- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 8/5/19 at 10:24 am to Jester
quote:
Nah, it was not.
I'll ask you the same question:
You think these people didn't exist then?
ETA: And since you seem to be so derisive of "gun nuts", why don't you explain exactly why the 2nd was written since you are obviously not biased on the subject?
This post was edited on 8/5/19 at 10:26 am
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:26 am to Jester
quote:
Nah, it was not.
You're saying the 2A exists solely for people to protect themselves from government?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:32 am to Jester
quote:
You know it's coming because it's a very simple and easy rebuttal to one of the most common arguments the gun nuts make.
It's not a rebuttal, it's ignorance of a SCOTUS decision in v. Miller. Typical of poorly educated gun-control loons, they don't know how stupid they truly are.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:39 am to Jester
quote:and it is very simple to say sure.
You know it's coming because it's a very simple and easy rebuttal to one of the most common arguments the gun nuts make.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:42 am to upgrayedd
quote:
You're saying the 2A exists solely for people to protect themselves from government?
When it was written at the time, yes, it was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government whether it be their own or via invasion.
quote:
Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
ConstitutionCenter.org
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:44 am to MobileLegend5
quote:
But there is data showing gun legislation CAN make a difference. Don’t give up so quickly. :)
This is an example of how poor the STEM education is amongst wide swathes of the population. This poor ignorant kid has no idea that the methodology in this study is flawed and designed to show the results intended by the authors, which takes it from science to nothing more than propaganda. Gun-owership by suicide proxy is one of the most common tools used by pro-gun-control researchers and the most thoroughly debunked (right next to the gun magazine delivery proxy).
A fairly thorough take down of this "study".
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:45 am to MightyYat
Damn, the shooter was a "pronouns in my bio" guy? Didn't see that coming
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:48 am to MightyYat
quote:
... It was specifically to help the citizens not be afraid of the British military. The 2nd and 3rd amendments were written solely for that purpose...
So around 6 years after Revolutionary War and also after deciding Articles of Confederation could not just be amended we added amendments to new Constitution to finally deal with the British problem???
I think Congress made it clear the now called Bill of Rights (2 of 12 submitted didn’t initially get ratified including 27th amendment) was to get states on board that feared new constitution was creating too strong of a federal govt.
quote:
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:48 am to Klark Kent
quote:
Hypothetical: Rape counts are on the rise....who’s to blame? Porn? Over sexualized society? Scantily dressed women? Pick one, we’ll ban it
More people reporting them? Broader definitions of rape? In 2013 the definition was changed:
quote:
For more than 80 years, the agency defined rape as “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
In 2013, however, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program redefined rape by incorporating the concept of consent, removing “forcible” and specifying the type of acts involved.
The agency now defines rape as the “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The new definition now includes “male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially non-consenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects,” the UCR staff said in a statement.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:49 am to MightyYat
quote:
When it was written at the time, yes, it was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government whether it be their own or via invasion.
I think it's fair to say that the 2A was extended to personal protection from other citizens. Even in 1776.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:52 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I think it's fair to say that the 2A was extended to personal protection from other citizens. Even in 1776.
Via interpretation, maybe. The initial reasoning behind the amendment was militia/military based though.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 10:54 am to MightyYat
quote:
Via interpretation, maybe. The initial reasoning behind the amendment was militia/military based though.
We have to assume certain realities of life in historical context. Self protection with a firearm is one of those.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:07 am to upgrayedd
quote:
We have to assume certain realities of life in historical context. Self protection with a firearm is one of those.
It was for self-protection. That's clear. I'm saying that AT THE TIME that protection was from an invasion or if the government had to be overthrown. It wasn't really intended as protection from the common criminal. Maybe they just didn't have shithead losers running around trying to murder their own people back then. I don't know.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:09 am to MightyYat
quote:
It was for self-protection. That's clear. I'm saying that AT THE TIME that protection was from an invasion or if the government had to be overthrown. It wasn't really intended as protection from the common criminal.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with your assessment of the second amendment.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:11 am to MightyYat
The Dayton mayor just stated they think the shooter had 250 rounds with him, including what he had already fired. Number may change but that's going to be close to it.
Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?
Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:11 am to upgrayedd
The concept of armed self-defense was in the British Common Law from well before the US Constitution was drafted.
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:14 am to danfraz
quote:
Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?
Needs? Stupid argument. How about for target practice? How about just because I can you witless turd?
Posted on 8/5/19 at 11:20 am to danfraz
quote:
The Dayton mayor just stated they think the shooter had 250 rounds with him, including what he had already fired. Number may change but that's going to be close to it.
Who needs that amount of bullets on hand for protection?
What is the "safe" amount of ammunition someone should have on hand? How would you like to enact/enforce said amount of ammunition possession?
Popular
Back to top


2








