- 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
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:35 am to a want
quote:
a want
Oh, a want, you made the mistake of believing anyone on this board would actually read the article.
It's a good read, especially if you want some context over the gun control debate.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:35 am to udtiger
Yeah but he's going to need you to spell that out for him.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:36 am to a want
I love how liberals continue to cry about the 2nd amendment, trying desperately to re-word it and convince people what the founding fathers really meant despite what they actually said.
All because they don't agree with it.
That damn pesky constitution seems to get in their way a lot.
All because they don't agree with it.
That damn pesky constitution seems to get in their way a lot.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:38 am to Truckasaurus
I've read the law, it speaks for itself...just in case that weren't enough I decided to read the federalist papers, 46 being of particular interest...politico's headline of the NRA reinterpreting the second amendment doesn't really offer any context
It's smear. It's ideologically motivated garbage.
It's smear. It's ideologically motivated garbage.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:38 am to Truckasaurus
Yeah. I shoulda' known.
You know what's really funny: I'm not even for gun control legislation. Of course, I shouldn't have to say that in an adult conversation....but...
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:39 am to DelU249
quote:
They just fought a fricking war against a tyrannical government...they wanted an armed populace to keep the government they just created in check
That's a very strange, threatening way to put it.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers instituted a representative democracy with checks and balances to keep the government in check, not the constant threat of violence towards the government.
The great thing about our government is that any grievances we have, we get to take out at the ballot box at least every two years.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:40 am to Chimlim
quote:
[u]That damn pesky constitution seems to get in their way a lot.
Bingo, but it's political suicide to say "frick this"
For now
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:42 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
That's a very strange, threatening way to put it.
What? The founders wrote the very same thing many times after the war.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:45 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers instituted a representative democracy with checks and balances to keep the government in check, not the constant threat of violence towards the government.
Again, how fricking dumb do you think the framers were? Do you believe they thought they had created an inpenetrable machine? FDRs court packing scheme could never be imagined by them.
Maybe you should stop reading politico and read something that actually puts the "debate" in context
They explicitly state that the threat of violence was meant to keep them in check. I guess Thomas Jefferson just needed more politico context though.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:45 am to Truckasaurus
quote:I read the article, did you?
Oh, a want, you made the mistake of believing anyone on this board would actually read the article.
It's says the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun in the 2nd paragraph.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:46 am to Teddy Ruxpin
You can't help them. They look for context when it is all spelled out
Looking for context = we hate the constitution
If only they could go back in time and send the framers to camp for reeducation
Looking for context = we hate the constitution
If only they could go back in time and send the framers to camp for reeducation
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 9:51 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:46 am to a want
quote:
A lot of this is addressed in the article.
Not in much detail. He writes, "We don’t really know what he meant by it," meaning the language of the Amendment, ignoring a lot of writing at the time from Madison and his contemporaries that would give us clues. But, those clues would negate the point of his article, so they were mysteriously left out.
His opening quote of Warren Burger is a popular anti-gun reference, but it, again mysteriously, ignores a lot of critical deconstruction of that quote and its context.
I get that he's not writing a novel on the subject, but his premise seems pretty flawed to me. Its reads as if he'd have been better served by talking about the evolution of the NRA than trying to assert that it "rewrote the Second Amendment." If he really intended to explain how lobbies can shape law, he picked a bad example IMO. But, I suspect, he picked the example not simply to write about how lobbies shape law.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:50 am to homesicktiger
quote:
get that he's not writing a novel on the subject
He wrote a book on it. The article was adapted from his book.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:51 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
I read the article, did you?
Yep. I'm not arguing there is the right of an individual to carry arms.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:51 am to Truckasaurus
The system of checks and balances doesn't work unless the people have the ability TK revolt in the case that a government decides to ignore or abuse it. Without an armed populace a government could simply rig elections and oppress it's people.
See Russia for an example
See Russia for an example
Posted on 5/20/14 at 9:59 am to a want
quote:
From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun
bullshite.
Keying on the "every single one"
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:01 am to a want
Read the actual Heller decision too btw. It cites plenty of historic sources and doctrine in reaching their conclusion.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:04 am to a want
quote:
He wrote a book on it. The article was adapted from his book.
You linked the article. I haven't read the book. Articles are usually shorter than books, so I get the need to be brief when making an argument in an article, as opposed to a book. He does a poor job of the former, so I wouldn't be too hopeful for the latter.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:05 am to a want
The First Amendment is way more rewritten by the left.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News