatever.

RebelKev Wrote:

Laettners Legacy Wrote:the letter of the Constitution seems to indicate that that is excatly what they believed.

it says the militia has the right to bear arms, and one could assume that would include all law enforcment-cops, army, national guard, even rent a cops

but it never explicitly says that the common citizenship should have the right to carry guns.

so we have to interpert it.

T-Totally disagree.

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.

The militia was comprised of ordinary citizens. It's there in black and white. The right of the "people".

What part of that statement is so difficult to comprehend. I am amazed that even in California people would just give up a right granted in the US Consitution as easily as this.

RebelKev Wrote:Also BR, you are assuming that all military personnel would turn against his or her own countrymen. If there is a civil war, sides will be taken.

True that.

Quote: All enemies, foreign and domestic.

Also, thanks for reminding me of that.

Laettners Legacy Wrote:glad I dont really care. my family has guns. we use them in the good ole redneck way of shooting cans and stuff.

if they were banned, whatever.

That's a dangerous path to take LL. I agree with the President on this war. I friggin' can't stand these protestors. I think they are sheep being led by the far-left wing of the Democrat party and are used as pawns in their struggle to regain power. I also think they provide aid and comfort to the enemy in that their dumb*** protests are aired all over Al Jazeera and used as propaganda to recruit more troops because it shows us as weak in an area where dissention is not allowed and total control over the masses equals power.

If there was a law that banned their right to dissent, I could easily say, "It doesn't effect me, whatever". However, what happens when the show is on my foot? Rights are rights. They should be protected and upheld across the board. Did segregation effect white people? Probably not. However, it was wrong and someone needed to step up to the plate and oppose it.

is not owning a gun wrong? laws are laws. if there is no moral, ethical, or religous reason why we should not obey, then...shouldnt we?

owning a gun is a privledge-not a right. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, segration-those are moral issues. its different.

I live in a place that allows gun. I have a gun. we use it for target practice only. so its not a problem, to me, if its banned or not.

Laettners Legacy Wrote:owning a gun is a privledge-not a right. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, segration-those are moral issues. its different.

I pray you aren't Duke-Educated. If so, I will sway everyone I know from going to or sending their children to Duke University.

Owning a gun not a right? You can't be serious. It's up there in black and white. Read the 2nd amendment. Just damn........

can I still keep my Super Soakers?? I love those things.

Sanfrancisco is a city that walks to the beat of a different drummer. They have also tried to ban atm fees and tried to force companies doing busness with the city to reconize gay partners on their medical plans, that is until United airlines said they would pull up stakes if that happened. :D