Friday, February 24, 2006

sure. but the NRA has to speak out against "gunshot" Cheney

NRA Urges Judge to Overturn S.F. Gun Ban

I hope the city wins.


t said...

The NRA's whole argument is silly, anyway.
The cities (and counties) in our state have a ton of laws that contradict what the state allows or doesn't allow.

t said...

Besides, if the NRA's guns are for hunting animals, I can see why the state of California allows hunting with so much open hunting area still around. I'm in no way a hunter, but at least I can see that.
What the hell are you going to hunt within the San Francisco city limits?

doc-t said...

What are you going to hunt? Oh come on!!!


REPUBLICANS!! huh? THAT'D be a good one.


does richard simmons live in san francisco?

hand guns aren't for hunting. and I don't think the NRA argues that their guns are all for hunting.

I'm not an NRA member, and I don't own a gun, but I've paid attention.

Their argument is simply, the constution gives the right to bear arms as there may be a need to raise a militia...

So you see, the founding fathers were NOT talking about the right to own guns for the sake of hunting... They were saying these people can keep Weapons. Military weapons...

before you can take the guns away, you'll have to change the constitution.

personally i think enforcing the laws on the books will do it. Make it a HUGE crime to fail to follow any gun law...