- 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 6:20 pm to Dex Morgan
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:20 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
The Constitution was never intended to be interpreted by judges
Article three establishes the court system and the Supreme Court and specifically charges them with deciding legal matters.
With the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, how can a court system not refer to the Constitution to decide cases?
And if they refer to it, they necessarily have to interpret it.
If you think, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't need to be interpreted in order to figure out what it actually means, you're not interested in having any kind of serious discussion.
1
Posted on 8/31/25 at 7:54 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
If you think, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't need to be interpreted in order to figure out what it actually means, you're not interested in having any kind of serious discussion.
Count me in. It’s plain English language. No interpretation necessary. Interpretation can only open the door wide for tyranny. Even conservatives refuse to acknowledge the tyranny in interpretations like Bruen, because it was Scalia’s baby.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 8:23 pm to weagle1999
quote:
The purpose of the check was not to stop crime.
In a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, one of the Federal lawyers admitted that not only was the Brady Bill never intended to address sales outside of FFL's, it was never intended to have an impact on criminal useage of firearms. The Brady Bill was nothing more than an incremental conditioning mechanism for more restrictions later. Combined with the 1994 AWB, gun-control orgs really thought they were on the path to outlawing civilian ownership of firearms.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 8:38 pm to ClientNumber9
No, people can cede their rights based on behavior.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 11:34 pm to troyt37
quote:
Count me in.
Noted.
quote:
No interpretation necessary.
bullshite.
As it reads, you only have the right to bear arms if you are a member of an organized and regulated militia. As it reads "in plain English language," without any other context informing it, you don't have the right to bear arms as an individual at all.
Now, if you read what the people who wrote the amendment had to say about what they meant by the word "Militia," then it become real clear, but they don't tell you what they mean by that word in the Constitution. You have to look at their other writings and speeches to know that to George Mason, the citizenry as a whole was the Militia.
Once we know that we can apply the proper interpretation, which is the opposite of what it actually says "in plain English."
Posted on 9/1/25 at 3:51 am to SallysHuman
quote:
No, I don't. Too many repeat offenders on bail or probation out there wreaking havoc for me to trust the justice system.
Plus now you have juries that can become compromised on racial bias where the DA’s office can show a good case but a juror or two holds out to not convict on race leaving a hung jury and the DA’s office declines to prosecute again, resulting in the case being withdrawn.
Or the DA presents a weak case, see Orleans Parish, resulting in charges being thrown out by the judge and never being heard by a jury.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 3:52 am
Posted on 9/1/25 at 6:37 am to Tarps99
quote:
Plus now you have juries that can become compromised on racial bias where the DA’s office can show a good case but a juror or two holds out to not convict on race leaving a hung jury and the DA’s office declines to prosecute again, resulting in the case being withdrawn. Or the DA presents a weak case, see Orleans Parish, resulting in charges being thrown out by the judge and never being heard by a jury.
I assume all of you bringing up these types of scenarios are in favor of universal background checks i.e. requiring a background check for any private sale?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:00 am to weagle1999
quote:
I assume all of you bringing up these types of scenarios are in favor of universal background checks i.e. requiring a background check for any private sale?
No. It was just a display of how poorly our judicial system can create a revolving door of justice where repeat offenders get arrested for the same crimes.
A background check is not going to stop a criminal from getting a gun.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 7:03 am
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:03 am to weagle1999
quote:
I assume all of you bringing up these types of scenarios are in favor of universal background checks i.e. requiring a background check for any private sale?
I'd be more in favor of a justice system that strove for pure justice rather than social engineering. That's just me though.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:05 am to weagle1999
As a Law-Abiding Citizen and Gun Owner I have no issues with a 5, or even a 7, day waiting period. I also believe that with this a thorough background check should be completed. Most importantly I have no issues with this because I have had guns since I am 5 years old, have never had a gun related incident, and have never been arrested or charged with any crimes that would prevent me from owning a gun. I am as conservative as it gets yet I still believe that these things are worthwhile and could possibly prevent an incident. Not supporting one viewpoint or another just some basic common sense and reasoning.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 7:13 am to ArcticTiger
quote:
As a Law-Abiding Citizen and Gun Owner I have no issues with a 5, or even a 7, day waiting period. I also believe that with this a thorough background check should be completed. Most importantly I have no issues with this because I have had guns since I am 5 years old, have never had a gun related incident, and have never been arrested or charged with any crimes that would prevent me from owning a gun. I am as conservative as it gets yet I still believe that these things are worthwhile and could possibly prevent an incident. Not supporting one viewpoint or another just some basic common sense and reasoning.
This reads like a copy-paste from Brady-United.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 10:12 am to weagle1999
Well, I can assure that it is not. Just one mans opinion. A man that happens to love his guns by the way.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 10:25 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
As it reads, you only have the right to bear arms if you are a member of an organized and regulated militia.
Dumb take that has been trashed here a thousand times. Sorry, it doesn’t take 9 robed tyrants to know that the militia is comprised of the citizens. The first phrases in the 2A do absolutely nothing to modify the important part, which is; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Posted on 9/1/25 at 10:28 am to ArcticTiger
quote:
As a Law-Abiding Citizen and Gun Owner I have no issues with a 5, or even a 7, day waiting period.
That’s what the sane call an infringement. What if you needed a gun today?
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News