JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    "... shall not be infringed."

    From another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by snapcat

    We've had a state-wide concealed weapons law in effect in Kentucky for a long time. There was a furor when it was enacted; many people eblieved it would lead to more shootings and more arrests. But that hasn't been the case. I can't recall one news story of where any of the fears have been realized here.

    And while Kentucky is a conservative state, there are many "blue" zones, including Lexington. We're about the same size as Colorado Springs. And my experience has been that the issue of gun control is not unlike the various smoking ordinances. Tobacco and guns are, for now, legal. In fact guns are protected by the Constitution.

    With so many issues on the table for this election cycle, I just don't see concealed weapons as being a winning issue for the Dems. But there are steps that can be tightened on the existing laws, particularly the sale of guns during gun shows.

    At present in Kentucky and many other states, it is legal to sell guns at flea markets and call it a "gun show." The standard background check, I believe, is waived for purchases at gun shows.

    There is absolutely no reason for guns to be sold at flea markets, and we could tighten up that law, and probably some others, too.
    I put what is probably the most important bit of that post in bold. What's interesting is that the rest of the post proceeds to miss just what that protection means. Note, by the way, the word "protection" -- it implies what is assumed by all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, namely that rights are not granted by government, but exist apart from it, and it is the job of the government to protect them; in fact, it is the primary job of government to do so.

    The key word in the Second Amendment is "infringed". Today it has become primarily a legal term, so we miss the meaning -- which is easy enough to illustrate:
    Think of pictures of eighteenth-century frontiersmen -- they frequently had clothes with a row of sort of losse heavy-duty threads hanging off, what were actually the ends of leather cords evenly spaced. A "fringe" is "a decorative edge of hanging narrow strips of material or threads on a piece of clothing or material"; today they're found more on tablecloths than anywhere, or on bedspreads or shawls. So "to infringe" means to touch or intrude on the fringe.
    Note that the fringe is not critical to the garment (or tablecloth, etc.); it is extraneous, for looks more than anything. That gives a clue as to what the Constitution's writers meant by the term "infringe": to not even mess with totally peripheral issues. The purpose was to be certain that the actual substance of the right never got even bothered -- something clearly understood in America for generations.
    So what the amendment means is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be even remotely bothered in the least".

    The meaning of that is plain: no restrictions or hindrances of any kind can be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that has anything to do with the ability of a member of "the people" to keep and/or bear arms is flat-out unconstitutional. Essentially that boils down to this simple rule: there can't be any laws about gun ownership, acquisition, transport, or any such thing; in fact, if what the Founding Fathers wrote elsewhere is taken into account, any law that mentions guns at all is unconstitutional -- because it intrudes on the fringe, on the non-essential but protected part of the matter.

    So rules about sales at gun shows are out, without a doubt. In the face of the word the Constitutional convention and the states which ratified chose, there isn't any maneuvering room on this; at guns shows, flea markets, county fairs, barber shops, K-Mart, or a downtown street corner, there can't be any rules or restrictions, at all, period.
    And rules about how many a person can buy in some arbitrary time period, or waiting before a purchase can be completed, or even background checks, aren't allowed: those matters are part of the fringe. Taxes, fees, licenses -- not legitimate (the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that anything having to do with a Constitutional right cannot be linked to payment of money).
    In fact, there isn't any law on the books in this country that says anything about guns, unless it adds protection to the Constitutional one, which has any legal standing under the supreme law of the land.

    One thing people don't get here is that the words in the Second Amendment are the strongest of any protection in the Bill of Rights. "... shall not be infringed" is more powerful and all-encompassing than the more common "shall make no law", because it includes matters not even directly related. People fight with all their might, and go to jail, for their First Amendment rights, regularly. But the protection offered by the Second Amendment goes much farther than the broad interpretations won by those efforts for freedom of speech and of the press. Laws now on the books for firearms, if applied to the press, would mean every writer and reported for any media would have to undergo a background check, often submit to training, be fingerprinted, and pay a fee every year or two, just to be allowed to exercise "freedom of the press". Applied to freedom of speech, those laws would require us to wait three days, or have a license, or stay outside city limits, in order to state our opinions on anything. Would Americans ever stand for such oppression? Hardly -- and yet in very fact we do, every day, with respect to our right to dignity and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"!
    If I can't carry the weapon of my choice in the fashion I prefer wherever I decide I ought to, I have no right to life, because anyone who wishes to can attack me and kill me, because I cannot defend myself. My dignity as a person has been denied if those things -- if any of those things! -- is true, because such rules deny that my life has value. If I wish to be safe, then, I must hide -- avoid areas where there might be risk, don't go out during hours when the lawless roam, all to keep my life... but then I have no liberty; my life is fenced about by the lawless, both those on the streets and those who have decreed that I should be a victim. Under such constraints, wherein is any happiness? If a person can be happy in such circumstances, he/she is a sorry sort of man; rather, ought to be considered a mouse, in a cage, happily pretending the bars aren't there.

    That the Founding Fathers chose to make this the strongest amendment of all, the most heavy-duty protection, speaks volunes about the matter's importance. In context of their wording, Charleton Heston was correct: this was the most important of the amendment's, guarding what is justifiably called "America's First Freedom" -- which it is, historically; it is the exercise of that freedom that made America.
    And today's indifference to the regular and methodical infringement of that right speaks a multiplicity of volumes about what has happened to the great experiment launched in 1776: we are, truly, no longer a nation of free persons, we are rather what the title of a valuable book says, A Nation of Cowards. We will stand up for our comforts, our special privileges, our government money (taken from other people!), but we will not stand up for the one thing that guards our personal dignity: the right to keep and bear arms.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  2. #2
    aww I wanted to explode looseliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    infernis
    Posts
    16,975

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    withdrawn/deleted

    Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
    Give a man religion, and he'll starve praying for a fish.

  3. #3
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Ya know, Kulindahr, in all fairness I must admit that for awhile there I saw you as one of those "single issue" libertarians. A National Rifle Association Gay, and that's it!

    I honestly want to thank you for this post, because you've put things into perspective for me...not only in how you view the issue, but in all honesty how anyone who reveres the U.S. Constitution should view Amendment II. IMHO.

    I'm not a big gun owner. In fact I really don't know much about them; caliber, semi-automatic from automatic.

    In fact, I've argued in this very Forum, that we should take things to the next logical step, and allow me to become a nuclear power in my own right on my 23.5 acre farm in Central Texas.

    Because as I understood the reasoning behind our Forefathers II Amendment, it was to be able to defend ourselves from our own Government.

    Texas has a "concealed hand-gun" law. In fact it's one of the reasons (some claim) that George W. Bush defeated Ann Richards back in 1994 to take over the Governor's Mansion in Austin, Texas.

    [2] Other people attribute her loss to the fact that she vetoed the Concealed Carry Bill that would have allowed licensed citizens to carry guns for self-defense inside public establishments without the owner's permission (see Gun politics in the United States).
    Well she lost that election for a lot more reasons than that, but ask a Texas member of the National Rifle Association that's what they'll tell ya.

    I'm not attempting by any measure to be sarcastic in my response to you here.

    As I stated, I'm not a "gun nut."

    However owning a farm, and being out in the solitude of "the country" I feel the need more than ever to "protect myself."

    Having a 20 gauge double pump shot-gun is not only good for killing Diamond Back Rattlers, it makes for a good deterrent against "Meth-heads" who've mistaken your meadow for a place to "tweak-out."

    From what you've posted, I'm feeling pretty safe from my Government provided that I don't attempt to carry that protection into town. (Since I'm not "licensed" to carry a concealed hand-gun...and how am I going to conceal a shot-gun?)

    What you're telling me is that "Constitutionally" I don't need a friggin licence.

    I have more to say on the topic, but I'll wait to see what you or others post.






    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  4. #4
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    looseliam said something about the first clause of the Second Amendment, and then it got withdrawn -- actually it was a very good point!

    Here's the whole thing:

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Contrary to the opinion of people who feel the need to twist and mangle grammar to support their agenda, that beginning isn't a restrictive clause, but an explanatory one. Here's how it could read in today's terms:

    "Because a well-organized and -trained militia is necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be bothered even peripherally."

    BTW -- spinning off a thought I had in reference to CF's post, I believe that "the security of a free state" begins at home, and thus the amendment protects not only the right to carry weapons for defense of the homeland or to take down tyrants in government, but for defense of home, self, and anyone inmportant to you.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  5. #5
    My name is Alice psychobandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Reno
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,401

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    DAMN that was well written, Kulindahr. I hope it's o.k., I copied it for future referance.
    If it's not o.k., let me know and I'll delete it k?
    I see the 2nd Amendment getting attacked all the time so I focus on it, but lately what really shocks me is how many other "Rights" this country has given up and how most people don't seem to have a problem with it because they think it makes them "safer" by giving them up! I hope that made sense, I'm not very good at getting my point across, that's why I want to plagerize
    thank you thank you thank you
    Ever Present.....Rarely Seen
    Sarcastic & Cynical.
    And sometimes..............just sometimes..............a little Pessimistic

  6. #6

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the state, as it was in 1776, the second amendment is antiquated and irrelevant.

  7. #7
    aww I wanted to explode looseliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    infernis
    Posts
    16,975

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Well, I withdrew the comment because I've been down this road before.

    But here are my thoughts:

    The second amendment mentions both the well-organized militia and the right of the people to bear arms. The latter part second amendment by itslef, for me, would absolutely guarantee the right to bear arms.

    However, because the framers chose to include "a well-organized militia" into the text, I interpret it as the right of the people in the well-organized militia to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Now, I also hold the National Guard as the state's militia. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. But I'll move on.

    I think a well-organized militia is a mute point now. Were a group of people to organize, arm themselves, and either attack the government or defend itself from a perceived threat/wrong, they'd be held as traitors, not as freedom fighters.

    I know that when the framers wrote The Constitution, big government was the furthest from their mind. It was the antithesis of what they envisioned for this nation. This is why they wanted to provide the right of the state to protect itself from an oppressive government.

    I see now states rights being taken away and, you guessed it, an oppressive government. But that's a rant for another time.

    Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
    Give a man religion, and he'll starve praying for a fish.

  8. #8
    Clowns Rule!
    snapcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lexington
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    18,188
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Kulindahr, you've made a compelling argument for your point of view.

    I congratulate you on the time you put into explaining the point.

    While everyone may not agree, I think we can all congratulate someone for making a compelling argument.

    Guns aren't the biggest issue on my plate right now. And it's always been a losing issue for the Dems. I think we could tighten up and enforce existing gun laws, and if we need to revisit the subject after doing that we could do that.

    But arguing for additional gun controls is going to cost millions of votes. And for once, I'm glad to see an election cycle in which "guns, gays, and God" aren't the central theme.
    <img src=http://www.justusboys.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic44855_3.gif/>

    Visit Snapcat's Amateurs & Funny Nudes Thread!

  9. #9
    JUB Addict pjlikesporn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    1,173

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by hty2 View Post
    While the language in the 2nd Amendment is relatively clear, there have been many cases brought before the Court which have caused the Court to place interpretations upon that amendment that in essence have allowed both the Congress and the individual states to regulate the possession and use of firearms. Consequently, the "right to bear arms" granted under the Constitution has become the "right to bear arms subject to existing Constitutionally-sound rules and regulations enacted by the various states in order to protect the safety and security of its people." [/B]
    The states have always had the authority to regulate guns. No decision by the SCOTUS has sneakily created such an authority--it has existed since before the Constitution was ratified. Rather, the Second Amendment limits only the national government. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was meant to apply only to the federal government, but many of the amendments have been extended as limitations on state governments as well. The Second Amendment, however, is not one of these.

  10. #10
    Just Tryin' to Catch Up!
    ComNavFdgPk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,822

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Why do people insist upon ignoring the "well regulated" part of that quote? Is it (possibly) because they realize that means the end to all those nut-jobs running around with machine guns and other ultra-high caiber weapons claiming they are for some sort of "sport?"
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

  11. #11

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Even though it was true in 1776, it was also true when the 2nd Amendment was conceived and ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791). As for the "antiquated and irrelevant" militia a huge majority of Americans, including many all throughout government, would wholeheartedly disagree and most likely throw as defense against your opinion: http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx
    Most definitions of "militia" define it as a group of non-military citizen soldiers. The army, the Nat. Guard and police forces have supplanted the 18th century militia.

    Do you have an opinion on the Second Amendment?

  12. #12

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    ^That's what I said.

    Any opinion on the Second Amendment?

  13. #13

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Yet, being federal law, you stated that a well-regulated militia for a free state is "antiquated and irrelevant." Again, your opinion isn't really being defended.
    I don't know how to make it any clearer. The need to call up citizen soldiers to hide behind trees and bushes no longer exists. Regular forces have supplanted that need, hence; the Second Amendment is antiquated and irrelevant.

  14. #14
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    23,035
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Wiki states about the federal law definition that
    According to Title 10, USC, Section 311, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 not serving in the armed forces or state national guard units are considered the unorganized militia, as well as all commissioned female officers of state national guard units.
    And for those who may be disinclined to trust Wiki, here’s the actual verbiage:



    TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

    Subtitle A--General Military Law

    PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

    CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...Cite:+10USC311
    Civilian participation in the militia is currently and has always been compulsory, according to the circumstances of the time. Of course, there are exceptions for age, gender, and other situations.

    The first colonists came to these shores anticipating conflict, and they prepared for it. Each colony formed its own militia, marking the first appearance of the citizen soldier. The militia was founded on the principle that fundamental liberties entailed individual responsibilities. Building a citizens’ army was thus one of the earliest imperatives in our country’s history. As a governor of the Massachusetts colony put it, every male must consider “it his truest honor to be a soldier-citizen.”

    The militia was not a voluntary force; every able-bodied man was obliged to possess arms and train periodically, and he was subject to call-up when military needs indicated. Aside from minor variations, the militias were simply organized throughout the thirteen colonies. Service was for short periods at locations close to home. At the heart of the militia was the “muster” a periodic, mandatory gathering of able-bodied free males. The militiamen not only brought their own weapons but also served without pay. Although legislative bodies issued some guidelines, the actual options were left to locally elected militia officers.

    http://www.academy.umd.edu/publicati...en_soldier.htm

    During the Revolutionary War, Mennonites and Brethren frequently purchased exemptions from military service, while Quakers suffered fines or even confiscation of property for their refusal to enroll in the militia. Over the years, the obvious moral integrity of the conscientious objectors gained them grudging respect and toleration. In his original proposal for a bill of rights, James Madison included the following clause: “no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” It is not clear why this clause was not adopted, but the evidence suggests that the framers of the Constitution favored leaving military exemptions to the jurisdiction of the states.
    I think the right to keep and bear arms as that relates directly to a well-regulated militia is very obvious.

    I also think the right to keep and bear arms in order to prevent a collection of persons who occupy positions of power within government from usurping that power as a means to circumvent liberty is equally obvious.

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


    When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...s/fedindex.htm (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 28 )

  15. #15
    aww I wanted to explode looseliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    infernis
    Posts
    16,975

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."


    Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
    Give a man religion, and he'll starve praying for a fish.

  16. #16
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the state, as it was in 1776, the second amendment is antiquated and irrelevant.
    Predictable -- you leave out the most important word, which makes sense, since you don't believe in it; you are utterly oblivious to the realities of life outside a crystal palace; you --

    why not be honest? Dude, you haven't the lsightest idea what the Second Amendment was about, or you would be looking at Washington and pondering if this is the time it was meant for. Far from no loner being needed, I can't think of a time in the history of this country when it was needed more.
    Or do you love George Bush that much????

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  17. #17
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ComNavFdgPk View Post
    Why do people insist upon ignoring the "well regulated" part of that quote? Is it (possibly) because they realize that means the end to all those nut-jobs running around with machine guns and other ultra-high caiber weapons claiming they are for some sort of "sport?"
    1. The amendment has nothing to do with "sport" of any kind.

    2. "Well-regulated" has nothing to do with regulating the use of firearms, in any sense whatsoever.

    What's possible is that you are trying to cram what you would like the words to mean into them rather than asking what they do mean. For the record, "well-regulated" means properly organized and trained, not by any "authority" except themselves and the officers they choose.
    That you can call people dedicated to knowing hot to use, having available to use, and practicing with real militarily useful weapons "nut-jobs" shows just how far you are from understanding what the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, or freedom are all about.
    I posted reading list for iman, to get him started on having sufficient background to actually engage in discussion on the topic of liberty and rights; find it, because you apparently have a need for it as well.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  18. #18
    Just Tryin' to Catch Up!
    ComNavFdgPk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,822

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    ...I posted reading list for iman, to get him started on having sufficient background to actually engage in discussion on the topic of liberty and rights; find it, because you apparently have a need for it as well.
    As a twenty-year veteran of the US Navy, I certainly don't need you to lecture me on liberty or rights. I'm just waiting for someone to offer a realistic explanation why a hunter (or anyone else, for that matter) has need of a weapon that fires .50 caliber rounds at a rate of 25 rounds/second!
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

  19. #19
    JUB Addict pjlikesporn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    1,173

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    Regulate within reason yes. Your at fault in assuming that the "many of the amendments have been extended, but not the Second."

    1. ALL of the Amendments are held by every single Ameircan citizen. This is guarenteed by the 9th, but most importantly, by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. (slavery anyone?). It prohibits States from infringing on the rights of individual citizens as guarenteed in the Bill of Rights. Reasonable regulation has always been permited, (i.e., no atom bombs or grenade launchers, etc.).
    The arguments here have become somewhat disjointed and difficult to follow. However, I assume that you now realize that my statement was, in fact, correct. The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit state governments from regulating guns. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

    Your broad statement that every American citizen may claim protection under the Bill of Rights is indeed true but it does nothing to refute my own statement. That is so because the crucial question still remains: "All of the Amendments are held by every single American citizen," but against whom. When it comes to guns, all American citizens have the right against the federal government--but not against local governments.

    Also, because I think it might be worth reading, I have posted the first clause (of five) of the Fourteenth Amendment. If there is one thing that constitutional scholars agree on when discussing this provision, it is that the exact provisions of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states ("incorporation) are far from clear.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Believe it or not, it is those seventeen words which incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states. It's definitely unclear--especially since those words are already contained Fifth Amendment. (If those words mean one thing in the Fifth Amendment, how can they refer to the entire Bill of Rights when used in the Fourteenth Amendment?) That said, SCOTUS has never recognized that the Second Amendment was to be incorporated against the states.

  20. #20
    JUB Addict pjlikesporn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    1,173

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    Here is your confusion. No amendment is "held" by the people. The amednments are restrictions of government power, not mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    1. ALL of the Amendments are held by every single Ameircan citizen.
    Your words--and boldface--not mine.

  21. #21
    JUB Addict pjlikesporn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    1,173

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    Here your wrong. The second amendment applies every bit as much to the states as the first does. It IS applied due to the equal protection clause of the 14th, as well as the 9th amendment. It doesn't have much case history, and has not been ruled on directly as a whole, but it clearly is applicable to state governments. Proof of this is in the case history. Presser v. Illinios was the most clear and is still upheld...

    "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government"
    Your quote from Presser v. Illinois is extremely misleading as it leaves out the one remaining sentence in the paragraph which also happens to negatge completely the meaning of what you have posted.
    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
    The paragraph above this one also succintly states the holding of the case:
    The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government. . . .
    Now, onto a less stirring issue, but certainly an interesting history and vocabulary topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    "Incorperated" referes to the degree that case law has been decided on a particular issue as far as I can tell.
    When the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified, they were meant to apply only to the national government. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified which contained language of "due process" similar to that of the Fifth Amendment but to be applied against the state governments. When it came time for justices to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, a question naturally arose: exactly what process is due? Some argued that the words meant only what they meant in the Fifth Amendment. Others argued that "due process" in this context meant the entire Bill of Rights was to be held against the states--i.e., "Complete/Perfect Incorporation". The view that won out, however, was known as "Selective Incorporation." The Court would decide which amendments of the first ten were to be applicable against the states. Incorporation refers to the decision of which government limitations originally applicable to only the national government should also be applicable against the states. The degree to which case law on a particular issue has been decided is a far more vague concept. Perhaps "well-settled" would be the correct term, but it is not "incorporation."

    And so, for the third time, the Second Amendment applies to the federal government only and has never been held to apply as against the states.

  22. #22
    JUB Addict pjlikesporn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    1,173

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by seapuppy View Post
    Now stop reading my post as if I know what I'm talking about.
    Well, of course, I wrote the entire diatribe above (post #44) while you were getting all self-depricating.

  23. #23
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ComNavFdgPk View Post
    As a twenty-year veteran of the US Navy, I certainly don't need you to lecture me on liberty or rights. I'm just waiting for someone to offer a realistic explanation why a hunter (or anyone else, for that matter) has need of a weapon that fires .50 caliber rounds at a rate of 25 rounds/second!
    I know plenty of people who have been in the Navy, and other armed forces, who are clueless about freedom and rights both. As an example, there are lots who don't think anyone should own a firearm except the military or police.

    Why would someone need such a weapon? Why, for the same reason a person in the military might -- to have firepower to balance that of a foe. In the terms of the Second Amendment, that foe might well be the (dubiously constitutional) standing armed forces of the central government.
    And please note that SCOTUS has stated that the Second is intended to permit all "the people" access to military weaponry!

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #24
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    23,035
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by ComNavFdgPk View Post
    Why do people insist upon ignoring the "well regulated" part of that quote? Is it (possibly) because they realize that means the end to all those nut-jobs running around with machine guns and other ultra-high caliber weapons claiming they are for some sort of "sport?"
    How regulated is too-well regulated?

    The Transportation Security Administration announced that passengers on all U.S. flights, domestic and international, would be banned from transporting any type of liquid or gel in their carry-on luggage. The ban applies to all types of beverages, shampoo, toothpaste, hair gels and other items of a similar consistency, the TSA announced.
    Is it not true that one man’s ultra-high caliber weapon is another man’s toiletries?

    On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

    The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

    Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
    Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
    Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
    Colt AR-15;
    Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
    SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
    Steyr AUG;
    INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
    revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
    The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons.

    The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

    Rifles
    Folding/telescoping stock
    Protruding pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
    Grenade launcher
    Pistols
    Magazine outside grip
    Threaded muzzle
    Barrel shroud
    Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
    Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

    Shotguns
    Folding/telescoping stock
    Protruding pistol grip
    Detachable magazine capacity
    Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
    So anyways, this 1994 law has since expired. It is once again OK to manufacture rifles with bayonet mount AND grenade launcher, et al. Nonetheless, I doubt the federal government will permit you to “carry that protection into town.” There is obviously some well-regulated “regulation” going on nowadays. I guess a fundamental question is the extent to which that regulation is legit.

  25. #25
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,687
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: "... shall not be infringed."

    If you read the text of the amendment, and stick within the grammar, none of the existing regulation of firearms is legit -- none at all. That's what "infringed" means -- the government isn't allowed to even intrude on peripheral matters (and they've gone far beyond that).

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.