- 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
2
Posted on 6/18/17 at 9:16 pm to LSUconvert
So then the people and entities continually attack the First Amendment for money too? Or is it the power of control that they are after, since people unable to defend themselves are subjects, rather than citizens?
Is it only the defenders of our Constitutional rights who have ulterior motives?
Is it only the defenders of our Constitutional rights who have ulterior motives?
Posted on 6/18/17 at 11:07 pm to Centinel
quote:
1. It's she, not he.
BamaSJW identifies as female? shite, that explains a lot!
Posted on 6/18/17 at 11:22 pm to texag7
quote:
Texag
Despite our differences regarding sports, I do agree with you on politics.
So
Posted on 6/19/17 at 4:41 am to Screaming Viking
quote:
one of the ways to define freedom is allow individuals to protect themselves and their families (others). When you start to limit the way in which an individual can protect him/herself, you are taking away their freedom.
Truer words were never written
Posted on 6/19/17 at 6:19 am to germandawg
quote:
The NRA has to say that because they are in the bidness of selling guns.....
No they're not you ignorant frick.
They are in the "bidness" of fighting lunatic socialist liberals like Michael Bloomberg in court proceeding to prevent dumb arse fascist from stripping law abiding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 6:29 am to texag7
I hate that I only have 1 upvote
Posted on 6/19/17 at 7:03 am to troyt37
quote:
Your point is? Yes they have been a part of some legislation that I wouldn't support, just as every politician, and advocacy group I've ever been aware of has.
They have also used their power and support to protect and defend our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Thousands of times in fact, with most of the attacks in my lifetime coming from democrat douchebags who advocate an ever larger and more powerful federal government
It was not just support. They proposed and created the gun control laws and regulation and their message for half (or more) of their history is that firearms are for sportsmen.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 7:35 am to bmy
quote:
It was not just support. They proposed and created the gun control laws and regulation and their message for half (or more) of their history is that firearms are for sportsmen.
You still aren't making any point. Are you trying to say that the legislature at the time, typically at the height of some gun related catastrophe, would have created less restrictive gun laws had the NRA not been a part of the process? Are you discounting, or ignoring altogether the thousands of times the NRA has stood to preserve our 2A rights?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 7:46 am to Centinel
quote:
Centinel
Got that link for me of the NRA decrying the execution of a lawfully licensed gun owner?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:20 am to troyt37
quote:
Are you trying to say that the legislature at the time, typically at the height of some gun related catastrophe, would have created less restrictive gun laws had the NRA not been a part of the process? Are you discounting, or ignoring altogether the thousands of times the NRA has stood to preserve our 2A rights
I'm just pointing out that they are making a ton of money lobbying against legislation they created.
1) Propose and help pass regulation controlling guns
2) Wait a few years
3) Lobby against gun regulation you created and for our "rights"... Fan the flames and make a ton of money when the new membership dues flow in
4) Profit
This post was edited on 6/19/17 at 8:21 am
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:51 am to bmy
quote:
I'm just pointing out that they are making a ton of money lobbying against legislation they created.
1) Propose and help pass regulation controlling guns
2) Wait a few years
3) Lobby against gun regulation you created and for our "rights"... Fan the flames and make a ton of money when the new membership dues flow in
4) Profit
Well, that's ignorant and simplistic. They don't lobby against regulations they help create, they lobby against legislation that would overstep Constitutional bounds. No doubt there are several pieces of legislation you and I disagree with, but there are also thousands of laws and proposals that died because of their opposition. The NRA doesn't get everything they want, every time something is proposed, either. You aren't being realistic.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 9:36 am to chickenpotpie
quote:
More citizens with guns means less violence. It's been proven repeatedly, but some people still won't listen.
Has it? I'm all ears. I don't understand why everyone is so offended to even have an intellectually honest discussion. They just retreat to their respective corners, stick their fingers on their ears, and commence the name-calling.
For one, why is it so hard to concede that the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of 18th century colonial America just shedding the afterbirth of a painful revolution and may, on fact, need to be re-interpreted and re-applied in the face of new and unforeseen times? Almost all of us Christians do this with some of the archaic laws of the Old Testament--we're not out there stoning adulterers. We understand that the OT was written in the context of 3,000 year old Jewish laws and customs and may not need to be so strictly adhered to in 21st Century America?
Like with most issues worth discussing, there is nuance, shades of gray. But no one will stop screaming long enough to listen.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 9:52 am to Hot Carl
quote:
For one, why is it so hard to concede that the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of 18th century colonial America just shedding the afterbirth of a painful revolution and may, on fact, need to be re-interpreted and re-applied in the face of new and unforeseen times?
I agree 100% bro! Good thing the founders included the Amendment process to do just such a thing!
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:03 am to germandawg
quote:
Take a look at how most people drive and how they raise their kids. Is giving those idiots easier access to guns really going to make anyone safer?
So it's okay to subsidize these people's children with government money and have them vote for your party when they probably aren't even registered but because they may have a gun then no responsible law abiding citizen should have a gun?
This post was edited on 6/19/17 at 10:04 am
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:04 am to Hot Carl
quote:There are more guns in the hands of more people in the US than any other time in our history and yet violent crime (especially gun-related crime) has been trending down for years. If the liberal talking point of more guns = more violence were true, statistics would prove that. Even the violence we have is mostly attributed to gang violence within a handful of cities.
Has it? I'm all ears.
quote:Because the 2A was written as a principle that doesn't change over time. The context of the 2A was a fight against the crown who didn't want the people to fight back; a tyrannical government as the founders saw it. They viewed government as something that was not trustworthy, which is why they created what we have with so many checks and balances so that no one body had too much power that could be used to remove freedom of the people. The 2A was one of these checks, being that when all others have failed, the people could "check" their own government by defending themselves against it using arms.
For one, why is it so hard to concede that the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of 18th century colonial America just shedding the afterbirth of a painful revolution and may, on fact, need to be re-interpreted and re-applied in the face of new and unforeseen times?
The 2A is not about hunting, target shooting, or even personal self defense (though it includes all of those things), but it is about fighting a tyrannical government should the need arise. There's nothing to "re-interpret" and "re-apply". If anything, semi-automatics are not enough as small arms when the government gets to use fully-automatic weapons. As technology advances, the people should have access to the same small arms that the government has.
quote:Actually orthodox Christianity views the laws in the OT as having different purposes which determine whether or not they are applicable today. Those laws that were intended application for the nation of Israel are obviously not required for us since we don't live in that nation. Those pertaining to the religious ceremonies of sacrifices and religious cleanliness are also no longer applicable since Christ's death made His people clean eternally, and we no longer have to look forward to Christ's sacrificial death for sin on the cross (which is what those ceremonial laws all pointed to).
Almost all of us Christians do this with some of the archaic laws of the Old Testament--we're not out there stoning adulterers. We understand that the OT was written in the context of 3,000 year old Jewish laws and customs and may not need to be so strictly adhered to in 21st Century America?
While I get what you're saying, I don't agree with the application and I certainly don't agree with the comparison. There's no need to re-interpret or re-apply the 2A in terms of defense of liberty any more than we need to reconsider the 1A in light of the internet, smart phones, or anything else beyond the inkwell or the printing press since the founders couldn't have predicted what we have today.
The founders didn't need to anticipate advances in technology because the rights we still enjoy today are based on principles that don't change with technology.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:05 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Got that link for me of the NRA decrying the execution of a lawfully licensed gun owner?
Why would they? I doubt you are willing to understand this, but having a CC license doesn't mean you no longer have to follow an officers instructions. Just the opposite, in fact.
Do you expect the ACLU to decry the arrest and conviction of people who threaten other people?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:18 am to Hot Carl
quote:
For one, why is it so hard to concede that the 2nd Amendment was written in the context of 18th century colonial America just shedding the afterbirth of a painful revolution and may, on fact, need to be re-interpreted and re-applied in the face of new and unforeseen times?
Because you either have unalienable rights, or you don't. Should the First Amendment be re-interpreted and re-applied in light of the technological revolution that has brought about self-publishing, social media, and mass communication?
quote:
Almost all of us Christians do this with some of the archaic laws of the Old Testament--we're not out there stoning adulterers.
Almost all of us Christians believe in Jesus Christ, who put away much of the old law, and old way.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:20 am to troyt37
quote:
Why would they?
The guy followed every step that you're taught in gun safety classes that the NRA supposedly endorsed, and he was murdered anyway. Does the NRA stand for gun rights, or for gun sales?
quote:
Do you expect the ACLU to decry the arrest and conviction of people who threaten other people?
They've publicly defended Ann Coulter's hate speech, so sure.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 10:22 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The guy followed every step that you're taught in gun safety classes that the NRA supposedly endorsed, and he was murdered anyway.
Lay those out.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News