- 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 8:59 pm to LookSquirrel
Posted on 6/22/22 at 8:59 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
GOD given rights
Our rights aren't granted by God, they're granted by the Supreme Court. At any moment, we're an activist majority away from a fundamental overhaul of constitutional rights. I think we're getting farther and farther away from an ideological differing court with an institutional respect for the court and constitution and more into an area of judicial activism. That rot will make its way into the courts under future Democrats.
0
Posted on 6/22/22 at 9:14 pm to dukkbill
quote:
but not enough to support an argument that the right is subject to reasonable restriction just because it makes governance easier
Who is making that argument? Not me.
quote:
The government must have more than a mere expectancy of more efficiency, more than a desire by the entire population; they must also have a "compelling interest" and use "The least restrictive means".
I’m very aware of that, and I don’t even think we disagree on the point. There simply are constitutional “infringements” is my point.
quote:once again, I’m not making any argument that doing that is constitutional.
Depriving someone of their constituational rights without a hearing for 21 days is neither of these things.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 9:17 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
Our rights are God given. We allow them to be taken away. Because we are bitches.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 9:17 pm to Demshoes
Infringe meaning:
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
Seems like you’re wrong.
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
Seems like you’re wrong.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 9:45 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
You will have to point out where it states that those two rights cannot be infringed upon.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:00 pm to Demshoes
quote:
I'm pro gun but "infringe" does not mean no (however you define) reasonable restrictions.
Just one question can prove how utterly f*cking stupid this comment is.....
WHO GETS TO DEFINE "REASONABLE"?
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:16 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
At any point we the ppl agree to any restrictions on the 2nd we , as a country, are doomed….
Buy more guns & ammo now!!!
Buy more guns & ammo now!!!
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:31 pm to auggie
quote:
I'm pro gun but "infringe" does not mean no (however you define) reasonable restrictions.
quote:
Wrong.
Funny thing how you righties ignore your hero Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller:
quote:
like most rights, the right — Second Amendment — by the — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.
You have any comment on that?
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:33 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
This doesn’t have to be an echo chamber bitch session…
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:36 pm to troyt37
quote:It is not even possible to have a reasoned discussion with a person like this.
There it is. Fudd.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:46 pm to Demshoes
quote:
I'm pro dummy and don’t know what I’m talking about.
in·fringe
/in'frinj/
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal gun rights were being infringed"
Posted on 6/22/22 at 10:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It is not even possible to have a reasoned discussion with a person like this.
Good. Because I have no interest in having a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn’t recognize that the Bill of Rights are a limitation on government, and somehow thinks that making the law abiding helpless also make the predators in our society harmless.
Posted on 6/22/22 at 11:16 pm to troyt37
quote:That is an impressive number of straw men for a single post. Kudos.
I have no interest in having a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn’t recognize that the Bill of Rights are a limitation on government, and somehow thinks that making the law abiding helpless also make the predators in our society harmless.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:26 am to Demshoes
quote:
right bestowed by God that cannot be touched by the hands of man.
Why yes, that’s exactly and explicitly correct per the Declaration of Independence.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:44 am to DeafVallyBatnR
We are worried about the wrong stuff. Bail reform and eliminating Soros-paid DA’s like gascon are the problems. Lock an illegal gun owner up, let him out an hour later.
Guns have nothing to do with our issues.
Human beings love to pretend that we, ourselves, can never be to blame for anything. Where does that sound familiar? Potato President?
Guns have nothing to do with our issues.
Human beings love to pretend that we, ourselves, can never be to blame for anything. Where does that sound familiar? Potato President?
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:58 am to Demshoes
quote:
Demshoes
How do you eat an elephant?
one bite at a time
How do you remove a society's freedom/liberty?
one restriction at a time
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:01 am to DeafVallyBatnR
I'm pro gun but believe the left should be disarmed, and then stripped of the first amendment too.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:07 am to Demshoes
quote:
I'm pro gun but "infringe" does not mean no (however you define) reasonable restrictions.
"Infringe" literally means impede or frustrate which is what "restrictions" do. And they are not "reasonable" restrictions.
You want to curb gun violence in this country? March troops into the inner metros and start collecting. You'll still lose, but you'll at least be aiming in the right place.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:08 am to Demshoes
quote:This is where your ignorance begins. The bill of rights grants NOTHING. It merely RECOGNIZES that certain rights are inalienable and shall not be infringed. It goes to great lengths to point out that even the simple enumeration of certain inalienable rights does NOT disparage the notion that there also other rights not mentioned yet still maintained by the people. The constitution delineates the power of the federal government and the bill of rights provides clarity on some of those restrictions because of their utmost importance. If there is a question as to something not explicitly granted to the federal government, then its NOT. the people do not suffer under this same standard.
The First Amendment grants the right to free speech
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:13 am to texridder
quote:
the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.
quote:
Were the Constitution the granter of the right to free speech, religion, assembly and so forth, the First Amendment would not start out, “Congress shall make no law.” That part of the sentence clearly states that the government has no rightful authority over those things and is blocked from infringing upon them. This is the concept of negative rights.
A negative right is one that cannot be infringed upon by outside forces. Government is not granting you the right to free speech. That right already exists. Government is expressly forbidden from attempting to infringe on it.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News