Good news for San Francisco - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Good news for San Francisco

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by joeren View Post
    and just in time. San Fransisco is cited in Brady's Amicus Brief to the courts.

    No doubt they didn't see that coming.:D

    From the brief:
    To combat this gun violence, San Francisco has enacted measures that limit and regulate gun possession within its borders. Cali-fornia has also passed gun regulation measures that assist San Francisco in combat-ing gun violence within its borders.
    Ouch! Sounds like they got the rug pulled out from under them on this one. Hopefully this will be hitting two with one shot (must be an FMJ). :D

  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Quote Originally Posted by tes151 View Post
    Don't take this personal because I don't think you are voting for them, but you gotta admit, SOMEONE in Jersey is voting those tards into office. Apparently there are a lot of people there that like the way things are going in that state.
    Which exactly illustrates my point about the need to distinguish a "Democracy" from a "Republic". The distinctions are important and can be found here. Truth is, I have no problem with people who feel that carrying a firearm is a bad idea. They should be respected for not doing it, then. But I should be granted the same respect for how I feel, and that's where it comes apart for me.

    I recently re-read the ACLU's position on gun control. They make the analogy that unrestricted freedom to carry would allow missles and bazookas and nuclear weapons to be owned, which they feel is unacceptable. They go on to say . . .
    The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
    Source: ACLU Website on Gun Control

    Of course, they completely ignore the fact that there is no Constitutional Right to drive, or even own a car. You have the freedom to travel at will if you like . . . that freedom has always been yours. Cars are only a modern manifestation of the technology that makes that freedom easier. At the same time, no one would reasonably expect that you'd take a Formula 1 race car out to get a gallon of milk. BUT, you can own one! Besides, there's a case to be made that car licensure and regulation is a function of generating revenue and has nothing to do with "regulation" or "safety". There was no regulation on horses! Or buggy ownership! Perhaps car and driving regulation is simply about taxation! So it is with guns. We have always had the Right to self-defense and to bear arms. Modern firearms are simply a modern manifestation of the means to that same Right, and no one would reasonably expect to walk down the street with an ICBM under his arm. I think the ACLU takes too much a politically antisceptic position in this matter and ignores the very real Rights of those who feel as we do.

    If you're going to argue for Civil Rights, you have to argue for them all.
    Last edited by Ektarr; 01-13-2008 at 02:44 PM.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts