- 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: 2A doesn't give us the right to bear arms.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 6:59 pm to xGeauxLSUx
Posted on 6/22/22 at 6:59 pm to xGeauxLSUx
these all start the same, the same douche, and the same song and dance:
1 I love guns but..
2 I hunt but..
3 I grew up w guns but..
1 I love guns but..
2 I hunt but..
3 I grew up w guns but..
0
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:00 pm to Demshoes
quote:
The First Amendment grants the right to free speech. Are there no restrictions on that right? The Fourth Amendment grants the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Are there no restrictions on that right?
"Some mammals are dogs therefore all mammals are dogs."
The founding fathers were ok with civilians owning cannons for fricks sake.
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:00 pm to Demshoes
quote:
JFC just because its a constitutional right doesn't mean it's not subject to restrictions. It's like y'all jerk off to the Second Amendment like it's some talismanic right bestowed by God that cannot be touched by the hands of man. Whether you agree or not there CAN be restrictions.
Good grief
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:02 pm to Demshoes
quote:
talismanic right
Was going to say we are not a "JEWISH/Judean/Hebrew nation.
Some say we were designed by Judeo Christian ethics, but that is an oxymoron.
So, who knows
If we base our rights of the Talmud, we "Goym" would not be allowed anything.
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:02 pm to cardswinagain
How many people were said to be mental for not wanting the jab.
Or not wanting CRT in their schools?
Wanting fbi agents to investigate school board parents for domestic terrorism
Or not wanting CRT in their schools?
Wanting fbi agents to investigate school board parents for domestic terrorism
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:03 pm to Demshoes
Try to focus. This thread is about the 2A. Shall not is a legal term. It doesn't say "should not", it says "shall not be infringed". Red flag laws ARE an infringement.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:04 pm to auggie
If “shall not be infringed” is an absolutely restrictive clause, explain why “Congress shall make no law” is not also absolutely restrictive.
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:05 pm to Demshoes
quote:
I'm pro gun but
Classic Fudd.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:07 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Shall not be infringed" is about as clear and concise as legal jargon gets
Ok. Then explain why it’s different than equally (in language) restrictive clauses in the First and other amendments. Why are there reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech?
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:10 pm to Demshoes
quote:
That y'all can't handle an opinion that's contrary to what you think or want to think. Yep. The First Amendment grants the right to free speech. Are there no restrictions on that right? The Fourth Amendment grants the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Are there no restrictions on that right? JFC just because its a constitutional right doesn't mean it's not subject to restrictions. It's like y'all jerk off to the Second Amendment like it's some talismanic right bestowed by God that cannot be touched by the hands of man. Whether you agree or not there CAN be restrictions.
Educate yourself, Fudd. The Bill of Rights doesn’t “grant” anything to anyone. They are limitations on government.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:11 pm to Demshoes
Thats like saying your pro heterosexual but " sucking dick "doesn't mean your gay.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:11 pm to Demshoes
It actually does mean that because it says “shall not” instead of “may not”!
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:12 pm to Demshoes
Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:15 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Yeah, you're not pro-gun.
It’s just a carefully crafted lead in statement…most Marxists are pro-gun too, just want the government to have the guns. The 2nd Amendment exists not to allow for hunting, sporting, etc…it is in existence as a mean to protect liberty and to keep the government in check…in particular when you have an illegitimate and abusive government as we have now trying to frick up the country. That’s absolutely what is intended with the 2nd Amendment. And in theory the 1st Amendment and the rest are preserved and protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:15 pm to Indefatigable
See above
If referencing the Talmud, he may be right.
Only those identifying as "Jewish" would have that "right".
quote:
talismanic right
If referencing the Talmud, he may be right.
Only those identifying as "Jewish" would have that "right".
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:15 pm to Demshoes
quote:
I'm pro gun but
Every time.
You know I’m a democrat but, Joe Biden is a child molesting shite for brains who fails at something as simple as riding a bike.
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:19 pm to Demshoes
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:20 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
quote:
The 2nd Amendment says the the government CAN NOT INFRINGE on our rights to bear arms.
This Law will be unconstitutional the day it passes.
They started infringing on our right to bear arms a long time ago. See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, & Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986.
An American used to be able to own ships with cannons if the wanted (which was the most powerful weapon at that time), yet now we can't own a sawed off shotgun without having to register it with the ATF and paying a special tax on it.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:20 pm to xGeauxLSUx
Posted on 6/22/22 at 7:23 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
If referencing the Talmud, he may be right. Only those identifying as "Jewish" would have that "right".
Respectfully, I have no idea what you’re (or he’s) talking about. I’m not tag teaming for Demshoes.
I asked the question because I think it’s important to consider why so many here believe that some “absolute” clauses in the Constitution are more absolute than others—and more importantly, why?
To that end I want to have a discussion on this site about the Second Amendment that doesn’t solely rely on an absolutist interpretation of the language. That isn’t going to be what SCOTUS adopts, even in the best of circumstances. So let’s talk about where the limit can be, and why? This doesn’t have to be an echo chamber bitch session…
This post was edited on 6/22/22 at 7:23 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News