Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: cambre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

What part about "All men are created equal" do you not understand???

Where in the Constitution does it state "All men are created equal?" The closest thing would be the 14th Amendment which gives equal protection to all citizens yet women still weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. Maybe women weren't considered citizens back then. Indeed all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Especially when even if 99% of the population votes for something, all the 1% needs to do is find one judge somewhere to say no and that's that. This sort of thing just helps confirm my belief that the judicial branch may be a little too powerful. I'm not saying I disagree with the judge in this case. This law should have never been ratified in the first place.

It is not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Note that the Declaration was the justification that Lincoln used against slavery.

Might as well enslave Gays, they'd have more rights under a Constitution banning them.

 

[imported_45acp]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: cambre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

What part about "All men are created equal" do you not understand???

Where in the Constitution does it state "All men are created equal?" The closest thing would be the 14th Amendment which gives equal protection to all citizens yet women still weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. Maybe women weren't considered citizens back then. Indeed all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Especially when even if 99% of the population votes for something, all the 1% needs to do is find one judge somewhere to say no and that's that. This sort of thing just helps confirm my belief that the judicial branch may be a little too powerful. I'm not saying I disagree with the judge in this case. This law should have never been ratified in the first place.

It is not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Note that the Declaration was the justification that Lincoln used against slavery.

Might as well enslave Gays, they'd have more rights under a Constitution banning them.

Yeah, we don't want you to lose any of your rights, dude! :brokenheart:

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: 45acp

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: cambre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

What part about "All men are created equal" do you not understand???

Where in the Constitution does it state "All men are created equal?" The closest thing would be the 14th Amendment which gives equal protection to all citizens yet women still weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. Maybe women weren't considered citizens back then. Indeed all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Especially when even if 99% of the population votes for something, all the 1% needs to do is find one judge somewhere to say no and that's that. This sort of thing just helps confirm my belief that the judicial branch may be a little too powerful. I'm not saying I disagree with the judge in this case. This law should have never been ratified in the first place.

It is not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Note that the Declaration was the justification that Lincoln used against slavery.

Might as well enslave Gays, they'd have more rights under a Constitution banning them.

Yeah, we don't want you to lose any of your rights, dude! :brokenheart:

I don't think anyone in here would admit to favoring the denial of rights to anyone.

or were you just trying to call him gay?

 

[nutxo]

How in the hell did this turn into a discussion about homosexuals?

 

[ScudRunner]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

It is not in the constitution, a well regulated militia is, only reason it is interpreted as meaning people can have guns is becasue of a judges view, most likely a gun activist judges ruling, the same kind of activist you love so much.

You have no clue about the 2nd amendment! It says the Right of the People! Also read the Federalist papers. You have to go back to the orginal intent.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ScudRunner

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

It is not in the constitution, a well regulated militia is, only reason it is interpreted as meaning people can have guns is becasue of a judges view, most likely a gun activist judges ruling, the same kind of activist you love so much.

You have no clue about the 2nd amendment! It says the Right of the People! Also read the Federalist papers. You have to go back to the orginal intent.

Yeah, and original intent was to keep us safe from the british, not to stockpile guns to protect the government which can take care of themselves. (gun freaks being the ones who are the big defenders of the status-quo)

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ScudRunner

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

It is not in the constitution, a well regulated militia is, only reason it is interpreted as meaning people can have guns is becasue of a judges view, most likely a gun activist judges ruling, the same kind of activist you love so much.

You have no clue about the 2nd amendment! It says the Right of the People! Also read the Federalist papers. You have to go back to the orginal intent.

Yeah, and original intent was to keep us safe from the british, not to stockpile guns to protect the government which can take care of themselves. (gun freaks being the ones who are the big defenders of the status-quo)

Sigh. No it wasnt steeple. It was to keep the people free from an oppressive govt.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: cambre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Zendari, you might want to gauge how loud you applaud this decision, because it will come back to haunt you when a similar Constitutional judicial decision is made in favor of gay marriage...the parallels are too obvious to overlook.

Except for the small problem that gun rights are in the Constitution and the "right" to marry is not.

What part about "All men are created equal" do you not understand???

Where in the Constitution does it state "All men are created equal?" The closest thing would be the 14th Amendment which gives equal protection to all citizens yet women still weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. Maybe women weren't considered citizens back then. Indeed all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Especially when even if 99% of the population votes for something, all the 1% needs to do is find one judge somewhere to say no and that's that. This sort of thing just helps confirm my belief that the judicial branch may be a little too powerful. I'm not saying I disagree with the judge in this case. This law should have never been ratified in the first place.

It is not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Note that the Declaration was the justification that Lincoln used against slavery.

Might as well enslave Gays, they'd have more rights under a Constitution banning them.

What rights do gays not have?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: nutxo


Sigh. No it wasnt steeple. It was to keep the people free from an oppressive govt.

Duh, and who was the opressive govt back then we just won our independence from, barely.

One that we used militias for. Its a crock, and the ones who are the rabid gun owners are on the side of the newest empire anyhow. The whole thing has been perverted.

Gun nuts are not on the side of the sons of liberty as the current regime trashes the constitution, the only reason the second is still around is the government knows whos side the wingnuts are on, theirs.

If people rose up to stop this regime they know damn well gun toting rednecks would be loyalists. God bless 'murica.

Same as it ever was, the ones who overthrew the british rule were just a idealistic group in this country, there was a huge part of the population that sided with the king, same deal nowdays.

Meet the new king george, same as the old king george.


God save the king === god bless america, same sh1t different era, same sellouts.

Modern conservatism is just a fancy word for what they called Tories.





"Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle ? some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent emigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 per cent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority."

Some things never change.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: nutxo


Sigh. No it wasnt steeple. It was to keep the people free from an oppressive govt.

Duh, and who was the opressive govt back then we just won our independence from, barely.

One that we used militias for. Its a crock, and the ones who are the rabid gun owners are on the side of the newest empire anyhow. The whole thing has been perverted.

Gun nuts are not on the side of the sons of liberty as the current regime trashes the constitution, the only reason the second is still around is the government knows whos side the wingnuts are on, theirs.

If people rose up to stop this regime they know damn well gun toting rednecks would be loyalists. God bless 'murica.

Same as it ever was, the ones who overthrew the british rule were just a idealistic group in this country, there was a huge part of the population that sided with the king, same deal nowdays.

Meet the new king george, same as the old king george.


God save the king === god bless america, same sh1t different era, same sellouts.

Modern conservatism is just a fancy word for what they called Tories.





"Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle ? some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent emigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 per cent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority."

Some things never change.

No. Dude. You really should have finished high school. Read the federalist papers. The second amendment was all governments, including our own.

 

[Steeplerot]

Hamilton and madison and jay are not the sole contributers to the constitution, nor were even then their views agreed upon sorry.