The state has the right to provide capital punishment because we gave them that right. A majority of people said 'if you commit a capital crime, you lose your life'. There is nothing more simple than that.


rights are not relative. we all have rights that we are born with. As our life progresses, we can either retain those rights or give them up. If those rights are taken away from us without our consent, then we have two choices.....we can either submit and forfeit our rights or we can take them back by force.

Just want to point out, I'm a middle road conservative, and i"m pro-gay marrage. Doesn't hurt anyone, so why does it matter?

/highjack

I really think their logic is flawed here. But then, I love my gun. I think that is when i would find a new city to live in. And if my homestate did tell me I have to fork over my gun, they are damn well paying me market value for it. You know, if they would just start teaching people how to use them and respect them, a lot less people would be so scared shitless of them. Every person should havea right to carry the means to defend themselves, untill they prove they are not capable of being trusted in public with them.

Why isn't that true of all rights? What about free speech?
Can you provide a list of these rights?

We have the right to free speech. That does not preclude us from having to exercise the right to think about what we are going to say. Free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a theatre because that has the potential to injure or kill people. People who argue about yelling fire in a theatre is 'free speech' is someone who doesn't think they should be held accountable for their actions. The logical right to free speech is the right to speak out with regards to your position/beliefs/ideas/thoughts without government retribution.

There is no 'defined' list of rights that i'm aware of and if you've studied the constitution, as you've said that you have, you would know this.

The Bill of Rights includes rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. It also mandates that the Bill of Rights and other rights enumerated in the Constitution must be interpreted not as a comprehensive list of all rights, but rather an incomplete list of rights.

I'm talking about "pre-exixsting right" vs. legal right. It seems you think that capitol punishment is legal right, and free speech is a pre-exixsting right.
I'm talking about your afore mentioned pre-exixsting rights. You mention these rights as possibly being enforced by a government, but being rooted in something more inate(?). This would imply that there are some rights that exist without government or societal organization.

I guess there is no defined list, but what is your list? Would it be the same as my list? Would it be the same as George Cloony's list?

pre-existing rights are those that we are born with. Legal rights, as in determining forms of punishment (like capital punishment) for certain crimes are societal rights. Society has the right to attempt to deter crime or force justice upon those that violate others natural rights.


Pre-existing rights are not enforced by government, although they are supposed to be protected by the courts when the government attempts to usurp them without the peoples approval. When the government usurps these rights and the court does not stop them, it is up to the people to take them back.

My list of natural rights would have to be classified the same as what the founders did. We have ALL our rights available but to list them would be opening up the possibility of limiting our rights to just those that are listed and thats not what rights should be about.

:confused: So you can't list your natural rights because you might not list them all? What if I asked for a partial list?

What I'm trying to do is figure out the difference between what you consider to be natural rights and the other rights we enjoy (or don't). Once I can establish a rule of which to test rights, then I can persoanlly determine what the difference is. Right now, I still have no idea what you mean when you're talking about natrual rights. As of right now I agree with Suave on a practical level. Rights don't exist without some sort of social or governmental support. If I say it's my birth right to make sure Lindsay Lohan can never act in a movie again, I suspect that while some might agree with me, we could never enact legislation to support my right.

read the bill of rights. thats the best list of natural rights that anyone can muster.

what do you consider a 'non-natural' right?


I know you'd like to peg this down to knowing what rights you have and what rights you don't have. I can't help you with that but I do know that making sure lindsey lohan never acts in a movie again, while not a bad idea, can't be a natural right because that would infringe on her rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, as far as governmental support of your rights, thats already been explained via the courts protection, however, social support can be necessary for it would be the only way to protect your rights via a tyranny.

S.F. handgun ban, is it really supported?
 

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...15043615c.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGVOHDK5B6.DTL

The National Rifle Association pressed its case against San Francisco's voter-approved ban on firearm sales and handgun possession in court today, arguing that the ordinance flouts state law by requiring law-abiding residents to surrender their pistols.

The city's lawyer countered that a local government is entitled to protect its residents from handgun violence.

The hearing ended without Superior Court Judge James Warren ruling on the validity of Proposition H, which was approved by 58 percent of the voters Nov. 8 and was challenged by the NRA, three other organizations and seven gun owners the next day.

Warren asked the city to delay enforcement until he rules, which could be as late as mid-June. Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass said city officials would probably accept some postponement.

Prop. H prohibits handgun possession by San Francisco residents and bans the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits. It exempts law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes.

Two other major U.S. cities, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have outlawed handguns. Gun-rights advocates in Congress have been trying for years to scuttle Washington's ban. A constitutional challenge to a handgun ban in the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove, Ill., was rejected by a federal appeals court in 1982.

The suit against Prop. H contends that such local measures conflict with California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits and prohibits gun possession by certain categories of people, including convicted felons and the mentally ill.

State laws are designed to "keep guns away from the bad guys while trying to give the good guys some means to protect themselves,'' Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and the other plaintiffs, told Warren.

Michel noted that an earlier San Francisco ordinance banning handgun possession in the city, by residents and nonresidents alike, was overturned by a state appeals court in 1982. That court declared that "the field of residential handgun possession'' is regulated by the state Legislature, not local governments.

Prop. H, sponsored by Supervisor Chris Daly, sought to sidestep the 1982 ruling by prohibiting only San Francisco residents from owning handguns. Snodgrass, the city's lawyer, argued today that the city's "home rule'' powers include the right to keep guns out of homes, and that California does not give anyone the right to own or buy a gun in violation of local ordinances.

"State law and the fairly modest level of protection it imposes simply is not protecting San Franciscans enough'' from increasing gun violence, Snodgrass told Warren.

The judge gave little indication of his views, although he asked Snodgrass at one point why Prop. H, if intended to address gun violence, banned handgun possession only by city residents. "People coming from outside with guns are creating terrible havoc, and they're not touched'' by the ordinance, Warren said.

Snodgrass replied that the city was entitled to concentrate on the problem of guns in homes, and feared that a broader prohibition would exceed its legal authority.

Even if the handgun ban is struck down, the city lawyer said, the prohibition on firearms sales should be upheld. Snodgrass noted that the state Supreme Court has upheld a ban on gun sales on Alameda County property, and that a state appeals court has affirmed West Hollywood's prohibition of the sale of cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials.

But Michel argued that if the handgun provision, the centerpiece of Prop. H, is overturned, the entire measure should fall.

The ban on gun and ammunition sales was originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 but has been moved back to March 1 in an agreement between the city and the NRA. The handgun ban is due to take effect April 1, the deadline for residents to turn in their guns without penalty.

Warren said Thursday he was unlikely to rule by April 1 and suggested a further delay in enforcement so that residents and the city's sole gun shop, High Bridge Arms on Mission Street, aren't subjected to fluctuating legal obligations. He said he hopes to issue a written decision well before the mid-June deadline set by court rules.

LIfe, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the old "endowed by the creator" line). Also, the rights preserved (NOT granted) in the Bill of Rights.

Now you may start hairsplitting; I really don't care. No matter what you say, though, I don't intend to give up my RIGHT to self-defense.

Thats just wrong, Im glad the NRA is taking action

And the Brady Campaign gets their illogical two cents in.

And it shows...

In 2003, according to the CDC, California saw firearm death rates of 9.77 per 100,000.

In 2002, that number was 9.74.

In 2001 it was 9.27.

In 2000, it was 9.18.

So is this new math by the brady bunch?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/14088178.htm

and it gets even better.

Now, the Brady Bunch must really be grading on how the laws are actually leaving law abiding citizens completely defenseless against criminals with guns because according to the CDC, in 2003, the District saw a 29.59 firearm death rate per 100,000.

So the murder capital of our country gets a B for its gun laws......Somebody save us from the insanity. :rolleyes:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=62225

why handgun bans are illogical
 

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8001286/detail.html

Now, had there been a handgun ban in effect here, there is no telling what could have happened to this woman.

Had White Castle been outlawed, this man might not have crashed his car.

This will illustrate my point perfectly.

It's not about banning white castle because if not white castle, then mcdonalds or burger king will be the choking item of choice. Now, if we make eating while driving a sizable fining offense, it will prevent drivers from eating while driving.

I was illustrating that your article doesn't prove that gun bans don't work.

The previous post about DC does. What the last article shows is that handguns are necessary for self defense, especially against criminals who already have them.

I'm not going to get involved in the arguement, but I highly recommend anyone for gun bans who still considers themselves open minded to watch the gun control episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. It has one of the best presented arguements on the topic, as well as one of the clearest debates about the 2nd Amendment wording. I've had several friends that were very anti-gun watch it and end up doing a complete 180 on the subject.

According to the website that episode of Penn & Teller will air on April 5 and April 15.

Wednesday 4:30 AM
Apr 14 11:30 PM

Wonder if we'll see this in S.F.
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7966/gunowners8kk.jpg

A ban on guns here would be a disaster....Alaska would not have a ban on guns, to much sport hunting, ect. There would be VERY little support for it here.

This is why people should be armed. If this pawn shop owner had not been armed, He and his employees would be dead. These 3 bad guys just ran in and started shooting, until the shop owner started firing back.

watch the video

http://www.click2houston.com/news/86...s=hou&psp=news

woot.


this is a good thing

i always find this topic amazing .... it seems to be a very american thing to want hand guns in peoples hands!!! i really don't see the logic at all! a gun is used to kill people ... nothing more, you don't use a hand gun to go hunting, assult weapons are of no use to anyone apart from killing other people.
here in australia and in many other parts of the world gun ownership is restricted people in the cities generally don't have guns and have no use for them. thus we have bugger all gun related crime!
i really don't get the obsessive need many of you have for owning a hand gun, it's crazy,

Not all yanks are pro gun, alpha. Believe me.

Tell that to the people of Los Angeles as they remember the riots. It changed the minds of a lot of gun control advocates.

The whole idea of outlawing any weapon is just dumb because the people that you dont want to have the weapon dont exactly follow the laws to start with.

The United States is a new country, and its frontier days occured during the era of firearms. They are part of our culture. The country has millions and millions of guns in the hands of private citizens, for better or worse, and that is never going to change. It is too late for handguns to be effectively controlled in this country. Outlawing them now within certain city limits, San Francisco for example, will not change the fact that thousands and thousands of thugs will walk the streets within that city carrying guns. Only people who have something to lose by getting arrested for an illegal gun (i.e., law-abiding citizens with jobs that require them to stay out of trouble) will obey such a law, and even then some of us will ignore the law in the interest of self-defense.

Banning handguns as a response to gun violence shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem.

This is what can happen when a person is led to believe that only the police should stop/prevent/fight crime.

Woman Killed During Robbery Attempt

Take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and only criminals will have guns.

Its just that easy.

without the right to own automatic weapons
 

We're sitting ducks on the pond for These kinds of attacks.

Now, alot of those against people owning guns go stark raving looney when we talk about wanting machine guns. What will happen when a group of these terrorists attack us at a huge public gathering and they have their own machine guns?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/14802338.htm

Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban
DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.

Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.

That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.

The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

In November, San Francisco recorded its 90th homicide, up two from the previouus year.

The case is Fiscal v. San Francisco 05-505960.

Yes, guns are intended to kill people, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The right to gun ownership (which should be universally recognized) has nothing to do with hunting other than as a by-product of that right. Bad people will use anything they can to harm others, and the good guys should be allowed to use any means necessary to stop the bad guys from harming them.

"Guns are only good for killing people!"

And sometimes, some people need to die.

Maybe I can help you understand why some of us in the U. S. debate passionately over some issues (not just guns).

I'll avoid a discussion of firearms for now and just explain why we get so worked up:

First realize that the United States is, at it's very core, a country evolved from an expressed recognition of individual rights and personal freedoms. This is why we argue over everything from banning smoking in all public venues to a person's "right" to have physician-assisted suicide if in severe chronic pain due to terminal illness.

Folks in the U.S. get very defensive when legislation is proposed that will limit such freedoms for a segment of the population.

For example, I'm a physician with a particular interest in prevention of heart disease .... still, I believe in a person's right to smoke tobacco if they want. In the U.S. we have more and more laws that gradually restrict smoking in most public areas. Smoking is a prime risk factor of vascular disease and heart disease in particular ... but I don't think that restrictive laws are a solution. I believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions.

This is why people still argue over the legalization of recreational drugs. I don't have to be an addict to support legalization. It's about the right of "self-determination" which is at the core of our consciousness as U.S. citizens.

The U.S. doesn't derive its identity from any singular ethnic culture ... it's a country that, by its very definition, is "multi-cultural" and recognizes, above all, the right of the individual.
(*I'm only talking about the principles ... the U.S. does have puritanical roots and has strong Christian influence but those arise as a consequence of our founding history ... and are not beyond scrutiny and criticism when they manifest in our laws.)

I'm not forwarding this argument to justify complete gun ownership ... I'm only explaining why folks in the U.S. can get so passionate about this discussion. It's no different than when we discuss Affirmative Action, Euthenasia, Legalization of Controlled Substances, Income Tax and the National Speed Limit.

I hope that makes some sense.