- 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 2:26 pm to AggieDub14
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:26 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
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.
Incorrect
You can't have a tank or a nuke because they are not firearms and thus are not covered by the second and thus are not protected by the second amendment.
Look sonny, you are out of your depth here. Go do some research and see that I am 100% correct here. The courts have allowed laws making such weapons illegal and rejected protecting them under the 2nd specifically because they are NOT firearms. That's right in the decisions.
1
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:27 pm to Erin Go Bragh
quote:
At what's constitutional and legal.
If it were up to you what would that line be?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:27 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
See the issue though is what if someone wants to shoot up a nightclub in Orlando and can easily take out several dozen people with minimal effort? How do we prevent attacks like that and "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty" for all Americans? Shootings are higher an America than other places. I'm not saying less guns is the answer. I am 100% pro 2nd amendment. I own a rifle myself. I just think there should be a line. There is no useful reason to own fully automatic weapons unless you are preparing for a) the apocolypse b) the breakdown of society or c) the government becoming oppressive and trying to take people out V for Vendetta style.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:28 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Wow, you are really gonna make me say it again. The 2nd amendment doesn't ever use the word "firearms".
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:28 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Let's start over. Where do you draw the line?
I agree.
Where do you draw the line in preventing or hindering a citizens right to keep and bear common firearms.
Where do you put that line?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:29 pm to AggieDub14
quote:handguns were responsible for roughly 70% of firearm homicides between 2010-2014
See the issue though is what if someone wants to shoot up a nightclub in Orlando and can easily take out several dozen people with minimal effort? How do we prevent attacks like that and "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty" for all Americans? Shootings are higher an America than other places. I'm not saying less guns is the answer. I am 100% pro 2nd amendment. I own a rifle myself. I just think there should be a line. There is no useful reason to own fully automatic weapons unless you are preparing for a) the apocolypse b) the breakdown of society or c) the government becoming oppressive and trying to take people out V for Vendetta style.
FBI
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:29 pm to Dale51
Let's look at the purpose of firearms.
Is it a hunting rifle? Don't mess with my guns.
Is it a tool for protection? Don't mess with my guns.
Is it a machine that could kill several dozen people within a minute or two? That might be a little much.
Is it a hunting rifle? Don't mess with my guns.
Is it a tool for protection? Don't mess with my guns.
Is it a machine that could kill several dozen people within a minute or two? That might be a little much.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:30 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If it were up to you what would that line be?
That's a damn good question. Since I am not the determining voice on the matter it's not one I have considered at length.
I have no problem with any device considered a firearm being owned by an American citizen.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:31 pm to Erin Go Bragh
Should you have to prove you are not a suspected terrorist or violent criminal first?
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:32 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Should you have to prove you are not a suspected terrorist or criminal first?
Sorry, I should have included pending background check.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:33 pm to AggieDub14
quote:felons are not legally allowed to own firearms
or violent criminal first?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:34 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Wow, you are really gonna make me say it again. The 2nd amendment doesn't ever use the word "firearms".
It uses the word "arms" which just as with everything written in the 1770s , words dont always interpret straight across.
It is clear though by reading supporting documents that the founding fathers were referring to firearms.
Not only that but SCOTUS ruled in Heller exactly that.
Arms = firearms
Your further comments on the subject are ridiculous given that this is a settled matter. We have the right to own firearms. PERIOD
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:37 pm to Erin Go Bragh
At least we agree there. I have no problem with someone owning a gun like an AR-15 if they pass a background check. The government shouldn't be in the business of telling citizens what they can and cannot own. But once you reach the destructive power of a fully automatic assault rifle, I just feel like the risks are too high. Someone one day is going to do snap and find their gun or their friends/family members gun and do something terrible.
What is the downside to not being able to own a fully automatic assault rifle? What is the purpose for owning one? I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly want to know what you think.
What is the downside to not being able to own a fully automatic assault rifle? What is the purpose for owning one? I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly want to know what you think.
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:38 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Does the right to own firearms mean you can own every single firearm that anyone invents throughout the course of human existence? Or does it mean you can't be told that you can't own any firearm? One could easily make an argument for either one, and neither argument can really be disproved.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:40 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Is it a machine that could kill several dozen people within a minute or two? That might be a little much.
This is just my opinion but...the 2A mentions militia, carrying with it the connotation of light military, with the purpose of defending against invasion, that the need to possess firearms of the day are needed. If a militia is to defend against forces with semi-auto or even full-auto, they need to possess those weapons too.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:40 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
What is the downside to not being able to own a fully automatic assault rifle? What is the purpose for owning one? I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly want to know what you think.
Have you ever went out and fired one off? They are a lot of fun
What if the government decided "since the speed limit is 80MPH maximum, it is illegal to own a car capable of going faster, because there is too much risk of speeding?" I mean seriously.
That's the problem with "gun control" advocates. They focus on controlling the guns rather than controlling who has them and jailing those who use them illegally for a long damn time.
If you cant be trusted with a fully automatic M4, you can't be trusted with a .38 revolver.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:42 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
if they pass a background check
I don't believe any reasonable person would argue against background checks.
quote:
What is the downside to not being able to own a fully automatic assault rifle? What is the purpose for owning one? I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly want to know what you think.
I own three guns and all three are semi-automatic. That's all I need. That and my three Akitas. I feel safe.
Others may want more. That's fine with me.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:43 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
That is a really good way of putting it. I like the car analogy. Controlling the guns is easier than controlling the people, because people can get guns from other people and people also slip through the cracks of the system set up to prevent them from buying guns. That doesn't make it right though, and I do agree with you on that.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:54 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Let's look at the purpose of firearms. Is it a hunting rifle? Don't mess with my guns. Is it a tool for protection? Don't mess with my guns. Is it a machine that could kill several dozen people within a minute or two? That might be a little much.
Thats an answer?
Basically, you seem to be saying, without a active purpose for inquiring a legal product, you should have a "purpose" to buy it, and that "purpose" is determined by a narrow criteria?
1&2 are rational to an extent. 3 however could apply to any firearm you would accept in 1&2...so..
Seeing that most all firearms are semi auto, you seem to be focusing on magazine capacity. Is this correct?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:57 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Should you have to prove you are not a suspected terrorist or violent criminal first?
That decision would not be up to you. Being a suspected terrorist or violent criminal would be in a data base.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News