- 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: Rep. Jody Hice of GA introduces bill to allow legislators to carry guns anywhere in US
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:18 pm to goatmilker
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:18 pm to goatmilker
quote:
States rights anyone?
2nd Amendment came before the 10th, but that is neither here nor there since they have both been adjudicated beyond recognition.
1
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:20 pm to Five0
quote:
Should be for everyone not convicted of a felony
quote:
FIFY.
Nope!
Even those who have been convicted of a previous felony(once they paid for their crime) should have the right to bear arms.
Our glorious constitution has guaranteed their right
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:31 pm to conservativewifeymom
They can't pass laws for themselves and if this happens people should stop paying tackles.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:41 pm to Five0
quote:
States rights anyone?
2nd Amendment came before the 10th, but that is neither here nor there since they have both been adjudicated beyond recognition.
I disagree. Just because NJ passes a law that says they can drive a yugo into Florida with a 20mm attached to the hood doesn't make it so.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 9:55 pm to conservativewifeymom
While I agree that a law abiding citizen should be able to carry anywhere, I lost respect for any politician trying to score brownie points with gun legislation after guns weren't allowed inside the freaking NRA convention.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 10:00 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
it necessarily has to include private ownership of nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
I think arms are generally defined as something you can hold and fire on your person. Not large scale explosives
Posted on 6/21/17 at 10:45 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Does that included RPGs and shoulder fired SAMs? After all, those are arms also. 2A doesn't specify guns.
Yes. Next question.
quote:
hen it necessarily has to include private ownership of nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
Let's unpack your point.
Most individuals would not have the ability to afford, have the expertise to build. or acquire the necessary materials to produce, much less own and secure a nuclear weapon.
Even If they had the means, it should not be necessary to have them to get our federal government back in line regardless of how tyrannical it may have become.
I also think that even a tyrannical government would not stoop to using nuclear weapons against their own citizenry.
It is of note that this situation has not occurred. even though many nations already have them.
These types of weapons are also mass destruction devices and they don't discriminate between fellow wronged citizens and their oppressors.
Given the above points I personally would eliminate them from consideration as a personally owned weapon.
I also fully understand that those opposed to fully allowing/supporting our guaranteed rights under our constitution love to make the argument you have made here.
But lets be honest. Even as bad as a regime could get, as long as it citizenry can maintain even comparable conventional weapons the government can be kept in check without having to employ such weapons of mass destruction, simply because of the same principles that Madison laid out over 2 hundred years ago. Namely that no government has ever been able to raise an army larger than 1/25th it's population.
This further should drive the point that conventional weapons are all that is needed unless we get reduced to air rifles vs machine guns.
I
This post was edited on 6/21/17 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 6/21/17 at 10:48 pm to conservativewifeymom
Please exempt Franken from this.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 11:11 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I'm picturing Pelosi or Maxine Waters carrying a concealed weapon.
Waters may try to off The President personally.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 12:33 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:They're probably afraid of some CA Prog coming in with his "30 caliber clip ghost gun," finger on the tigger, and accidentally discharging into the arse or foot of the senator in front of him.
But why not in the Capitol? Have things gotten so bad that they're afraid of shooting matches?
I wonder how many freshman congressmen they could convince to do a desk pop?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 1:07 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
Are they afraid of them shooting each other?
Surely more guns will solve the problem of anyone can carry a gun.
Funny how no one on this forum likes to mention that the guy who shot the congressman made a legal gun purchase.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 2:45 am
Posted on 6/22/17 at 1:31 am to asurob1
quote:
Funny how no one on this forum likes to mention that the guy who shot the congressman made a legal gun purpose
Is that like a porpoise?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 1:35 am to Pettifogger
quote:All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
extend gun rights to our leaders but not us
Posted on 6/22/17 at 1:53 am to asurob1
quote:
Funny how no one on this forum likes to mention that the guy who shot the congressman made a legal gun purpose.
Not half as funny as morons like you that think gun-free zones work.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:00 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
After all, those are arms also. 2A doesn't specify guns.
That was partially covered U.S. v Miller under the "ordinary military equipment" phrase. I've been in the military almost 20 years and I can't seem to remember where an RPG or a Stinger was issued as "ordinary". Have been issued an M16, M4, M9, and an M249 SAW a few times though.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:04 am to mmcgrath
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Seems to me that Militias are outdated and rather ineffective at securing a state. Never mind that nothing today shouts out "well regulated".
Well they are still defined under 10 USC 311. Nevermind that v. Heller pretty much nailed the coffin on that whole "collective rights" theory of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Maybe you should look up what "well regulated" meant in the context of when the 2nd Amendment was drafted too.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 5:22 am to wickowick
quote:
Should be for every non-felon citizen.
fify
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:00 am to goatmilker
"shall not be infringed".
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:11 am to BamaFan89
quote:
Seems ripe for a case of natural selection.
Problem is, they will be deciding who lives and who dies.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:15 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Seems to me that Militias are outdated
Why?
quote:
rather ineffective at securing a state.
Why?
quote:
Never mind that nothing today shouts out "well regulated".
Then it should be. Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the government? Or at least the people who choose to bear arms?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News