- 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
re: Background checks for gun purchases should be eliminated
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:14 pm to ClientNumber9
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:14 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
First amendment often requires permitting
But it often doesn’t
quote:
Fourth amendment- every time you leave or re-enter the US, you are screened, detained and often searched with zero suspicion.
Don’t agree with this either. But again, that doesn’t happen for all 4th situations.
quote:
The right to vote - you have to prove you are a resident of that jurisdiction before your allowed to pull a lever.
There is no right to vote in a Federal election.
quote:
I don't want mentally trannies running through the streets with M4s, spraying up schools because "orange man bad".
Background checks won’t stop this.
1
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:16 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
The right to vote - you have to prove you are a resident of that jurisdiction before your allowed to pull a lever.
Mail in voting is laughing at you.
Founding fathers assumed adults would always be in charge. Liberals are like giving the keys to your car to a 5 years old.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:23 pm to weagle1999
So children and mentally ill people should be allowed to purchase firearms?
And what's your definition of "bear arms"legality? Full auto rifles? RPGs? Sawed off shotguns? Flame throwers? Because the 2nd amendment doesn't mention any of that and you've adopted a strict interpretation of "shall not infringe".
Again, most amendments are conditional, weighed by public interest and safety. You sound like one of these sovereign citizens with a cardboard license plate, sitting on the side of the road arguing with the PD after a traffic stop.
And what's your definition of "bear arms"legality? Full auto rifles? RPGs? Sawed off shotguns? Flame throwers? Because the 2nd amendment doesn't mention any of that and you've adopted a strict interpretation of "shall not infringe".
Again, most amendments are conditional, weighed by public interest and safety. You sound like one of these sovereign citizens with a cardboard license plate, sitting on the side of the road arguing with the PD after a traffic stop.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:28 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Silly argument. Constitution also doesn't mention 12 year old children purchasing firearms or bipolar, schizophrenic people going out and picking up rifles but I'm sure you're not in support of that.
Lot of people think it is silly to believe the Constitution actually means what it says. Then it is okay for silly tyrants to usurp and violate the Constitution.
quote:
Almost all the amendments have caveats and carve outs, weighing societal, governmental and personal interests. No constitutional freedom is absolute, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and many others.
Exactly. Tyranny that violates God given rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:31 pm to troyt37
quote:
troyt37
Do you oppose age limits on purchasing firearms?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:32 pm to troyt37
quote:
Lot of people think it is silly to believe the Constitution actually means what it says. Then it is okay for silly tyrants to usurp and violate the Constitution.
Jeez, man. I'm trying to meet you in the middle here but you can't continue to say stupid things like this. Our founding fathers literally established the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution actually means. If it was just simply a matter of reading the text, we wouldn't need scotus.
The Fourth Amendment states you need a warrant to search and/or seize someone. There is zero mention of reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain someone or the concept of a brief pat down for weapons. So when's the last time a cop had a warrant to stop you and give you a traffic ticket? Do you view that as tyranny?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:41 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Do you oppose age limits on purchasing firearms?
I oppose all limits on purchasing firearms, as the Constitution proscribes. An armed society is a polite society. I acknowledge that many minors lack the maturity and responsibility to own and carry firearms, but many don’t. I think a minor should be able to buy a firearm with the approval of a parent or guardian, with the acknowledged responsibility falling upon that parent or guardian.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:41 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
You sound like one of these sovereign citizens with a cardboard license plate, sitting on the side of the road arguing with the PD after a traffic stop.
See, you were doing well but now you are getting emotional and starting to drift into insult territory. Relax.
Citizens should be able to freely but anything that law enforcement has, IMO. If the police can have it, citizens should too.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:45 pm to troyt37
quote:
I think a minor should be able to buy a firearm with the approval of a parent or guardian, with the acknowledged responsibility falling upon that parent or guardian.
So we both believe in limits, we just draw the lines differently.
I desperately want to be an absolutist, but reality demands balance- or balkanization.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:46 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Citizens should be able to freely but anything that law enforcement has, IMO. If the police can have it, citizens should too.
Agreed.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:46 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Citizens should be able to freely but anything that law enforcement has, IMO. If the police can have it, citizens should too.
So your personal interpretation is that "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" has just been qualified, and not along lines spelled out in the Constitution. Remember, the second amendment mentions zero restrictions. So now you've tied ownership into the arms available to law enforcement, which means you're not an absolutist either. Hopefully you're starting to see why it's smart for a court system to interpret the Constitution.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:50 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Jeez, man. I'm trying to meet you in the middle here but you can't continue to say stupid things like this. Our founding fathers literally established the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution actually means. If it was just simply a matter of reading the text, we wouldn't need scotus.
The Constitution is literally written in plain English. When the SC starts “interpreting” the Constitution is when we start finding limits to it. Things like black men only counting as 3/5 of a person, and the right to murder unborn children. Not to mention getting government permission to exercise a right that the Constitution explicitly states “shall not be infringed.”
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:51 pm to ClientNumber9
A lot of those criminals have yet to satisfy all other aspects of their sentence. There are restitutions and monetary requirements.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:51 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
So we both believe in limits, we just draw the lines differently
Bingo. And this is a very different conversation than, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" with no limits on weapon ownership at any age in any mental state.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:54 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Should aggravated felons be legally allowed to purchase firearms?
Should law abiding citizens need permission from the govt to carry out a right?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:56 pm to troyt37
quote:
The Constitution is literally written in plain English. When the SC starts “interpreting” the Constitution is when we start finding limits to it. Things like black men only counting as 3/5 of a person, and the right to murder unborn children. Not to mention getting government permission to exercise a right that the Constitution explicitly states “shall not be infringed.”
Article III of the Constitution establishes the judiciary as an independent interpreter of laws. For every bad scotus decision you list I can list a good one. Just because you don't like the way our Constitution works doesn't mean you get to change it.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:57 pm to weagle1999
What a dumbshit idea.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:58 pm to weagle1999
Is not a right if you have to ask permission. That's a fact.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:59 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
So we both believe in limits, we just draw the lines differently.
I don’t believe in limits from the government. I believe in limits upon the government, which is exactly what the 2A is. Tyrants have allowed themselves the power to to violate it, and numbskulls have allowed them to do so.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:01 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Should aggravated felons be legally allowed to purchase firearms?
Yes. The Constitution is crystal clear on the 2nd Amendment. No governing authority has any right to regulate firearms.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News