DEMOCRAT GUN BAN News in San Francisco

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by bd

Damned good questions....

As I have said I don't like the way this turned out for the people of San Fran.

But no one is making anyone who doesn't agree with this live there. It was passed by a majority vote. And if gun hating people want to go live in San Fran because of this vote then that's their choice too. I hope they do. It will concentrate more of them in one area.

It's hard for some people to understand "majority rules" when it doesn't go their way.

The party in power now is no more of a friend to gun-owners than the party that is not in power.

They just provide lip service to get suckers to vote for them.

bd

If the people of San Fransisco voted that the 1st ammendment doesnt apply to them we would fight to change it. Having the majority vote has nothing to do with certain rights we are given in the constitution.

The NRA isnt fighting for the rights of the people of San Fransisco, the NRA is fighting for the rights of the people who still WANT this right in the city, the people of SF voted to extenguish one of the rights granted to us by the Constitution, have you ever thought that some might not want to loose those rights?

The NRA is fighting for those people. The NRA believes, as the supreme court does, that the right to keep and bear arms is given to THE PEOPLE, and THE PEOPLE means the same thing in the 2nd ammendment as it does in the rest of them.

A city cannot deny a constitutional right, wether the majority of people vote for it or not. This is the basis of the NRA argument.

How would you like it if the people of your city voted that you couldnt have a pistol and everyone esle said "Well, if thats the way they want it, let them suffer".

How about if your city decided that there would be no more public speaking, and speech would be limited, by majority vote?

Edit: As to your last comment, it wasnt the leaders of my party who pushed for the Assault weapons ban. It wasnt my party who lost control becasue of that vote. (among other things)

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Fortunately we do not live in a pure democracy, so when the Democrats get a law passed that violates our constitutional rights then conservative groups, or any group or person, has a right to challenge that law in the courts. The minority always have rights in this country, just like our founding fathers intended.

The minority who voted against the gun ban can still win in the end.

Of course if the Democrats win the lawsuit against the conservative, gun-rights organizations then they will have the law of precedent on their side when they come to your city.


Tom

Still didn't answer my question... How come yer hero hasn't repealed the law in DC or Chicago since it is unconstitutional?? I've been to DC twice in my life, the second time I was packing. I will never go back to that slum with out a gun. Same thing with Chicago, my wifes family lives in Kankakee(sp), went to Chicago once, never again go to either with out a gun...

[bd]

Originally Posted by Waldo

A city cannot deny a constitutional right, wether the majority of people vote for it or not. This is the basis of the NRA argument.

Then why is the NRA having to fight this instead of the United States Government?

bd

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by Waldo

If the people of San Fransisco voted that the 1st ammendment doesnt apply to them we would fight to change it. Having the majority vote has nothing to do with certain rights we are given in the constitution.

The NRA isnt fighting for the rights of the people of San Fransisco, the NRA is fighting for the rights of the people who still WANT this right in the city, the people of SF voted to extenguish one of the rights granted to us by the Constitution, have you ever thought that some might not want to loose those rights?

The NRA is fighting for those people. The NRA believes, as the supreme court does, that the right to keep and bear arms is given to THE PEOPLE, and THE PEOPLE means the same thing in the 2nd ammendment as it does in the rest of them.

A city cannot deny a constitutional right, wether the majority of people vote for it or not. This is the basis of the NRA argument.

How would you like it if the people of your city voted that you couldnt have a pistol and everyone esle said "Well, if thats the way they want it, let them suffer".

How about if your city decided that there would be no more public speaking, and speech would be limited, by majority vote?

Edit: As to your last comment, it wasnt the leaders of my party who pushed for the Assault weapons ban. It wasnt my party who lost control becasue of that vote. (among other things)

The only problem with that is they say no handguns, not all fire arms. That is the loophole that the anti's are gonna stand behind. So effectivly the 2nd isn't infringed on, only the type of fire arm.
In my city, i can carry a fire arm into a bar as long as it is in the open. I can walk down the street with my Krink slung from my shoulder cocked and locked. I can't go and buy a machine gun though, its against city ordinance. Is that ordinance denying my 2nd?? No it isn't. I'm not supporting them one bit, but its the people of Kalifornia that have brought this on themselves.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by bd

Then why is the NRA having to fight this instead of the United States Government?

bd

Probably because there was no crime involved.

Did the Clinton Justice Department fight for our constitutional right to bear arms?



Tom

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Probably because there was no crime involved.

Did the Clinton Justice Department fight for our constitutional right to bear arms?



Tom

Here we go.........

[bd]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Here we go.........

Here we go

No because what Clinton or his Justice Department did 8 or 10 years ago is totally irrelevant to this discussion and it's what NewXD40fun commonly does; he tries to take the discussion in another direction when he is backed into a corner...again.

bd

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by bd

No because what Clinton or his Justice Department did 8 or 10 years ago is totally irrelevant to this discussion and it's what NewXD40fun commonly does; he tries to take the discussion in another direction when he is backed into a corner...again.

bd

Sorry bd, this dicsussion is about the Democrat gun ban in San Francisco.

And what Clinton did is totally relevant, you always bring up history to bash Bush so it is relevant.

HISTORY OF THE CLINTON GUN BAN

Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.

Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.” Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, “I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.”

Of course, not everybody in America can buy a firearm—felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and fugitives from justice, for example, can not—and ownership of fully-automatic firearms has been heavily regulated by federal law since 1934. And, of course, semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for more than a century, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, self-defense, recreational target shooting and in formal marksmanship competitions such as the Olympics. Read More ...

http://www.clintongunban.com/

Democrats are after our gun rights.





Tom

[einheit 13]

[retired]

[/quote]but its the people of Kalifornia that have brought this on themselves.[quote]

einheit 13, it's not the people of California that did this, it's the majority of the populace in SF only. Don't lump all of us with those wackos.

I agree, this is not a gun loving state, just look at all of the restrictions we have and the hoops manufacturers have to go thru to sell a firearm here. Plus, we still have the assault weapon ban in place. But, even tho we are not a "shall issue" state (I wish we were, so many others could get a permit), the various counties do issue ccw permits; albiet some more than others. SF county (it's a city/county govt.) only has issued 10 per packing.org., others issue permits much more readily.

I was able to obtain my ccw easily being former le, but I believe we should be a shall issue state so any qualified resident can obtain one also.

I'm not happy about what Frisco did and I certainly hope the NRA wins or it may will spread thruout this state and elsewhere. If it ever gets to the point where it is outlawed in this state everywhere, I'll move, even tho I will be far away from my kids and grandkids (and maybe divorced ).