Started By
Message

re: Rep. Jody Hice of GA introduces bill to allow legislators to carry guns anywhere in US

Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:17 am to
Posted by BamaFan365
Member since Sep 2011
2347 posts
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:17 am to
quote:

Seems to me that Militias are outdated


You probably believe the Constitution is outdated
Posted by DawgsLife
Member since Jun 2013
58919 posts
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:18 am to
quote:

They can't pass laws for themselves and if this happens people should stop paying tackles.


You realize that the ObamaCare bill that the Dems wanted to pass excluded the Congress from having to participate in the program, right? Only after a GOP Rep. added to the bill was Congress then required to participate in ObamaCare. So it isn't beyond them to try to tailor things to their benefit.
Posted by BamaScoop
Panama City Beach, Florida
Member since May 2007
53846 posts
Posted on 6/24/17 at 8:57 pm to
Which makes it illegal. All we have to do is file a lawsuit but we as citizens are too stupid to do it!
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:07 pm to
Everyone should be allowed to carry guns anywhere in the US
Posted by LSUTANGERINE
Baton Rouge LA
Member since Sep 2006
36113 posts
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:29 pm to
They are no special class. If it applies to them it should apply to everyone who has a permit. More citizens are shot and killed per capita than legislators.
Posted by Loserman
Member since Sep 2007
21920 posts
Posted on 6/24/17 at 9:43 pm to
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Seems to me that Militias are outdated and rather ineffective at securing a state.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".



Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment

Madison also wrote federalist paper 46 in which he tried to persuade the states that they would never have to fear an overreaching federal government because he was going to ensure our right to bear arms.


Here is the text where he discusses it in Federalist paper 46

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. 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 their 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 last 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 in 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Posted by BamaGradinTn
Murfreesboro
Member since Dec 2008
26966 posts
Posted on 6/25/17 at 8:16 am to
quote:

IOW if you don't like your guaranteed rights you are free to vote in representatives who will pass a bill to amend the constitution and if you can get a 2/3rds majority of both houses plus the President to sign it and have 2/3rds of the States to ratify then you can deny our rights.

Otherwise shut the frick up.



Now you're just being a fricking dumbass. I'm actually pro-gun rights, you moron. Anyone with more brain cells than the head of cabbage in my refrigerator can grasp the fact that the government has the constitutional right to prevent shitheads like you from buying and possessing a suitcase dirty bomb.
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
24798 posts
Posted on 6/25/17 at 8:22 am to
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted by Loserman
Member since Sep 2007
21920 posts
Posted on 6/25/17 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Now you're just being a fricking dumbass. I'm actually pro-gun rights, you moron. Anyone with more brain cells than the head of cabbage in my refrigerator can grasp the fact that the government has the constitutional right to prevent shitheads like you from buying and possessing a suitcase dirty bomb.


And anyone with in sense of history should understand our guaranteed rights and why we have them.

History is replete with governments that have gone tyrannical.

Madison completely spell it out a long time ago, and it is just as valid today.
Those who argue the militia angle of the second amendment to reduce our rights can only do so because most people don't understand history.
They also ignore what Madison meant by it which is the states themselves have the right to establish their own armies(militias).
Of course I would not argue that every person should not have nukes, but I see it within the realm of our constitutional rights for the states to have them.

Again, If the people don't want that to be so then the constitution would have to be amended to remove that right.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram