- 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: A Democrat candidate for President advocated gun confiscation by the Federal government
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:45 pm to texridder
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:45 pm to texridder
quote:
Why don't you read something instead of posting horseshite from the seat of your pants
Aye, Ronnie
quote:
What do you think the language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means then
It means exactly what it says?
quote:
Why did they put it in the amendment then if it didn't mean the purpose for which the right to bear arms was granted?
An explanation for why they ranked it 2nd only to the freedom of speech?
It's sad that you need these clear facts explained to you. Who helps you to get your shoes on the right feet?
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 7:47 pm
0
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:47 pm to texridder
quote:Why would they put the power to establish an army in an amendment when it was already in the constitution?
Why did they put it in the amendment then if it didn't mean the purpose for which the right to bear arms was granted?
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:50 pm to Taxing Authority
If the right was confined to state-sponsored militias just who is this potential infringer?
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:51 pm to texridder
quote:
More of your usual ignorant horseshite
False
quote:
Go read District of Columbia v. Heller and see how ignorant you are
LOL
Nothing in Columbia versus Heller says that prior to it it was completely accepted that the right to bear arms was only within the confines of a militia you stupid frick
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:52 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Because it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
you see this is the annoying part because tex knows what regulated meant back then. The stupid frick can read. But as per usual he's just completely dishonest
He's not a serious person. Frankly he's just a dishonest piece of shite that will lie repeatedly and isn't worth arguing back and forth with more than a couple of posts worth
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 7:58 pm to ShortyRob
quote:No idea what he knows or doesn't. But his/her position is clearly that "regulated" means "requires a permission from government". Nothing of the sort.
you see this is the annoying part because text knows what regulated meant back then. The stupid frick can read. But as per usual he's just completely dishonest
If it means what he claims... it would make the 2A both redundant and anomalous. Completely different than all other Bill of Rights amendments.
Completely ignorant of the etymology of the word "regulated" and oblivious to context of the surrounding document. The suggestion the Founders were this careless is beyond silly.
But much like he's clinging to a single (out of context) line in Heller... he's proving to be an embarrassment to himself. I think he's dug in so deep, he can't retreat.
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:00 pm to Wolf Messing
quote:
We as a society have evolved to where we don't have to go through the woods to kill dinner anymore, people don't have to do it now
You're a YUGE fricking pussy aint you? No need to answer we already know.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:03 pm to Bourre
quote:
I would comply but I lost all my guns in Katrina
Already got rid of mine. Swear to God I did. It's state law.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:05 pm to vodkacop
quote:
You're a YUGE fricking pussy aint you? No need to answer we already know.
There is no doubt about it. This reminds me of “a want” so much it has to be zhe’s Alter. I didn’t think I would ever see a poster as cucky as “a want” until this giant twat showed up.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:38 pm to Wtxtiger
I wish someone would address my question as to who is the potential "infringer" if the 2nd was not intended to apply to individuals. Was the state banned from infringing on the state's right to keep and bear arms?
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:57 pm to shinerfan
quote:
I wish someone would address my question as to who is the potential "infringer" if the 2nd was not intended to apply to individuals. Was the state banned from infringing on the state's right to keep and bear arms?
None of the resident leftists are going to touch that. Hell, tex wants to pretend that everyone not in a state militia who owned firearms prior to Heller, was doing so in violation of the Constitution. Corrupt, vile, seditious socialist democrats. You can tell by their level of indoctrination that we are going to have to defeat them, because there is no reasoning with them.
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 8:57 pm to shinerfan
quote:
I think it means an armed citizenry. Now tell us what your puppeteers tell you it means.
Yeah, I think in that time it meant this: should it become necessary, citizen-soldiers bring their own arms, protected by right, and form a militia in the event the need arises to protect the free state.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:14 pm to ShortyRob
quote:You're full of shite, as always. You didn't read Heller in 30 minutes.
Nothing in Columbia versus Heller says that prior to it it was completely accepted that the right to bear arms was only within the confines of a militia you stupid frick
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:23 pm to texridder
quote:
texridder
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:25 pm to Wolf Messing
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand?
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:29 pm to texridder
quote:
You're full of shite, as always.
Speaking of full of shite, what about the millions of Americans, who owned and carried firearms prior to Heller, since ratification of the Constitution? Does history and reality escape you?
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:32 pm to Big Papa Satan
quote:
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand?
He refuses to understand or acknowledge “the right of the people” so...
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:33 pm to Wolf Messing
If you take the AR-15, then criminals will use the next most effective weapon. Then you will want to take those too. Rinse repeat.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 9:51 pm to texridder
quote:
You didn't read Heller in 30 minutes.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 10:57 pm to texridder
quote:
You didn't read Heller in 30 minutes.
You've never read Heller, you raging incompetent.
D.C. v Heller was unanimous, 9-0, that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and not a collective one. The 5-4 split only concerns the scope of that individual right, the decision put the final nails in the coffin of the collective right interpretation theories of the 2nd Amendment. Theories that have never enjoyed meaningful support outside of a few legal scholars and retards like you.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News