- 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: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:19 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:19 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:You're right. Citizens should have much better weapons.
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 2:22 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You're right. Citizens should have much better weapons.
They've been conditioned to not take that next step
I don't see what the fuss is all about with automatic weapons
They're so against larger magazine capacity, you'd think the wasting of ammunition would be a welcome idea to them.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:26 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?
We had tanks and jets in Vietnam.
The Russians had tanks and jets in Afghanistan.
We had ".
We had tanks and jets in Iraq.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:32 pm to Ace Midnight
Those examples shouldn't matter when talking about an originalist, literal reading of the Second Amendment.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:42 pm to a want
thiS man will noT read this dUmb Poppycock, Igno Dung
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:43 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Those examples shouldn't matter when talking about an originalist, literal reading of the Second Amendment
Neither would your original question.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:45 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
The reasoning that the citizenry should have access to the same type of weapons as the government transcends a certain time period.
Unless we're OK with tweaking the rationale of the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers?
Unless we're OK with tweaking the rationale of the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The reasoning that the citizenry should have access to the same type of weapons as the government transcends a certain time period
I agree. Wasn't your question, though, something along the lines of what good is the 2A if the gov't has tanks?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Those examples shouldn't matter when talking about an originalist, literal reading of the Second Amendment.
His point is that it doesn't matter the firepower when you are up against a determined group. His statement proved your point to be irrelevant.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:50 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
That question was to illustrate the Second Amendment is already divorced from what the Founders intended.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:51 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
His point is that it doesn't matter the firepower when you are up against a determined group. His statement proved your point to be irrelevant.
Does that mean we should change what the Founders intended when creating the Second Amendment?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:52 pm to boosiebadazz
Gotcha. I misunderstood your argument then.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:52 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:That isn't license to trample more over the original intent. If anything... It's an argument against any more restrictions.
That question was to illustrate the Second Amendment is already divorced from what the Founders intended.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:53 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
That isn't license to trample more over the original intent. If anything... It's an argument against any more restrictions.
Or to argue for the repeal of any existing restrictions. I don't understand why the pro-gun lobby doesn't take that position...
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:54 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Does that mean we should change what the Founders intended when creating the Second Amendment?
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
It sounds like one of the key reasons was tyranny in government.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:55 pm to lsu13lsu
And John Adams was a tyrant
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:02 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
Which I guess you choose ignore.
Where did I choose to ignore that? That's central to my whole point.
I see no writings from the Founding Fathers making a distinction between the weapons the government can/should have the the arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:04 pm to lsu13lsu
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:12 pm to boosiebadazz
It is said that the Japanese could have invaded the US West Coast after Pearl Harbor but their planners never even considered it. Why? The US Military could not have stopped them at that time.
They would have been outnumbered by an armed and hostile populace.
They would have been outnumbered by an armed and hostile populace.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News