Crap Throwing Monkey

But do you feel self-aggrandized?

Depends on if you're a Republican or Democrat. (Seriously...I've found that almost without exception Democrats interpret "the people" on an individual level, Republicans on a representative level.) The original intent, though, hinges on the phrase "tyrrany of the majority" that KD used, and I believe was originally spoken by Jefferson as one of the justifications for forming a representative and not true democracy. And it's beside the point. It only necessarily applies at the federal level. States and municipalities may govern themselves as they see fit - which is why Louisiana's law is based in Napoleonic Law and not English Common Law, and why CA and SF can see fit to have the electorate vote directly on legislation). And regardless, it still doesn't mean a majority vote at a local level can nullify Constitutional law. (And no, I don't know why it stuck in DC or Chicago. My personal opinion is that those should have been overturned on constitutional grounds having nothing to do with any opinion on gun control itself.) Yes. And that has happened in the past, I believe. The majority vote, if counter to the founding principles of the country, is null and void unless said vote is part of the constitutional amending process. The country, as a whole and following the process outlined in the Constitution, may overturn even the most permissive interpretation of the Second Amendment. But SF can't on their own. I believe I hear the mayor say today that he expects it to be filed before the day is out. And that's certainly a valid interpretation. Not one I share personally...but I can't find any objective fault with it off the top of my head. I think, though, that if one were to investigate what "well-regulated militia" meant in the context of the time, the phrase does imply individual right to gun ownership (assuming that militia members were expected to provide their own arms at the time - which I believe was the case, but I'm by no means certain.) At the very least, it's a powerful argument in favor of deciding whether the phrase "well regulated militia" is valid in today's context.

I see where this is going now...pretty soon BiB's going to get bit by a telephone pole because Ed never provoked a dog in New Jersey... (Note: this post is in no way meant to self-aggrandize Mickey.)

It kind of makes you wonder why no guy has invented a bra with a cooling option built in yet...

It's not his fault, though. The Nazi Werewolves did it.

Of course, to do that you also have to equate speciation to racism.

In DC...poorly, I imagine. DC's got other problems with gun control as well, being sandwiched between two states with still different gun control laws. To my understanding, one of the major motiviations behind DC's set of laws wasn't just to limit gun ownership but to restrict and control the flow of guns (legal and illegal) into the district from the surrounding states. Given the frequency with which people are shot in the district, and the frightening increase in frequency with which people are shot in the surrounding suburbs (the border of DC and Prince Georges County is an extraordinarily bad crime zone, as criminals go into DC from PG County and run back over the border outside DC jurisdiction - thereby negating DC's attempts at gun control, for the most part), I would suggest that DC's gun control laws are not necessarily a model for the rest of the country to follow... But at any rate, I don't know how they handled confiscating guns. But however they did it, I'm sure I hate it.

I can't debate you because you don't know what you're talking about! I've forgotten more on the topic than you know. Go out and educate yourself, and then we can have a discussion on it.

Problem with that interpretation is that even if the people of SF voted that directly, the Constitution itself should still take precedence. One of the points of the Bill of Rights is that it takes precedence over EVERY other law in the land...otherwise you'd have wacky things like Florida raising the voting age to 50 or Alabama passing laws to locally repeal segregation. Now, I realize the supremacy of the Constitution nowadays is occasionally honored in its breach rather than its keeping (Kerry's position(s) on DOMA and a marriage amendment is a VERY good example. Gun control's another. Even freedom of speech occasionally.) But that doesn't mean I personally think its right. By any current standard of law, SF's gun ban (and DC's, for that matter), shouldn't stand.

I was self-aggrandizing Mickey?

Actually, the law specifies anything similar to a legal status held by spouses...so conceivably under that phrasing, one could argue that willing everything to a homosexual partner establishes their status as an inheritor similar to a spouse. It's that "similar to" wording that's really nonsense...it's both vague and broad, thus leaving itself open to a world of abuse. However, I neglected to note where it specifically forbids the state from establishing such a legal status. It doesn't forbid private parties. So my example was wrong anyway. Still a poorly worded law, though.

Not entirely. Being pro- or anti-evolution is more like being pro- or anti- the Gravity Gnome theory of gravity in which billions of microscopic little gravity gnomes hold you down on the surface of the earth.

Hell...buy it in Oakland, take it to SF, and keep it in their house. It's not like the SFPD will trace the gun, considering they'll have NO records of ownership since "no one" owns guns within the city limits... Yeah, THAT will cut down on crime... Did the whole country just go COMPLETELY stupid while I was asleep or something?

This would carry more weight if, in starting this thread, he'd already done FAR more than you about it.

"The World According To Newbie". Telling it like it is, if it were like it wasn't, but it weren't, so you don't.

I'm a Republican today? Explains why I voted for Tim Kaine yesterday. But then, I wrote in myself for the county board...so what was my party affiliation then? It's not just limited to the Christian Right, though. Religion and hypocrisy frequently have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. And I wasn't aware of the wording in the Texas proposition. "[A]ny legal status..."? Wow. So if my uncle (living in Texas, and gay) were to will all his belongings to his partner, that will would then be invalid under the law as it would in effect give the partner similar legal rights as a surviving spouse? So it invalidates otherwise legal private agreements and contracts on the basis of the sexual orientation of the contracting parties? Holy sh--. That is seriously !@#$ing whacked. Did anyone bother to READ that proposition before they voted for it? Between that, San Francisco unilaterally repealling the Second Amendment, and Kansas redefining "science"...what the !@#$ planet am I living on?

Huh? Did I miss something, or did the population of San Fransisco just suspend the Second Amendment? I have got to believe that this was proposed only to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court. There's no WAY anyone with half a brain would think this goes unchallenged.

Ah...so science should examine non-scientific theories... ...because...?

No, I got that. You said that science is not examining its own theories, and they should. And I'm telling you they do, you're dead-nuts wrong, and don't have so much as the first clue what you're talking about.

It would be even better if it wasn't based in fiction. Your comparison's akin to comparing shoplifting a candy bar from the local CVS with the looting in New Orleans.

Yes, science DOES. That is the nature of the scientific method. What part don't you understand?

No, I understood what you were saying: "the scientific community is unscientific". And I am calling that pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant horseshit, as somebody who's worked in the scientific community and has had publications go through the peer-review process.

Although it could be ieatcrayonz.

That's a pure, unadulterated, hopelessly ignorant steaming pile of horseshit. The most basic test of a theory is its ability to withstand repeated inspection. That's why ALL scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's called the "scientific method". That's also why the Kansas board redefined "science"...because "intelligent design" has no merit under the scientific method, so can only stand as a "science" if science itself is redefined.