- 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: The Judicial Branch needs to be brought to heel
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:15 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:15 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
It isn't a ridiculous argument. It's using an extreme to make a point. You don't have a good answer for it, which shows it worked. So you just discredit it without having to respond like an intelligent human being.
0
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:15 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
I think most of us understand that a nuclear weapon is not a firearm.
2A doesn't say firearms it just says arms
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The best part of this is, you made a fantastic point and they refuse to acknowledge it because they don't know how to respond.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:16 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Draconian Sanctions made a great point. What about a private citizen who wants to own nukes? Where do we draw the line? What about an RPG? Is that okay? What about live hand grenades? What about an AK-47?
Grenades and RPGs are NOT firearms.
Jesus christ, this isn't rocket science
fire·arm
'fi(?)r?ärm/
noun
noun: firearm; plural noun: firearms
a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.
Do I need to further define the word gun too?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:17 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Draconian Sanctions made a great point.
Draconian created a strawman. I refer you to The National Firearms Act for clarification.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:17 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Allow me to post the 2nd amendment again:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you see the word firearms? Why are you fixating on that word?
What about an AK-47? That is a portable gun. Should private citizens be able to own one?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you see the word firearms? Why are you fixating on that word?
What about an AK-47? That is a portable gun. Should private citizens be able to own one?
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:oh that's right, you can't look at something objectively
Sweet, so when liberals have control of Congress back you'll have no problem with them going after courts for political purposes, right? RIGHT?
see i think the judicial branch should play no part in political alliances as that isn't what they were created for, where you want to use them to further your political agenda
carry on
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:19 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
best part of this is, you made a fantastic point and they refuse to acknowledge it because they don't know how to respond.
Come on man. His point was foolish and is his example is covered by existing legislation. Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:19 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
2A doesn't say firearms it just says arms
Did you really just type that?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A modicum of background reading makes it clear that arms was referring to firearms.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:20 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
What about an AK-47? That is a portable gun. Should private citizens be able to own one? This post was edited on 3/17 at 2:19 pm
Why the hell not?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:20 pm to Erin Go Bragh
We aren't talking about legislation. We are talking about the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You refuse to answer his question because you don't have a good answer.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:20 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
A modicum of background reading makes it clear that arms was referring to firearms
So swords aren't covered??
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:21 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Oh here you go interpreting what the founders meant. Why can't I have my private nuke or tank? Because they are too destructive. The same reason you don't need an AK-47.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:22 pm to Eurocat
quote:
So......why was the right wing so hopeful that the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare and "make things right again"?
Focus bias.
It wasn't at all just about Ocare. It was about following the Constitution and not shaping the Constitution to fit an agenda.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:23 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
We aren't talking about legislation. We are talking about the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You refuse to answer his question because you don't have a good answer.
Then allow me to be the first to inform you that under the National Firearms Act It is illegal to own a nuclear weapon.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:23 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Allow me to post the 2nd amendment again:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you see the word firearms? Why are you fixating on that word?
What about an AK-47? That is a portable gun. Should private citizens be able to own one?
OF COURSE you should be able to own an AK47, and guess what else, you CAN own own.
I own an AK, fully auto, I also own a first gen M16, fully auto. I also own 3 other fully automatic firearms. All completely legal.
And this is the truly amazing part. I've never committed any crimes with any of them, AND none of them have ever got up on their own and went out and committed any crimes.
I know, shocking right.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:23 pm to Erin Go Bragh
Yeah, again that is irrelevant to this conversation.
Let's start over.
Where do you draw the line? Where does something become no longer protected by the 2nd amendment?
Let's start over.
Where do you draw the line? Where does something become no longer protected by the 2nd amendment?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:24 pm to weagle99
quote:wut
Founders never intended for a 5-4 ruling on the USSC to decide the direction of an entire nation.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:25 pm to AggieDub14
quote:yes, and they are allowed to own them in certain states
What about an AK-47? That is a portable gun. Should private citizens be able to own one?
...did ...did you think machine guns were illegal in the us?
LINK
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:26 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Where do you draw the line?
At what's constitutional and legal. The NFA has passed constitutional muster.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News