- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:16 pm to antibarner
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:16 pm to antibarner
If the U.S. Government turned on its citizens like the Syrian government is doing, how many people do you think would die?
What if the citizens had access to the same hardware as the military?
What if the citizens had access to the same hardware as the military?
0
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:22 pm to antibarner
quote:
They would have been outnumbered by an armed and hostile populace.
"There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Often attributed to Yamamoto, but it is unsubstantiated. However, it is very poetic and descriptive.
It is one of the sentiments against invading Switzerland in the 1940s - as they were and remain a nation of riflemen.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:25 pm to Ace Midnight
But you guys have told me that the Second is about our own government. Why are we even discussing foreign actors?
It's irrelevant to the argument. The Founders said nothing about the government getting one class of weapons and the citizens getting another.
It's irrelevant to the argument. The Founders said nothing about the government getting one class of weapons and the citizens getting another.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:33 pm to Truckasaurus
quote:
I've noticed the conservatives recently railing against the term "common sense." I don't quite get it.
That's simple. Common sense was just a sugarcoat for plain gun control, and the common sense legislation would have done nothing to prevent the latest tragedy. Particularly dishonest was the claim that 90% of all US citizens support background investigations, so why not pass this bill? Hell, the NRA was in on the ground floor defining what background investigations should look like. Most gun owners support background checks.
Common sense gun legislation includes crap like "fingerprinting" gun barrels and microstamping casings. The fact you didn't pick up on this makes me wonder.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:39 pm to son of arlo
Because you label radical ideas with term common sense, then you've framed the argument in a dishonest and unethical manner
Common sense penal reform - North Korean prison camp
Common sense demographic monitoring - killing 6 million Jews
People hate the common sense part because it's dishonest.
Common sense universal background checks - gun registration
Common sense penal reform - North Korean prison camp
Common sense demographic monitoring - killing 6 million Jews
People hate the common sense part because it's dishonest.
Common sense universal background checks - gun registration
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:48 pm to DelU249
You said it better than I did.
Another example was when Pelosi's Congress was trying to pass a cap & trade bill under the misnomer of a "jobs bill." It was Orwellian. I suppose you could have called it a jobs bill because it was going to destroy countless jobs.
Another example was when Pelosi's Congress was trying to pass a cap & trade bill under the misnomer of a "jobs bill." It was Orwellian. I suppose you could have called it a jobs bill because it was going to destroy countless jobs.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:55 pm to son of arlo
People eat it up to,
Why would you oppose common sense? Derp!
Why would you oppose common sense? Derp!
Posted on 5/20/14 at 4:07 pm to DelU249
Two minutes and 3 seconds of total bullshite except for his one comment, "Today is a shameful day in Washington."
It was really shameful. I couldn't believe a US President would pull such a hissy fit. Democrat Senators treated the bill like it had herpes.
It was really shameful. I couldn't believe a US President would pull such a hissy fit. Democrat Senators treated the bill like it had herpes.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 4:13 pm to son of arlo
Compromise
Common sense
Moderation
god I hate that fricking clown
The word is out, gun control will cost you your office in about 45 states. They bitch and moan then they vote against. They would love to ban guns, but they love the lifestyle and power more. They have no foundation of principles. It's all for sale.
yes conservatives do this too but they irritate me. I fricking hate liberals
Common sense
Moderation
god I hate that fricking clown The word is out, gun control will cost you your office in about 45 states. They bitch and moan then they vote against. They would love to ban guns, but they love the lifestyle and power more. They have no foundation of principles. It's all for sale.
yes conservatives do this too but they irritate me. I fricking hate liberals
Posted on 5/20/14 at 4:17 pm to DelU249
quote:Yes . . . but . . . aside from his point being neither "common" nor "sense", aside from those small details, what is it you're railing against?quote:Because you label radical ideas with term common sense, then you've framed the argument in a dishonest and unethical manner
I've noticed the conservatives recently railing against the term "common sense." I don't quite get it.
Common sense penal reform - North Korean prison camp
Common sense demographic monitoring - killing 6 million Jews
People hate the common sense part because it's dishonest.
Common sense universal background checks - gun registration
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:08 pm to a want
Why do you want my guns so bad?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:15 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
But you guys have told me that the Second is about our own government. Why are we even discussing foreign actors?
Because that is part of it - militia is actually mentioned in the Amendment. At the time, there were the terrible Frenchmen and savage Indians on the frontiers of the fledgling country. We had just repelled the Brits (in throwing off our own government) and were concerned they weren't gone for good (they weren't, War of 1812, and such).
Boosie - you're better than this.
If I tell you the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, then later point out it protects religious expression, are you going to say:
"Hold up, Ace - you just said the First Amendment protected speech - now you're talking about religion. Make up your mind."
So, I'm telling you the 2nd Amendment has at least 3 objectives:
1. Check on power of the state
2. Deter foreign invasion (nation of riflemen)
3. Individual (and community) self-defense
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:30 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
But you guys have told me that the Second is about our own government. Why are we even discussing foreign actors?
Read Federalist #46. James Madison:
quote:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:33 pm to Antonio Moss
One of my favorite Right to Bear Arms quotes. From Patrick Henry:
[
[
quote:
Where and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:38 pm to Ace Midnight
The entire point of my simple-minded Socratic questioning was to draw out the explanation the pure originalists have for the regulations we have today. I'm good with the 2nd being about all those things you listed. I've yet to see a Founding Father make a distinction between classes of weapons the citizens are allowed to have and the classes of weapons the government is allowed to have. Why aren't the originalists arguing for a repeal of all regulations?
If it is so cut-and-dry as some here say, why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the unconstitutional constraints placed on the People's right to bear arms of whatever sophistication and lethality that technology and the free market will provide?
If it is so cut-and-dry as some here say, why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the unconstitutional constraints placed on the People's right to bear arms of whatever sophistication and lethality that technology and the free market will provide?
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:41 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Dayum. The Father of the Constitution ends a sentence with a preposition.
Lovers of big government are OK with gun control.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:54 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I've yet to see a Founding Father make a distinction between classes of weapons the citizens are allowed to have and the classes of weapons the government is allowed to have.
They said arms - they meant arms. Arms doesn't necessarily mean "guns" (artillery), but it means "arms". It means that whatever a rifle company would have, the people should have. I sincerely believe it is no more complicated than that.
That takes out all the nuclear missiles, field artillery pieces that can shoot over the horizon and jet fighter-bombers.
Arms. Just arms. Only arms. That means pistols, rifles, (probably) shotguns, submachine guns, light machine guns.
The trickier decisions would be things like recoilless rifles, RPGs, ATGMs, heavy machine guns because they straddle the line between arms and "guns" as those terms would have been used in the late 18th century. I would lean towards no - but I admit that's arbitrary.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:57 pm to Ace Midnight
On mobile but those weapons in your last paragraph are what I'm getting at.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 6:08 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:I'm not sure its an ideological purity issue.
Why aren't the originalists arguing for a repeal of all regulations?
If it is so cut-and-dry as some here say, why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the unconstitutional constraints placed on the People's right to bear arms of whatever sophistication and lethality that technology and the free market will provide?
Let's face it.. If you come out saying people should be allowed to own artillery, you'll quickly get labeled as a kook. Many will never make that leap.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 6:16 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
On mobile but those weapons in your last paragraph are what I'm getting at.
But, Boosie - that's not where the debate is - the left wants to take semi-autos - ultimately they want them all, but they're scared of anything that can fire more than 1 shot without reloading, and even single shots make them clench up their buttcheeks.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 6:16 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News