- 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 5:02 pm to CDawson
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:02 pm to CDawson
quote:
Should law abiding citizens need permission from the govt to carry out a right?
Depends on the societal interest. Maybe. In general, I'm against it unless the government can make a compelling case for that right to be needed. But I don't want 11 year old kids walking the streets with flame throwers.
0
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:03 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
weighing societal, governmental and personal interests. No constitutional freedom is absolute, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and many others.
That's a liberal argument.
The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted by judges or legislatures. It says what it says.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:03 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Article III of the Constitution establishes the judiciary as an independent interpreter of laws.
But they aren’t independent, and often interpret in ways that blatantly violate the plain language of the Constitution, which make them tyrants, and their product tyranny.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:10 pm to troyt37
quote:
But they aren’t independent, and often interpret in ways that blatantly violate the plain language of the Constitution, which make them tyrants, and their product tyranny.
Sounds like you don't like the American system of government and view life here as a tyranny at least the way it's been run for 220 years, since Marbury v. Madison.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:12 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
That's a liberal argument.
The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted by judges or legislatures. It says what it says.
No it's not. It's common sense. So you're ok with criminals and children walking around with RPGs? Or people yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Or cops needing a warrant to pull you over for speeding?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:14 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Sounds like you don't like the American system of government and view life here as a tyranny at least the way it's been run for 220 years, since Marbury v. Madison.
I like it just fine, when it is followed the way the Founding Fathers intended, with powerful institutions limiting themselves by the same Constitution. We haven’t had that since the Civil War.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:18 pm to HeadCall
quote:
If they’re still a danger to society then ideally they’d still be in prison.
this is 100% not even remotely true.
quote:
Once someone has served their time and paid their debt to society they should enjoy the freedoms this great country provides
almost nobody sentenced to prison, serves their full sentence, almost none, and the ones that do are typically ones who caught new charges while in prison..
The fact is, the majority of convicts (with very few exceptions) have been convicted multiple times and really do not get any significant time unless they are convicted and sentenced under multiple bill/career criminal statutes that FORCE the judge to assign time under the sentencing guidelines aligned to those statutes
The other part is if you actually knew any real criminals, you would feel different about it. Clearly, the whole system is broken
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:21 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Should aggravated felons be legally allowed to purchase firearms?
No, only the calm ones.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:25 pm to troyt37
quote:
I like it just fine, when it is followed the way the Founding Fathers intended, with powerful institutions limiting themselves by the same Constitution. We haven’t had that since the Civil War.
Even before the Civil War the judicial branch made good and bad choices based on a variety of reasons. But the role of the judiciary is not to limit themselves. The role of the judiciary, specifically scotus, is to interpret the Constitution. I don't always agree with their decisions either but that's the system in place. I don't view it as tyrannical, either.
This whole thread was started on the premise that the 2nd amendment and other rights are absolute with no restrictions. It's a laughable concept, which is why it's not put into practice. To me it's no different from communists talking about how a perfect society would lead to everyone sharing with one another and working to the best of their ability. It's a feel-good hypothetical in both instances.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:28 pm to troyt37
quote:
But to answer your question, yes aggravated felons should be allowed to purchase firearms.
This were you lose people with a brain.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:29 pm to troyt37
If they are still a danger, they should not be released into society.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:30 pm to weagle1999
I don't mind them for handguns, but hunting weapons is crap. Honestly, they only use it to allow lawyers to sue gun manufacturers when an idiot a criminal, or a mentally incompetent person goes bonkers.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:43 pm to ClientNumber9
Funny you mention Marbury. Part of the findings in that case was that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
Reconcile for me FBI form 4473 or the NFA and the Constitution, with Marbury as your guide. Constitution: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Tyrants: Here are some infringements we have made law, with the help of politicians, the NRA, and the Supreme Court. Marbury: ?
Reconcile for me FBI form 4473 or the NFA and the Constitution, with Marbury as your guide. Constitution: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Tyrants: Here are some infringements we have made law, with the help of politicians, the NRA, and the Supreme Court. Marbury: ?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:46 pm to wallowinit
quote:
If they are still a danger, they should not be released into society.
But they are... and that's the problem.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:46 pm to weagle1999
Because prison is not predictive like that Tom Cruise flick. Its reactive.
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:48 pm to SallysHuman
That can be fixed.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:49 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
This were you lose people with a brain.
Not really. It’s where you lose the people who don’t believe that nearly everyone the aggravated felon encounters should be armed, and willing to defend themselves. It’s where you lose the people who think the government takes its responsibility to protect citizens seriously, even in the face of rampant crime and the criminal invasion across our southern border.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:51 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Or people yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
As an aside, can someone, anyone, come up with an alternative to this most worn out of examples?
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:03 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Even before the Civil War the judicial branch made good and bad choices based on a variety of reasons. But the role of the judiciary is not to limit themselves.
I disagree. The Founders wrote the Constitution spelling out exactly what the federal government does and does not have authority over, explicitly saying any power not enumerated belongs to the states or to the people. That includes the Supreme Court in my opinion. Disputes concerning subjects or issues that the Constitution does not give the federal government authority over, should be decided at the state level.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:10 pm to weagle1999
I'm as strong a proponent of the (already heavily-infringed) Second Amendment as you will ever find, and I don't have an issue with background checks for the sole purpose of determining if you are legally allowed (not a violent felon) to own and possess firearms.
I don't think nonviolent felons (certain crimes) should be forbidden, but that's another story and not up to me.
I used to absolutely despise background checks because I would often get "red-flagged" for literally no reason at all and have to do a "waiting period" or it would take fricking HOURS for the results to come back. However, lately, my last dozen or so background checks have been done in 5 minutes or less with no hiccups whatsoever. I suspect it may be because I have to pass periodic eff bee eye background checks to maintain my CCL and for my job.
I don't think nonviolent felons (certain crimes) should be forbidden, but that's another story and not up to me.
I used to absolutely despise background checks because I would often get "red-flagged" for literally no reason at all and have to do a "waiting period" or it would take fricking HOURS for the results to come back. However, lately, my last dozen or so background checks have been done in 5 minutes or less with no hiccups whatsoever. I suspect it may be because I have to pass periodic eff bee eye background checks to maintain my CCL and for my job.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News