JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Results 1 to 50 of 50
  1. #1
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,725

    Code of Conduct

    SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ghts-case?lite

    The United States Supreme Court has declined to take up the hottest question about gun rights now dividing the nation's courts: is there a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home?The justices today passed up a challenge brought by five residents of New York's Westchester County to a state law that forbids carrying a gun unless a person desiring to do so can show "proper cause" -- some special need for protection that goes beyond a general desire for self-defense. Those who can demonstrate that need can be granted a license to carry a firearm. The federal appeals courts are split on whether the Second Amendment provides a right to carry a gun in public.
    The Districts are in conflict on the question, but it appears the NY law has the upper hand.

    SCOTUS may be waiting on the public debate to progress further.

  2. #2
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Since the phrase "bear arms" does not have a geographical restriction, this is a no-brainer: the right extends everywhere.

    Simple test: if a member of the National Guard can go somewhere armed, in the line of duty, then arms can be carried there by anyone.

    "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

  3. #3
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,725

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Correction: I wrote "Districts" when I meant "Circuits."

    Kuli, that may be but you may need to show a compelling need and have a license.

  4. #4
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    That's actually good news!

    How does the NY law deal with taking firearms to target practice or something?
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  5. #5
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    28,988

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    I see more gun dead like in Afghanistan ....


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  6. #6
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,725

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    For a discussion of the NY law see http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

    That is a copy of the lower court's decision in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F.Supp. 2d 235 (SDNY)(2011).

  7. #7
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by palbert View Post
    Correction: I wrote "Districts" when I meant "Circuits."

    Kuli, that may be but you may need to show a compelling need and have a license.
    And are you willing to apply that same test to free speech, religion, privacy, etc.?

    "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

  8. #8
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And are you willing to apply that same test to free speech, religion, privacy, etc.?
    All of those freedoms are limited in proportion to the potential harm caused by misuse. Freedom is still free that way.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  9. #9
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post

    And are you willing to apply that same test to free speech, religion, privacy, etc.?
    They already ARE limited. Far more than murderous weapons are...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  10. #10
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,725

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And are you willing to apply that same test to free speech, religion, privacy, etc.?
    Such an application is unnecessary: guns kill; your comparisons don't.

  11. #11

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And are you willing to apply that same test to free speech, religion, privacy, etc.?
    My right to life supersedes your right to a well regulated militia.

    When did a well-armed unregulated populace get twisted to mean a well regulated militia?

    Go ahead and carry all the 18th century era muskets you want. Keep your Glocks and Bushmasters locked away in a gun safe.

  12. #12
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Like gay rights, it's a matter of time before the US outgrows its phallic obsession with guns.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  13. #13

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    The lovers of this adult toy have bastardized the second amendment. A well regulated militia doesn't mean a gun nut can walk into JC Penney or a church with a loaded firearm. Those who do that are the kinds of people who guns need to be kept away from. If you're so paranoid that you need to have a loaded arsenal on you at all times then you shouldn't even go out of your house.

    Isn't a militia a supposed to mean military or military service and duty? If these guys want to play soldier then they can join the military instead of playing soldier. In the military you can't be issues a weapon of war unless you're told you can use one. They're plenty of training for it before you're allowed.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

    Today various paramilitary organizations, from U.S. white supremacists to revolutionaries in the developing world, use the term militia to accentuate their populist origins.
    The second amendment was a necessity a long time ago. Groups of hobbyists and collectors have twisted this into something the amendment was never meant for. Since the USA has a huge military there's no need for everyone to be carrying around these tools of destruction. To fully comply, carry around a musket. That's what the founding fathers were thinking of when the amendment was written.

    On the other end, why stop at Bushmasters? Where's your right to a tank? A bomb? Got any live hand grenades and land mines? Where's my right to have those? I want to keep and bear arms so I get to have a nuke if I can afford to buy one.

  14. #14
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,725

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Notice how conveniently the gun people over look "well regulated" in "well regulated militia?"

  15. #15
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct
    Bob, the gun-lovers never have a plausible explanation as to why you can't have nukes, but somehow they're firmly against it.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Bob, the gun-lovers never have a plausible explanation as to why you can't have nukes, but somehow they're firmly against it.
    Wow -- this is a solid demonstration that you aren't interested in listening except to your own ideas. I'm no "gun-lover", but I've set forth quite clearly exactly why nukes aren't covered by "keep and bear arms". If you can't see the difference, you're either not worthy of engaging in discussion or being utterly intellectually dishonest.

    "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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyBob View Post
    My right to life supersedes your right to a well regulated militia.

    When did a well-armed unregulated populace get twisted to mean a well regulated militia?

    Go ahead and carry all the 18th century era muskets you want. Keep your Glocks and Bushmasters locked away in a gun safe.
    You've descended lower than Springer.

    Get an education (all you have to do is pay attention here, actually; some of us know what the words you're proudly ignorant of mean) before posting like this.

    The tragic thing is that no one in Congress, probably no one in D.C., is interested in having a "well-regulated militia", which means trained, supplied, disciplined, and responsible. Wayne LaPierre probably ranks higher on that than any elected official we've really heard from, because he at least acknowledges people should get trained. And there's a lot that could be done to address the misuse of firearms under the "well-regulated" rubric via application of Article I Section 8, where Congress is given certain authority over the militia -- but that would require actual work and some real respect for citizens, instead of treating the people as sheep.

    "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
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyBob View Post
    The lovers of this adult toy have bastardized the second amendment. A well regulated militia doesn't mean a gun nut can walk into JC Penney or a church with a loaded firearm. Those who do that are the kinds of people who guns need to be kept away from. If you're so paranoid that you need to have a loaded arsenal on you at all times then you shouldn't even go out of your house.
    You're confusing (at least) two different things -- sort of on the order of considering q football field to be the same thing as a stadium: they may come together, but they're not the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyBob View Post
    Isn't a militia a supposed to mean military or military service and duty? If these guys want to play soldier then they can join the military instead of playing soldier. In the military you can't be issues a weapon of war unless you're told you can use one. They're plenty of training for it before you're allowed.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
    <sigh> No, the term "militia" EXCLUDES the military -- that's just part of the word, as a quick perusal of the literature of the time will show, and as is recognized in US law (e.g., the moment the National Guard are called to federal service, they cease being militia and stop having any of the rights or privileges that being militia may bring). The big difference is that military is ordered from top down, while militia is ordered from the bottom up. In fact, being militia, to the Founding Fathers, meant being suspicious of soldiers as tools of oppression.

    BTW, the kind of people the military like to get are those that already have plenty of experience with firearms. Having lots of citizens already familiar with the use and care of firearms is a major element in military preparedness. On that level, opposing citizens having firearms is a matter of opposing a free society (or free state, as the Constitution says it).

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyBob View Post
    The second amendment was a necessity a long time ago. Groups of hobbyists and collectors have twisted this into something the amendment was never meant for. Since the USA has a huge military there's no need for everyone to be carrying around these tools of destruction. To fully comply, carry around a musket. That's what the founding fathers were thinking of when the amendment was written.

    On the other end, why stop at Bushmasters? Where's your right to a tank? A bomb? Got any live hand grenades and land mines? Where's my right to have those? I want to keep and bear arms so I get to have a nuke if I can afford to buy one.
    This stupidity gets old, especially since it's been corrected.

    The existence of a large standing army was, and remains, one of the best arguments for a strong militia. If Hamilton and the others had foreseen a standing military such as we now have, they would likely have tipped their support to the version of the Second Amendment that would have REQUIRED every citizen to be armed with the latest in military personal weapons, and to train with them regularly, plus requiring every town/neighborhood to have its own artillery, etc.

    Simply reading the Constitution reveals the idiocy of your closing paragraph. "Keep and bear arms" means arms an ordinary soldier would carry -- and it means literally carry, which is why a tank (or, back then, a cannon) doesn't count.


    There's a common-sense rule most people pay attention to for discussions of things: know what the words mean. Liberals more than any throw that to the wind as a matter of course.

    "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

  19. #19
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post

    Wow -- this is a solid demonstration that you aren't interested in listening except to your own ideas. I'm no "gun-lover", but I've set forth quite clearly exactly why nukes aren't covered by "keep and bear arms". If you can't see the difference, you're either not worthy of engaging in discussion or being utterly intellectually dishonest.
    No, I actually remember your explanations quite well, and I find THEM to be intellectually dishonest. You read the 2nd amendment in a completely subjective freely interpretative way, and you make excuses for the nuke-like exception to your "no regulations!" dogma that are totally arbitrary.

    When it really IS that simple - either the 2nd applies to ONLY the weapons of the time it was written, or it applies to ALL weapons period. Your "only what a soldier can carry on his person" claim has no traceable origin in the amendment, nor is it in any way applicable to reality, NOR to your own argument, because somehow you are against rocket launchers too.

    You flip back and forth between positions and you've yet to offer anything concrete, specific and logically stable.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  20. #20
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct
    Wait, so the argument for the militia is to feed the army with personnel? The same army this militia is supposed to stand against while overthrowing the fantasy tyrannical government that army is a part of?

    How much more logically inconsistent can you get?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  21. #21
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by palbert View Post
    Notice how conveniently the gun people over look "well regulated" in "well regulated militia?"
    To an extent -- but far less than the statists who oppose them.

    To take that phrase seriously, Congress should be polishing legislation to require training in safety and use of personal weapons -- not merely firearms -- as soon as children are old enough to recognize them. That's just for starters; a truly well-regulated militia would require every community to have a militia armory, where those no longer in school would be required to train once a month and be urged to come for practice more often than that, and where all those weapons not actually being kept for immediate personal use would be stored securely. It would mean establishing requirements for education and training standards of those standing for election as officers. It would mean establishing classes for militia members in how to serve as a posse if called on by local law enforcement, and courses for the militia officers for responding to a call-up by their state's governor.

    The real meaning of "well-regulated militia", as understood by George Washington and the rest, is a serious slap in the face to nanny-state politicians and to self-appointed militia leaders as well: neither has a clue what they're talking about (or they're being deliberately deceptive).

    The NRA meanwhile only pays the phrase lip service: if they took it seriously, Wayne LaPierre would have established an NRA militia system, with local chapters trained and ready to drop their ordinary lives and be called to serve at the call of local law enforcement (via the authority of the state governor).

    "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

  22. #22
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    No, I actually remember your explanations quite well, and I find THEM to be intellectually dishonest. You read the 2nd amendment in a completely subjective freely interpretative way, and you make excuses for the nuke-like exception to your "no regulations!" dogma that are totally arbitrary.

    When it really IS that simple - either the 2nd applies to ONLY the weapons of the time it was written, or it applies to ALL weapons period. Your "only what a soldier can carry on his person" claim has no traceable origin in the amendment, nor is it in any way applicable to reality, NOR to your own argument, because somehow you are against rocket launchers too.

    You flip back and forth between positions and you've yet to offer anything concrete, specific and logically stable.
    You call it inconsistency because you refuse to listen.

    "Keep and bear arms" was a phrase with a particular meaning. You can't just make up a meaning for it as you please; you have to use the meaning those who used it then had. And it meant the arms of a common soldier.

    Right there, your whole position goes in the trash. That you insist they should have defined the phrase in the amendment shows you're being deliberately ignorant and deceptive, insisting on using language here in a way that suits your own purposes, totally contrary to any honest use of language.

    "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

  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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Wait, so the argument for the militia is to feed the army with personnel? The same army this militia is supposed to stand against while overthrowing the fantasy tyrannical government that army is a part of?

    How much more logically inconsistent can you get?
    Having a well-regulated militia is what would enable the country to have an actual army when one is needed.

    You're taking two things that are both elements of a well-regulated militia being the antithesis of a standing army and trying to make them contradictory.

    And if you were literate while George W. Bush was in office, and you think the potential for a tyrannical government is improbable, you're deeply invested in fantasy.

    "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
    I'm now a grandfather! JUB Moderator Seasoned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    6,067

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    1775-1789 arguments may or may not have a place in 2013. If those founding documents can't be applied to changing times, we're all fucked in the USA.
    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

  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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    No, I actually remember your explanations quite well, and I find THEM to be intellectually dishonest. You read the 2nd amendment in a completely subjective freely interpretative way, and you make excuses for the nuke-like exception to your "no regulations!" dogma that are totally arbitrary.

    When it really IS that simple - either the 2nd applies to ONLY the weapons of the time it was written, or it applies to ALL weapons period. Your "only what a soldier can carry on his person" claim has no traceable origin in the amendment, nor is it in any way applicable to reality, NOR to your own argument, because somehow you are against rocket launchers too.

    You flip back and forth between positions and you've yet to offer anything concrete, specific and logically stable.
    I haven't flipped on anything. In order to claim that, you have to deliberately ignore that words have actual meanings, and that those meanings are the ones the people who used those words understood.

    The Second Amendment means what the ones who wrote it and ratified it understood -- nothing more, and nothing less. Playing foolish games based on imposing your personally chosen meaning shows a total lack of desire to even engage in thought about the topic.

    Twisting things by misquoting my words is deceitful. Insisting that the amendment has to state its own definitions is just a way to distort things.

    I have referenced actual sources, including scholarly works, including the views of the Framers and Founding Fathers, that show that what I have reported is exactly what the Amendment means. That you ignore that says you aren't interested in what it means, you just want it to say what your personal opinion thinks it should.

    "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

  26. #26
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Seasoned View Post
    1775-1789 arguments may or may not have a place in 2013. If those founding documents can't be applied to changing times, we're all fucked in the USA.
    They can be applied to changing times. But the Republicans in Congress are too stupid to grasp the meaning, and the Democrats in Congress prefer to trample on the meaning.

    If we aren't getting solutions based on the documents from the capital, it's because Congress doesn't consider the Constitution to be worth as much as the filthy paper they flush after producing their most substantive product of any day.

    "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

  27. #27
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    I know words have actual meanings. I just laugh at your presumptuous notion that you alone know what that is, and everyone else is simply not honest or smart enough to see what you see.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  28. #28
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    I know words have actual meanings. I just laugh at your presumptuous notion that you alone know what that is, and everyone else is simply not honest or smart enough to see what you see.
    Then pay attention to the meanings, and stop twisting them to make it say what you want. The term "to keep and bear arms" had a specific meaning, and I've shown that from actual sources at the time.

    The meaning can be found in Blackstone, the common legal commentary of the time, just as I have described it.

    You either use that meaning, because it is the actual meaning, or just admit you're being dishonest because you really don't give a shit what the Constitution says.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; April 20th, 2013 at 09:32 PM.

    "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

  29. #29
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Your constitution was enacted by people who were aware that a constitution could not settle every legal question, but that it could provide general statements of principle against which laws and proceedings in court could be measured, in unspecified future situations. Thus, they were writing specifically as regards principle, but vaguely as regards the particulars.

    It is, if I may put it kindly, "not academically serious" to assume that a primary preoccupation of those who wrote the gun amendment was the weight and dimensions of unspecified future weaponry. I expect they would be insulted to learn that their principle was being reduced to "If a soldier could carry it, it's good to go." It's just inane. Because of technological advances and seismic changes in the methods of international warfare, border defence, government accountability, and electoral authority, personal weaponry is largely no longer even serviceable in the furtherance of those original principles, regardless of the laughably irrelevant size of the weapon.

    Anyway, the principles were specific: repelling foreign invasion, and providing a counterbalance to despotism. The document, understood by the men who wrote it, was, incidentally, deliberately and specifically designed not to accidentally establish egalitarianism: the safeguards that these "gentlemen of quality" introduced to ward off mob rule are numerous. To claim the authors wanted and trusted every citizen to repel invasion or be equipped to stage a coup is simply dishonest. Those authors were expecting an armed populace to be at their disposition in case they, as gentlemen of quality, called upon them to act.

    If there is a right to self defence against a neighbour stealing one's chicken from one's pot, it comes not from the Second, but from the Tenth Amendment: self defence is simply one of those things "reserved to the people."
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  30. #30
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Your constitution was enacted by people who were aware that a constitution could not settle every legal question, but that it could provide general statements of principle against which laws and proceedings in court could be measured, in unspecified future situations. Thus, they were writing specifically as regards principle, but vaguely as regards the particulars.

    It is, if I may put it kindly, "not academically serious" to assume that a primary preoccupation of those who wrote the gun amendment was the weight and dimensions of unspecified future weaponry. I expect they would be insulted to learn that their principle was being reduced to "If a soldier could carry it, it's good to go." It's just inane. Because of technological advances and seismic changes in the methods of international warfare, border defence, government accountability, and electoral authority, personal weaponry is largely no longer even serviceable in the furtherance of those original principles, regardless of the laughably irrelevant size of the weapon.

    Anyway, the principles were specific: repelling foreign invasion, and providing a counterbalance to despotism. The document, understood by the men who wrote it, was, incidentally, deliberately and specifically designed not to accidentally establish egalitarianism: the safeguards that these "gentlemen of quality" introduced to ward off mob rule are numerous. To claim the authors wanted and trusted every citizen to repel invasion or be equipped to stage a coup is simply dishonest. Those authors were expecting an armed populace to be at their disposition in case they, as gentlemen of quality, called upon them to act.

    If there is a right to self defence against a neighbour stealing one's chicken from one's pot, it comes not from the Second, but from the Tenth Amendment: self defence is simply one of those things "reserved to the people."
    Blackstone seems contrary to this, as do the statements of the Founders... such as "the great goal is that every man should be armed". is t

    "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

  31. #31
    mitchymo
    Guest

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    It matters very little, how often the pro-gun lobby reiterates the ignorance of the anti-gun lobby, in relation to the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as it still fails to address the WILLFUL ignorance of their own position.

    The historical relevance of anything, does not supercede modernity. It negates parts of even the most scholarly of men's thinking. Kuli can quote the founding fathers and Blackstone, but they were men of the past. It was not possible for them to see the ironical position that the US is in today. More guns in individual hands is causing MORE harm, not less. So the benefits to individual freedom as percieved in the early days of the US, which may support individual rights to bear arms, do not hold true after all. This means that upholding that interpretation is obstructive (willfully ignorant).
    The beauty of the 2nd amendment is, that any modern interpretation doesn't need to change the wording of the amendment, as it states nothing specifically about individual rights to bear arms. It is merely historical relevance that is prohibiting the right step forward.

    Lets face it, the 2nd amendment isn't serving much of a purpose these days but to prevent decent people from taking guns away from the selfish ilk that really NEED being disarmed. You only have to look at the Boston terrorism to see how all those law-abiding gun owners, far from being called on as a militia, were confined to their homes for their own safety, whilst the REAL militia (police force) did its job to perfection.

    The District of Columbia v Heller case was a travesty. It was an opportunity for substantive change for Americans benefit, but instead, the majority of the SCOTUS bench chose to live in the past. The right way forward was to acknowledge that however relevant the history, the science of today should not be ignored, and that a new interpretation was essential, one that does not support just anybody having a gun.

  32. #32
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    ^
    Ah, the good old liberal "if I don't like what the law says, I'll make up a reason to ignore it" ploy.

    Statistically, the Second Amendment leads to far more crimes prevented by use of firearms than are committed with them. But even if that were not so, it would be irrelevant: rights belong to the people, and in a free country, the right to choose one's means of self-defense is not constricted.

    "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

  33. #33
    mitchymo
    Guest

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    ^
    Ah, the good old liberal "if I don't like what the law says, I'll make up a reason to ignore it" ploy.
    Who is 'making up' a reason. Are reasons made up irrelevent? I chose to ignore the no smoking cannabis law when i did it, i've chosen to ignore the no peeing in a public place law when i've been desperate for a pee. 'SOME' laws are stupid, some are unnecessarily enforced, and some are downright problematic.

    The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is problematic.

    Statistically, the Second Amendment leads to far more crimes prevented by use of firearms than are committed with them. But even if that were not so, it would be irrelevant: rights belong to the people, and in a free country, the right to choose one's means of self-defense is not constricted.
    You cannot possibly verify such a statement. People who use firearms to prevent crime do not report crime, because it hasn't happened, so how are you to get figures of how many are prevented? The only way is through polling people, and those figures are always going to be shaky since you have to ask gun OWNERS. They are hardly gonna say 'well no, actually i've never had to use my weapon for defence or prevent a crime', especially in a climate where gun control is being debated.
    What we know as a fact however, is that more homicide, more suicide, more accidents exist where more guns do. Furthermore, the crime which guns are supposedly preventing in the US can only be crimes which are not life-threatening since countries that don't have that means of defence are not suffering adversely because of it.

    As for this: "rights belong to the people, and in a free country, the right to choose one's means of self-defense is not constricted.", well yeah they are. You know they are, because you exempt weapons 'not of the common soldier' to start with. That is a constriction. And furthermore, the rest of the developed world are living in free countries, and restricting weapons as tools of self defence there is not stifling liberty.

  34. #34
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    Who is 'making up' a reason. Are reasons made up irrelevent? I chose to ignore the no smoking cannabis law when i did it, i've chosen to ignore the no peeing in a public place law when i've been desperate for a pee. 'SOME' laws are stupid, some are unnecessarily enforced, and some are downright problematic.
    And you are perfectly free to not carry a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is problematic.
    Not at all, if one merely reads the material of the time regarding its meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    You cannot possibly verify such a statement. People who use firearms to prevent crime do not report crime, because it hasn't happened, so how are you to get figures of how many are prevented? The only way is through polling people, and those figures are always going to be shaky since you have to ask gun OWNERS. They are hardly gonna say 'well no, actually i've never had to use my weapon for defence or prevent a crime', especially in a climate where gun control is being debated.
    What we know as a fact however, is that more homicide, more suicide, more accidents exist where more guns do. Furthermore, the crime which guns are supposedly preventing in the US can only be crimes which are not life-threatening since countries that don't have that means of defence are not suffering adversely because of it.
    Even the most conservative figures give a roughly two-to-one ratio of defense against crime with a firearm v. crime committed with a firearm.

    Whether or not the crimes being defended against are life-threatening is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    As for this: "rights belong to the people, and in a free country, the right to choose one's means of self-defense is not constricted.", well yeah they are. You know they are, because you exempt weapons 'not of the common soldier' to start with. That is a constriction. And furthermore, the rest of the developed world are living in free countries, and restricting weapons as tools of self defence there is not stifling liberty.
    It's not a "constriction" to limit something to its own definition. By your reasoning here, telling people that they have to swim in the pool and not try it on the deck is a "constriction".

    If you live in a country where you are not free to use the means of your choice to defend your own life, then you live in a country where your life is considered to be worth less than that of any random criminal. That hardly counts as liberty.

    "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

  35. #35
    JUB Addict
    andysayshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    4,292

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Great piece by John Oliver on The Daily Show last Thursday about the ignorance that US gun lobbyists have to real facts about gun control.

    http://www.thedaily******com/watch/th...l-whoop-de-doo

    If anything, it's worth watching just to see John Oliver say "Whoop-de-fucking-doo!" to the ex Prime Minister of Australia.

  36. #36
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    If you live in a country where you are not free to use the means of your choice to defend your own life, then you live in a country where your life is considered to be worth less than that of any random criminal. That hardly counts as liberty.
    If you live in a country where the personal safety benefits of owning a gun outweigh the risks of the weapon to oneself and others, then you live in a country that has lost it's way, and where your life is considered to be worth less than the words written on a piece of paper by dead people. That hardly counts as liberty.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  37. #37
    JUB Addict
    andysayshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    4,292

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    ^ This is the ultimate question. Kulindahr argues that gun ownership is freedom, and that it makes citizens safer. But if that is true, why is the most armed nation on Earth also the most UNsafe?

    I live in Australia where guns are tightly regulated. I never, ever fear gun violence in my everyday life. I don't fear the police, as they are not so wary of citizens that they must pull their guns at the slightest provocation. I have never seen a gun outside of rural communities in Australia. I don't know anybody who has been shot or threatened with a gun. I don't know anyone who has a had a gun aimed at them by a policeman. I know quite a few policemen, and not one of them has fired a gun in their entire career (outside of training). I've never heard of a child accidentally killing themselves or someone else with a gun.

    I believe I am freer than Kulindahr, because I am free of the fear of gun violence. I am free of the fear of over-zealous police with guns. Even if a criminal breaks into my home, the chances they will have a gun are very, very low. I do not feel powerless, or downtrodden, or "cattle". I feel safer. I feel my family and friends are safer.

  38. #38

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Good Lord.

    This thread has turned into another one of Kulindar's "I'm right and you're ignorant (+ uneducated, confused, stupid, idiotic, foolish, intellectually dishonest, deceitful, really don't give a shit, illiterate, etc.) about guns and gun rights.

    Your 11 dissertations in this thread haven't proved anything or convinced anyone posting here you're right. All it's proved is that you like guns and will defend them like the other gun nuts that you claim you're not one of.

    Yeah, we get it. You like guns. You want guns. You'll defend guns. Some of us don't. Some of us can find other toys to play with.

    So I hope you don't mind being called all the things you've typed out too.
    Last edited by CowboyBob; April 21st, 2013 at 09:42 PM.

  39. #39
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by andysayshi View Post
    ^ This is the ultimate question. Kulindahr argues that gun ownership is freedom, and that it makes citizens safer. But if that is true, why is the most armed nation on Earth also the most UNsafe?

    I live in Australia where guns are tightly regulated. I never, ever fear gun violence in my everyday life. I don't fear the police, as they are not so wary of citizens that they must pull their guns at the slightest provocation. I have never seen a gun outside of rural communities in Australia. I don't know anybody who has been shot or threatened with a gun. I don't know anyone who has a had a gun aimed at them by a policeman. I know quite a few policemen, and not one of them has fired a gun in their entire career (outside of training). I've never heard of a child accidentally killing themselves or someone else with a gun.

    I believe I am freer than Kulindahr, because I am free of the fear of gun violence. I am free of the fear of over-zealous police with guns. Even if a criminal breaks into my home, the chances they will have a gun are very, very low. I do not feel powerless, or downtrodden, or "cattle". I feel safer. I feel my family and friends are safer.
    I live in Canada, which has the same feel to it as Australia, except with less outback and more tundra. Our gun regulations are lax compared to Australia's but the attitude and culture is the same. Any exceptions really are reading from the US republican song sheet.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  40. #40
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ths-fact-check

    Just an example:

    Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
    Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
    • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
    • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

    Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
    Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
    • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
    • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  41. #41

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    This thread is making my head hurt
    I used to be like that, but not anymore. At least not on the first date. Third date, whole other story..."

  42. #42
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Doesn't everything? Why did you feel the need to share this with us?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  43. #43
    mitchymo
    Guest

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    And you are perfectly free to not carry a gun.
    That doesn't remove the problem unless the majority of people take the same action. If i took the 'can't beat em, join em' approach, it would make the problem worse.



    Not at all, if one merely reads the material of the time regarding its meaning.
    THAT is the heart of the issue, that the meaning at the time is NOT relevant NOW.


    Even the most conservative figures give a roughly two-to-one ratio of defense against crime with a firearm v. crime committed with a firearm.
    That GREATLY conflicts with the link Rolyo provided.

    Whether or not the crimes being defended against are life-threatening is irrelevant.
    False. Its been a common argument of the pro-gun lobby that a weapon of one's own choosing is necessary, in order to ensure that its sufficient to deal with a threat. This can only be valid if the threat is itself a firearm, since otherwise, it is excessive use of force. You can't run from a bullet...anything else isn't a great enough threat that most people could simply flee from. You can't argue on any rational level, that protecting your personal property from theft constitutes defence of the self.
    The simple fact is, that guns are abused, even by the law-abiding. Even by the police.




    It's not a "constriction" to limit something to its own definition. By your reasoning here, telling people that they have to swim in the pool and not try it on the deck is a "constriction".
    Well, it is a natural constriction. You can't swim out of water. The key difference here is, that you are free to try. People are not free to defend themselves with whatever they like. And any interpretation made so as to 'make right' why guns should be kept, without struggling to get out of the 'neighbour wants an atom bomb' loophole, is just the work of a great lawyer, an excuse. So this 'own definition' won't wash.
    If you live in a country where you are not free to use the means of your choice to defend your own life, then you live in a country where your life is considered to be worth less than that of any random criminal. That hardly counts as liberty.
    I'm proud to live in a country where the lives of people are considered equal under the law. I'm perfectly free to defend myself with whatever i can get my hands on, safe in the knowledge that most criminals are able to threaten with what they can get their hands on, which is why you rarely find a criminal with a gun in this country. This improves my security if i'm involved in a threatening incident.

  44. #44
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    I'm proud to live in a country where the lives of people are considered equal under the law. I'm perfectly free to defend myself with whatever i can get my hands on, safe in the knowledge that most criminals are able to threaten with what they can get their hands on, which is why you rarely find a criminal with a gun in this country. This improves my security if i'm involved in a threatening incident.
    No no no you're wrong. All criminals are now making guns in their garages, you're just confused and haven't noticed. After all, that's absolutely what always happens when gun control is implemented!
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  45. #45
    mitchymo
    Guest

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    ^ oh of course, silly me. I forgot that the average criminal is very clever and skilled with their hands. Taking the time to research how to make the guns and bullets via the internet that they can't afford, or the libraries that don't have such books. Then to acquire all the tools that they can't steal before they've made their weapon, with money that they don't have from being unemployed. They must have the patience of saints to spend such energy in pursuing such a solution to gun restrictions, especially since most crime is petty and driven in the moment, but no, no, and heroin addicts are just martyrs to hold off on scraping some money together until they have a gun, which everybody knows is an essential tool for picking something up and walking out the store with....

    Thanks for reminding me of my oversight Rolyo. Now if you excuse me, i'm gonna have to have a rethink, maybe i'll apply to join the NRA, where they can teach me the facts, like how educating people on gun safety stops bad people from committing murder...

  46. #46
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    THAT is the heart of the issue, that the meaning at the time is NOT relevant NOW.
    Of course it's relevant now, unless you hold that the law is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    False. Its been a common argument of the pro-gun lobby that a weapon of one's own choosing is necessary, in order to ensure that its sufficient to deal with a threat. This can only be valid if the threat is itself a firearm, since otherwise, it is excessive use of force. You can't run from a bullet...anything else isn't a great enough threat that most people could simply flee from. You can't argue on any rational level, that protecting your personal property from theft constitutes defence of the self.
    The simple fact is, that guns are abused, even by the law-abiding. Even by the police.
    Sorry, but untrue. A firearm is a necessary tool for most people against a knife, a tire iron, a baseball bat... in fact anything which could inflict serious bodily harm. That's why police are taught to draw their guns if the person they've cornered is armed with anything at all that could cause injury.

    Your point about personal property is an interesting one. I'd say it comes from a point of view of affluence, where possessions are easily replaced, and where no possession is very meaningful.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    Well, it is a natural constriction. You can't swim out of water. The key difference here is, that you are free to try. People are not free to defend themselves with whatever they like. And any interpretation made so as to 'make right' why guns should be kept, without struggling to get out of the 'neighbour wants an atom bomb' loophole, is just the work of a great lawyer, an excuse. So this 'own definition' won't wash.
    It means what it means, and nothing else. You can't force it to mean atom bombs any more than you could pour a giant concrete pie and insist it's pastry.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    I'm proud to live in a country where the lives of people are considered equal under the law. I'm perfectly free to defend myself with whatever i can get my hands on, safe in the knowledge that most criminals are able to threaten with what they can get their hands on, which is why you rarely find a criminal with a gun in this country. This improves my security if i'm involved in a threatening incident.
    That's a situation where the weak are guaranteed prey for the strong.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; April 28th, 2013 at 11:34 PM.

    "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

  47. #47
    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
    103,198
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchymo View Post
    ^ oh of course, silly me. I forgot that the average criminal is very clever and skilled with their hands. Taking the time to research how to make the guns and bullets via the internet that they can't afford, or the libraries that don't have such books. Then to acquire all the tools that they can't steal before they've made their weapon, with money that they don't have from being unemployed. They must have the patience of saints to spend such energy in pursuing such a solution to gun restrictions, especially since most crime is petty and driven in the moment, but no, no, and heroin addicts are just martyrs to hold off on scraping some money together until they have a gun, which everybody knows is an essential tool for picking something up and walking out the store with....

    Thanks for reminding me of my oversight Rolyo. Now if you excuse me, i'm gonna have to have a rethink, maybe i'll apply to join the NRA, where they can teach me the facts, like how educating people on gun safety stops bad people from committing murder...
    Right -- and no one made good whiskey during Prohibition, of course.

    "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

  48. #48
    mitchymo
    Guest

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Of course it's relevant now, unless you hold that the law is meaningless.
    You know very well enough, that laws that are outdated, need changing. That is NOT holding law meaningless.



    Sorry, but untrue. A firearm is a necessary tool for most people against a knife, a tire iron, a baseball bat... in fact anything which could inflict serious bodily harm. That's why police are taught to draw their guns if the person they've cornered is armed with anything at all that could cause injury.
    The police are 'responsible citizens'. You can trust police to draw their weapon and not use it without necessity, or malice. Having said that, the gun paranoia has them shooting people who merely 'point' in a threatening manner, before ascertaining whether a threat is genuine. As for those weapons you mentioned. Citizens equalise with the same weapons. Guns being necessary is the rhetoric of middle aged white guys who least need them.

    It means what it means, and nothing else. You can't force it to mean atom bombs any more than you could pour a giant concrete pie and insist it's pastry.
    It does not state what it means anywhere in the constitution. That means it had to be interpreted. Whether the interpretation is correct or not, is second to the fact that it HAS been deemed to mean what it means, by SCOTUS. As this is an interpretation relevent to previous discussion, it may OR may not remain the benchmark for future debate. But, the interpretation is most relevent as we understand it in the MODERN day, moreso than in its historic context. It simply doesn't matter that much.


    That's a situation where the weak are guaranteed prey for the strong.
    It is a situation that increases survival rate in the face of an attack, fact. Secondly, there can be no guarantees, gun or no gun. If that wasn't true, cops wouldn't get shot, the good samaritans wouldn't get shot....but sometimes they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Right -- and no one made good whiskey during Prohibition, of course.
    I can pretty much guarantee that the people who would be in the sheds making their own firearms in the face of a ban, would be most likely associated with organised crime. The same group of people were most likely to be involved with brewing illicit alcohol. But apart from that, its a lot less effort to make alcohol, plus, the moral impetus for doing it is 'i just wanna have a good time'. Hardly gonna hurt anybody, unlike fashioning a firearm for the obvious purpose of threatening life.

  49. #49
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Sorry, but untrue. A firearm is a necessary tool for most people against a knife, a tire iron, a baseball bat...
    And a hand bailer would have been a nice touch for most people on the Titanic.

    You irredeemably go after the wrong problem.

    Why are you prepared to live in a neighbourhood/region/country where there is a chance you will meet someone who threatens you with a knife, a tire iron, or a baseball bat - a chance significant enough that it is worth arming yourself?
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  50. #50
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,907

    Code of Conduct

    Re: SCOTUS declines case re right to carry gun outside home

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    And a hand bailer would have been a nice touch for most people on the Titanic.

    You irredeemably go after the wrong problem.

    Why are you prepared to live in a neighbourhood/region/country where there is a chance you will meet someone who threatens you with a knife, a tire iron, or a baseball bat - a chance significant enough that it is worth arming yourself?
    I keep wondering about that myself. I live in Chicago, and we're supposed to have a lot of crime here, yet in one year, I have not witnessed or experienced ANY sort of crime, apart somebody throwing a stone into the window of my comic book store once...

    Pick a better neighborhood, damn it!
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

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.