- 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 3:00 pm to AggieDub14
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:00 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
One could easily make an argument for either one, and neither argument can really be disproved.
Thats why your line of reasoning is absurdist, and not applicable to the actual real life situations. It's simply a means of deflection.
1
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:02 pm to weagle99
Let me take a break from the tourney to see what Political Talk is up to today...
quote:
The Judicial Branch needs to be brought to heel
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:02 pm to Dale51
Yeah that's fair to say. I want Americans that can pass a background check to be able to own the weapons they want to own. There are just some that I'm uncomfortable with because of their destructive power.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:03 pm to Dale51
You call it deflection, I call it pointing out the flaws in someone else's argument.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:15 pm to weagle99
It was 3 to 2.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:16 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
There are just some that I'm uncomfortable with because of their destructive power.
That seems reasonable. The question..that I asked was, it seemed your examples ended up being more about magazine capacity than the actual firearm. Is that correct?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:17 pm to Dale51
The first part of my previous post was meant to answer that.
Yeah that's fair to say.
Yeah that's fair to say.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:17 pm to Pettifogger
Do you ever question why the Judicial Branch has so much power, and if that power rightly in their hands?
I have been on thia wagon before Trump even announced.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:19 pm to AggieDub14
quote:oh, and i think it is legal in certain states to own a tank (like texas), with federal approval. it's not street legal so it would have to stay on your property.
Why can't I have my private nuke or tank?
LINK
quote:
Scattered around the country are members of a small fraternity of guys who own tanks. They are hyper-avid history buffs or hyper-edgy investors or just wealthy men who can now afford hyper-sized versions of the toys they played with when they were boys. Tank brokers—yes, there is such a thing—estimate there are several hundred to 1,000 private tank owners in the U.S.
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:20 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
You call it deflection, I call it pointing out the flaws in someone else's argument.
I called it deflection because of the flaw of your argument of relating the extreme classes of firearms that there are already restrictions on. If you were not referring to those types of firearms, the only other conclusion i could think of was that you were referring to magazine capacities. Thats why I asked if that was you concern.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:24 pm to weagle99
quote:
Do you ever question why the Judicial Branch has so much power, and if that power rightly in their hands? I have been on thia wagon before Trump even announced.
I agree. I've had a problem of 1 or 2 black robes overturning the votes of the people in issues that affect those people, for years.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:26 pm to joeyb147
quote:
oh, and i think it is legal in certain states to own a tank
Since this thread began I've been researching the matter and tank ownership appears to be legal everywhere.
I honestly had no idea previously.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:34 pm to Dale51
Yes, but our discussion had nothing to do with additional legislation. It was purely a discussion on the meaning behind the 2nd amendment as it was written.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:42 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Congress can check their power with a constitutional amendment. While that isn't easy to do, it is possible.
We can also just start ignoring legislation issued from the bench.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:43 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
. It was purely a discussion on the meaning behind the 2nd amendment as it was written.
Then your "3 things"..where the line would be drawn in limiting the 2nd, in your opinion, has nothing to do with the clear language of the 2nd?
And, again...seeing that most modern firearms are semi automatics, is your problem with magazine capacity and not the actual firearm?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:45 pm to Dale51
The language of the 2nd amendment is anything but clear. I was simply arguing that it doesn't give you a right to purchase everything. But because of it you can't be refused the right to purchase anything.
For the 3rd time now...yes that is fair to say.
For the 3rd time now...yes that is fair to say.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:49 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
For the 3rd time now...yes that is fair to say.
So...about that question about your 3 things that would "draw the line" as to where the limit of gun ownership would revolve around if you were to determine it.
It's not the weapon...its the magazine capacity?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:50 pm to Dale51
Okay okay you got me.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:52 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Yeah frick checks and balances, right?!?
Exactly, the courts are ruining our system of 3 equal branches.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 3:53 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
Okay okay you got me.
Come on....say it..it's not the gun you have a problem with...its the magazine capacity.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News