- 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
1
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:25 pm to Revelator
This point actually dovetails with Bill O'Reilly's comments about mass shootings being the "price of freedom" with just a bit of paganism for flourish.
O'Reilly seems to believe the sacrifice is worth it. Pierce doesn't.
O'Reilly Blog
quote:
“This is the price of freedom," he continued. "Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are."
O'Reilly seems to believe the sacrifice is worth it. Pierce doesn't.
O'Reilly Blog
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:25 pm to Sidicous
Not funny. Not remotely funny or cute.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:26 pm to 9th life
quote:
To me it seems that a segment of the population is perfectly content with others being struck down in a hale of bullets, so long as they can continue to have their birthright of shooting semi-automatic weapons.
History has proven time and time again that without an armed population the resultant loss of life can and often does end up much higher. Even though you choose not to fight for your rights as an American citizen does not mean that we will not.
First they came for the guns, and I said nothing - for I had no guns...
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:28 pm to Revelator
How many more of these nut cases have to reveal themsleves to us before we realize that this isn't some fringe element of the Dem party, but it's base.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:30 pm to Rougarou13
People kill people with illegally acquired weapons all the time. Different ones too..knives blunt objects cars etc etc. Should we outlaw things because they are used by evil people to harm others?
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it does NOT say go out and randomly kill people.
The columnist is a sick man and needs to be watched.
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, it does NOT say go out and randomly kill people.
The columnist is a sick man and needs to be watched.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:31 pm to Rougarou13
You're never gonna defend yourself from the military with an AK or AR. If tyranny ever takes over America our guns ain't gonna do shite to stop it. The way you prevent it is through winning the battle of ideas.
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:33 pm to AUstar
quote:
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
Restricted as in the part where they wrote "shall not be infringed"?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:33 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Have you read it, or just the critique of it in the OP?
Here's the original column if you haven't read it. Let's start there.
quote:
We hear serious arguments about all the other parts of the Bill of Rights: that the First Amendment has limits on what T-shirts high-school students (“Bong Hits 4 Jesus!”) can wear; that the Fourth Amendment has limits that allow wiretaps without warrants; that the Fifth Amendment has limits that allow drug-testing without cause; that the Sixth Amendment has limits that allows the states to poison convicts to death. But only with the Second Amendment do we hear the argument that the only tolerable limit on its exercise is that there are no limits. Only with the Second Amendment do we hear that the price of freedom is the occasional Stephen Paddock, locked away in his own madness on the 32nd floor of a luxury hotel and casino, deciding coolly whose brains he will blow out next a few blocks away in the 273rd such unfortunate exercise of Second Amendment rights this year.
It's the same old, tired arguments regurgitated. They say there are no limitations on the 2A when there clearly are. If you want me to see something different, type it out.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:34 pm to AUstar
quote:
The way you prevent it is through winning the battle of ideas.
Wrong board
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:35 pm to AUstar
quote:
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
So you are saying the founders wanted to deny its citizens the right to own guns for personal protection and to hunt?! Even you don't believe this.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:35 pm to AUstar
quote:
You're never gonna defend yourself from the military with an AK or AR. If tyranny ever takes over America our guns ain't gonna do shite to stop it. The way you prevent it is through winning the battle of ideas.
That's nonsense
quote:
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
More nonsense
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:43 pm to AUstar
quote:
If tyranny ever takes over America our guns ain't gonna do shite to stop it.
False.
quote:
The way you prevent it is through winning the battle of ideas.
And when you lose that battle of ideas? What’s your plan then?
quote:
The founders clearly intended for firearm ownership to be restricted to an organized and a "well regulated" militia. Most of us aren't part of a militia.
All able-bodied men were eligible for militia in the founders’ time. Without private ownership of weapons militia would not be possible. There is no need for militia at this moment but if it came time then the 2nd amendment cements our ability to form them.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:46 pm to AUstar
quote:
If tyranny ever takes over America our guns ain't gonna do shite to stop it.
Let's not forget just how easily our military rolled right through the cities and towns of Irag and Afghanistan with all those citizens armed with dirty rusty old AK's and AR's. Only 16+ years now to not have those guns impede the greatest military in world.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:49 pm to Sidicous
Who do you think the military is? US. No way those boys turn their weapons on their fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, etc in a case of a coup or attempted dictatorship.
Not the Regular Army, the Marines not the Guard. You might have a few units, but the majority likely refuse to fire on its own citizens.
And by the way, we are STILL fighting in both those places and have settled NOTHING.
Not the Regular Army, the Marines not the Guard. You might have a few units, but the majority likely refuse to fire on its own citizens.
And by the way, we are STILL fighting in both those places and have settled NOTHING.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:52 pm to antibarner
quote:
Jesus help us all if people like this take power
If Democrats ever regain control of all three branches of government again America is over. These people have snapped and are making their true selves known for the first time. These aren't FDR/JFK Democrats, these are totalitarian radicals who want to see America and everything it has ever stood for destroyed so they can rebuild it.
People who oppose them are going to be politically, economically, and ultimately violently terrorized.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:52 pm to Revelator
By default he should be a proponent of Stop and Frisk. I mean it only slightly bends part of the constitution.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:54 pm to antibarner
quote:
Who do you think the military is? US. No way those boys turn their weapons on their fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, etc in a case of a coup or attempted dictatorship. Not the Regular Army, the Marines not the Guard. You might have a few units, but the majority likely refuse to fire on its own citizens.
The what is the point of having an armed populace?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 5:02 pm to antibarner
quote:
Who do you think the military is? US. No way those boys turn their weapons on their fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, etc in a case of a coup or attempted dictatorship
Their oath is to the constitution. Not the president. So they’re obligated to side with us.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 5:03 pm to antibarner
quote:
And by the way, we are STILL fighting in both those places and have settled NOTHING.
That was my point smh.
The post I was referring to made the claim that firearms are worthless against an army. I was pointing out the greatest army the world has ever known is still having trouble after 16 years. The finest trained, best equipped, vs ignorant inbreds with poorly maintained equipment and only hands on experience, zero training, the situation is still not under complete control.
Iraq and Afghanistan show that a "militia" can and does contain Average Joe (Average Abdul) and can continuously for decades impede/impair a government with little to no formal training using essentially rifles.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News