- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:37 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:37 pm to Ace Midnight
They were talking about the Koch brothers...duh
What's scary is he can vote.
What's scary is he can vote.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But this is a policy position, correct? You are against gun control leglistation in the current political climate because it has negative consequences for the Democratic party.
No, I'm against it b/c criminals do not follow the law to begin with. Law abiding citizens will be the ones without guns. If we could have a do-over and there weren't millions of weapons already in the market: I'd be open to discussion. But we are where we are.
quote:
Howver, you sincerely believe that there is no individual right and you feel far more threatened by individuals bearing arms than the government, correct?
I believe there is the right b/c the S.C. said so (as BHP pointed out). That being said: as I read that article and the 2A, I can see how the current interpretation which some see as "pry this from my cold dead hands" is NOT what the founders intended. I believe it was intended for military purposes.
Yes, I feel more threatened by armed individuals than armed government.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:22 pm to Truckasaurus
flattery will get you very far
I find it ironic that you had that poster BTW
Anyway, anti gun isn't a position that annoys me in the slightest, it is people who try and take a position intentionally made vague
My best friend thinks the second amendment is bullshite, so that's what he says. It's bullshite. I can definitely rationalize and understand a liberal mindset, but alan Dershowitz (the father of second amendment interpretation) I will never understand. He is even honest. Repealing #2 makes everything fair game so we have to ban guns while keeping the law intact...is that not the dumbest thing you've ever heard?
The blood of tyrants quote is 100% Jefferson. Both sides carried that mindset... Even John Adams, though not for militia reasons (the biggest dick of the group thought every citizen had the right to own firearms but for...wait for it...self defense)
To summarize: it is a matter of fact the intent of the second amendment, It is amusing to me that it's even a debate. If you want to repeal #2, just say it. But liberal politicians don't because they'll be swept the frick out of office in an unheard of shift of power...so they lie. They're liars
Did the site go down for everyone else?
I find it ironic that you had that poster BTW
Anyway, anti gun isn't a position that annoys me in the slightest, it is people who try and take a position intentionally made vague
My best friend thinks the second amendment is bullshite, so that's what he says. It's bullshite. I can definitely rationalize and understand a liberal mindset, but alan Dershowitz (the father of second amendment interpretation) I will never understand. He is even honest. Repealing #2 makes everything fair game so we have to ban guns while keeping the law intact...is that not the dumbest thing you've ever heard?
The blood of tyrants quote is 100% Jefferson. Both sides carried that mindset... Even John Adams, though not for militia reasons (the biggest dick of the group thought every citizen had the right to own firearms but for...wait for it...self defense)
To summarize: it is a matter of fact the intent of the second amendment, It is amusing to me that it's even a debate. If you want to repeal #2, just say it. But liberal politicians don't because they'll be swept the frick out of office in an unheard of shift of power...so they lie. They're liars
Did the site go down for everyone else?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:27 pm to a want
quote:
I believe it was intended for military purposes.
For a government document (2A is in the Bill of Rights, by the way) to guarantee the right of a government to maintain a military? The founders considered the militia and the regular army as 2 very different things - and their use of militia is far different than the way the word is used today.
Having said that - again this article of the "Bill of Rights" - is between:
I. Congress shall make no law...
and,
III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house...
I'm just reading it as a series of protections spelled out, to protect the people from overarching government (one the drafters had just shaken off.)
Maybe I'm the crazy one...
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:45 pm to DelU249
quote:
Did the site go down for everyone else?
Did for me.
quote:
it is people who try and take a position intentionally made vague
For the record, my gun position is that the right to bear arms is clearly in the constitution and protected, but that doesn't preclude common sense gun control (guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane; required safety classes; and other stuff along those lines.
However, I'm also weary of the people arming themselves like there's an imminent uprising in this country.
Back to the point of the OP, I do think the history of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over time has been interesting, especially with the evolution of weaponry since that time into more advanced killing machines.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:46 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:Exactly!
It is silliness to point at the prevailing side and pick out individuals or organizations and say "THEY DID THIS DASTARDLY DEED!"
Our system is set up so the the SC makes these rulings....deal with it.
I'm sure as soon as the SCOTUS rules in favor of Gay Marriage this same author will produce a book and numerous articles decrying how the gay lobby overturned two centuries of legal precedence. .... ah, NOT!
The whole premise of the article is a joke.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:56 pm to Truckasaurus
quote:
but that doesn't preclude common sense gun control (guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane; required safety classes; and other stuff along those lines.
Except "common sense" is arbitrary and its use here is just a framing device. Isn't common sense to advocate for laws that are effective in their stated purpose? Do you advocate for laws that lack empirical evidence to support their passage?
quote:
especially with the evolution of weaponry since that time into more advanced killing machines.
So why does it matter to the 2A that technology advances when it doesn't matter to the 1A? Would you be more concerned about being shot by a .60 Cal musket ball vs a .223 Reminton bullet over the fact you were shot at all?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:58 pm to Clames
quote:
So why does it matter to the 2A that technology advances when it doesn't matter to the 1A? Would you be more concerned about being shot by a .60 Cal musket ball vs a .223 Reminton bullet over the fact you were shot at all?
The Founding Fathers envisioned the people to keep weapons on technological par as those the government had. Should that still be the case today?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:58 pm to Truckasaurus
quote:
guns out of the hands of small children, criminals, insane
All of which are, by law, not allowed to purchase firearms
But what is mental illness? I have aspergers and you can be your arse that they want to keep tem from me without even a slight understanding of what that is. You draw a line and it moves. And our justice department has roughly a 0% prosecution rate for criminals attempting to purchase guns. There is no way to have background checks be all encompassing without wiping our arse with the 4th amendment. And when they say universal background checks, that means not background checks. The lies about gun show purchases and so forth are maddening because they're lies
quote:
However, I'm also weary of the people arming themselves like there's an imminent uprising in this country.
I have an FN Five Seven and a Kimber 3" 1911. That's all. I don't want an armorery, but I'm glad others do. The purpose of this amendment was to scare the shite out of government from abusing power and taking their corpses out of office if they do. The opposition at the time was what it was for. Opponents of A2 supported an individuals right to bear arms but for "personal protection" it's all the same if you ask me.
quote:
evolution of weaponry
Counted for. The framers didn't dismiss the idea of technological growth. They weren't far removed from the discovering of a new world amongst countless scientific discoveries. Again, when people pull this out with the "muskets" debate. Like them or not, these were brilliant men. They weren't fricking stupid. They kept it nice and simple because it was iron fricking clad.
Now can I please get back to work?
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:02 pm to DelU249
quote:
Again, when people pull this out with the "muskets" debate. Like them or not, these were brilliant men. They weren't fricking stupid. They kept it nice and simple because it was iron fricking clad.
And what good is the Second Amendment in guarding against governmental tyranny if the government gets tanks and jets and all the citizenry gets are small arms?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:04 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
Our system is set up so the the SC makes these rulings....deal with it.
THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CHARLIE MURPHY TELLING YOU HOW frickING WRONG YOU ARE...MY BAD
Judicial review is...
B U L L S H I T
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:05 pm to Clames
quote:
Except "common sense" is arbitrary and its use here is just a framing device. Isn't common sense to advocate for laws that are effective in their stated purpose? Do you advocate for laws that lack empirical evidence to support their passage?
I've noticed the conservatives recently railing against the term "common sense." I don't quite get it.
I support keeping guns out of the hands of people that intend to use them for harm. If that somehows inadvertantly stops a non-criminal from getting a gun, then so be it. I don't think things like requiring background checks really prevents legal gun ownership.
quote:
So why does it matter to the 2A that technology advances when it doesn't matter to the 1A? Would you be more concerned about being shot by a .60 Cal musket ball vs a .223 Reminton bullet over the fact you were shot at all?
I was more referring to the capabilities to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. Even if there were a bunch of law-abiding armed folks around, I bet a person with ill-intent could still kill a few people before he or she was stopped.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:05 pm to DelU249
What's your alternative?
How do we resolve ambiguities in the Constitution?
How do we resolve ambiguities in the Constitution?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:05 pm to Clames
I can attest from experience (deer hunting) that a .54 cal musket ball is by far more damaging and deadly than .223
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
And what good is the Second Amendment in guarding against governmental tyranny if the government gets tanks and jets and all the citizenry gets are small arms?
A whole lot better than no arms
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:07 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
How do we resolve ambiguities in the Constitution?
If only there was a system for this
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:07 pm to a want
I think the supreme court found a lot of historical evidence there was a historical understanding that we had a right to a gun.
And throwing in unregulated is ignorant of the current state of the law.
The fact that for hundred of year americans just carried guns without thinking about it really takes a bite out of this guys argument.
Why would the law makers include a right to carry a gun in a militia if militia meant the organized military.
And throwing in unregulated is ignorant of the current state of the law.
The fact that for hundred of year americans just carried guns without thinking about it really takes a bite out of this guys argument.
Why would the law makers include a right to carry a gun in a militia if militia meant the organized military.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:07 pm to boosiebadazz
Those Vietnamese dirt farmers did alright
Let's say .25 percent revolt, around 90 million people with guns, you dont know who they are
Then you'd have to rely on the support of your 18-25 y/o troops being cool with fighting citizens.
It's a deterrent but that's another conversation
Let's say .25 percent revolt, around 90 million people with guns, you dont know who they are
Then you'd have to rely on the support of your 18-25 y/o troops being cool with fighting citizens.
It's a deterrent but that's another conversation
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:08 pm to DelU249
quote:
Now can I please get back to work?
I give you permission. I will not respond to your post. I think the debate we're having has been pretty well hashed-out in this thread and in the public debate.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:09 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
There most certainly is. However, I doubt we could pass a contitutional amendement agreeing that gravity exists. Besides, you're speaking of teh process to change the Constitution. Do we really need to use that system to address ambiguities that arise because ofhte advancement of technology and society?
What do we do about the ambiguities in the meantime? Do different Congresses just get to interpret the Constitution as they see fit? That sounds like a solid foundation for economic growth and the predictability of laws and regulations.
What do we do about the ambiguities in the meantime? Do different Congresses just get to interpret the Constitution as they see fit? That sounds like a solid foundation for economic growth and the predictability of laws and regulations.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News