- 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
Debunk this liberal LIE: “The 2nd Amendment allows me to own WMD’s!”
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:22 pm
Go
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:25 pm to thetigerman
So you are saying Iraq did have WMDs?
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:26 pm to thetigerman
quote:what you sleep on in de barracks
Debunk
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:27 pm to thetigerman
I just want to live in a country where I don't have to worry about a man with a fully automatic grenade launcher to kill me and my community.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:28 pm to Kafka
quote:
Kafka
Oh man, someone else had a “Boy’s Life” sub
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:28 pm to thetigerman
I don't know many that don't own a Wireless Mobile Device
This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:29 pm to thetigerman
At it’s core, the spirit of the second amendment is that you have the fundamental right to defend yourself. That you are not required to outsource your self preservation to government.
WMDs are fundamentally offensive weapons. If you are attacked and you drop a WMD on the attacker, you die right along side them. WMDs are not effective tools of self defense. Guns are. And we have the right to defend ourselves
WMDs are fundamentally offensive weapons. If you are attacked and you drop a WMD on the attacker, you die right along side them. WMDs are not effective tools of self defense. Guns are. And we have the right to defend ourselves
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:32 pm to funnystuff
quote:
funnystuff
I agree. But some view it as “I have the right to own whatever weapons my government owns.” How do you resolve this?
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:33 pm to thetigerman
Define a weapon of mass destruction. Are we talking about owning a cannon or maybe an f 16 fighter jet? Perhaps a few ICBM’s? Not exactly cheap to own and operate any of those, even as a small country.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:35 pm to thetigerman
quote:
Oh man, someone else had a “Boy’s Life” sub
Or chewed Bazooka Bubble Gum.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:36 pm to funnystuff
quote:
WMDs are fundamentally offensive weapons
There's that, but 'bearing' arms would pretty much mean they have to be man portable.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:36 pm to thetigerman
What do you mean ‘resolve’ it? People can disagree with me without there being any need to ‘fix’ their thinking.
I just disagree with them. And I attempt to convince people to agree with me. If I’m successful in convincing enough people to see the issue the same way I do, we’ll make laws that reflect it. If not, I move on with my life.
Maybe it’s just poor wording, but “resolving” differing opinions sounds pretty shady
I just disagree with them. And I attempt to convince people to agree with me. If I’m successful in convincing enough people to see the issue the same way I do, we’ll make laws that reflect it. If not, I move on with my life.
Maybe it’s just poor wording, but “resolving” differing opinions sounds pretty shady
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:40 pm to thetigerman
In Heller, even Scalia notes that the 2 is not an unlimited right, as no right is. It protects your right to own weapons that are “in common use for lawful purposes,” not those that are abnormal or especially dangerous (relatively speaking). Fact is that “assault weapons” are in common use and circulation and are used by many everyday for lawful purposes. Granades, nukes, etc are not, hence why you can’t walk into the local gun store and buy one.
The entire debate on guns, from both sides, would be much more productive if the conversation was constrained to the Courts interpretation of the 2A. It’s silly not to, but the vast majority of people probably couldn’t tell you the case name D.C. v. Heller, and of those that even know it I venture to say the vast majority have never actually read it.
The entire debate on guns, from both sides, would be much more productive if the conversation was constrained to the Courts interpretation of the 2A. It’s silly not to, but the vast majority of people probably couldn’t tell you the case name D.C. v. Heller, and of those that even know it I venture to say the vast majority have never actually read it.
This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:44 pm to thetigerman
Depends on how one defines WMDs, doesn't it?
Common understanding of WMDs (nukes, poisons and biologicals) are weapons are not protected by the 2nd amandment.
If one means weapons that can kill, say, twenty people in a minute, than yes, the 2nd amendment might protect them, leastwise as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent decades.
Scalia said the "bear arms" part was relevant. Meaning that weapons that could be carried. But even though a stinger missle can be carried by a single person, I think he was against individual owership of those. Maybe because he liked to fly. I believe access to stingers has yet to be tested in court. Does the NRA have a position on them?
Common understanding of WMDs (nukes, poisons and biologicals) are weapons are not protected by the 2nd amandment.
If one means weapons that can kill, say, twenty people in a minute, than yes, the 2nd amendment might protect them, leastwise as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent decades.
Scalia said the "bear arms" part was relevant. Meaning that weapons that could be carried. But even though a stinger missle can be carried by a single person, I think he was against individual owership of those. Maybe because he liked to fly. I believe access to stingers has yet to be tested in court. Does the NRA have a position on them?
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:46 pm to BigAppleBucky
I don’t think stinger missles are in common use/circulation for lawful purposes which is the test essentially outlined in Heller for what it/isn’t protected by the 2A
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:53 pm to funnystuff
quote:
What do you mean ‘resolve’ it?
Well, I mean c’mon man. Somebody’s gotta make the rules.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 9:58 pm to funnystuff
quote:
At it’s core, the spirit of the
As strict textualists, patriots,and small government conservatives, we don’t do the “spirit of” the amendments.
We transport ourselves back in to the minds of the Founders to ascertain exactly what they meant in their 18th century prescience based on the black and white words on the paper.
Please govern yourself accordingly from here on out.
This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:02 pm to thetigerman
quote:
Somebody’s gotta make the rules
The Court already has as I mentioned. Everyone just seems to gloss over that for some reason.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:02 pm to boosiebadazz
When I say “at its core, the spirit of”, I’m referencing the exact same thing you are. What was in the minds of the founders when they wrote the rules. I just used different words to (apparently unsuccessfully) communicate that perspective.
Posted on 2/21/18 at 10:04 pm to boosiebadazz
I learn towards a textualist but I’m also not so rigid in my thinking to dismiss the fact that the world is different and society is different than it was back then and I’m that sense the constitution has to be a flexible document. That’s why we have SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 2/21/18 at 10:05 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News