You just aren't too bright are you?
You lose. Again... no longer a surprise really...
Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
You, sir, are either very confused or very stupid.
The People, via the Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, obligates the government to be more moral. It demands the government not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is the people telling the government that it may not infringe on the right of the people, that is anyone's, right to keep and bear arms.
The federal government.
Read a book.
The federal government.
Read a book.
Our "Law of the Land" obligates both fed & State governments.
Read Article VI.
Don't be too retarded. If you are going to troll, you need to leave a sliver of truth in there to make your idiocy seem more plausible...
The game is all about spreading agitprop, - the big lie..
AB50 is a state law, not a city ordinance. San Franciso's attempted ban on hanguns was overruled because of state preemption, NOT the 2nd Amendment.
You're batting .000 so far. Lifetime average at that.
The big lie; - States can ignore the 2nd Amendment.
It’s a gun ban. Poor you...
PING
PING...
Sorry to the author for the last errant PING!
Red herring.
Naw... I leave those to you...
February 24, 2006
by Associated PressThe National Rifle Association urged a judge to overturn San Francisco's voter-approved handgun ban, arguing the city can't ban the guns because state law allows them.
Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and gun enthusiasts suing to repeal the ban, said he was "sympathetic with the victims of gun violence," but he said lawful weapon owners "are part of the solution, and not part of the problem."
Without addressing the Second Amendment dispute over the constitutional right to bear arms, Michel argued that a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows guns and has almost exclusive authority to regulate them.
[crickets]
You just aren't too bright are you?
You lose. Again... no longer a surprise really...
Squeaking and running again.
Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and gun enthusiasts suing to repeal the ban, said he was "sympathetic with the victims of gun violence," but he said lawful weapon owners "are part of the solution, and not part of the problem."Poor you.Without addressing the Second Amendment dispute over the constitutional right to bear arms, Michel argued that a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows guns and has almost exclusive authority to regulate them.
Stupid Roscoe...
I asked where in the 2nd does it state that it only applies to the federal government, not for an Amendment that states that the Constitution only applies to the federal government. However, I will let you take a shot at showing where in the Constitution it states that it only applies to the federal government. The founding fathers were wary of government becoming tranical, any government & all levels (state, federal, etc.).
Nothing in your source (SARAH BRADY, no less!) refutes the NRA or the court’s decision.
Your true colors continue to leak out.
Backwards. Where does it say it applies to the states?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.