- 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
1
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:56 pm to OBReb6
quote:
So this alleged appeal to individualism by the founders in the US constitution is shaky ground.
I'm not sure anyone is doing that, but I was the one to invoke the Founders and how they saw the relationship of the individual to his country vis-a-vis liberty vs security.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:56 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
It's not a deflection when it's the very reason I entered the discussion.
I don't care about any of that. I corrected your misunderstanding of the language of the Second Amendment. You can discuss the rest with someone else.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:57 pm to OBReb6
quote:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9
And it’s for this very reason that for everything there must be oversight and regulation, and others with oversight into those with oversight.
I am all for a free market, but the so called “free market” is clearly not a fair market either, and not without favoritism, privilege, and outright corruption. It’s also not a net benefit to society when competing with a slave labor free market, not at the detriment to our own manufacturing nor in competition bringing the best product to market. It’s just economic suicide. That’s what it is. That’s why it’s never a good thing to be absolute or go too far in one direction or another, and this is where society finds itself. I believe people would rather wrap themselves in their idealisms than actually do what is best for the citizens of the United States of America. It’s radical, and it’s always either too much regulation that stymies growth or it’s not enough and corruption is at it’s core, and neither serve the American people.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:57 pm to SlayTime
"Civic nationalism" isn't really defined well, but I can tell you that I do not support ethnic nationalism, in basically any form you can created based on the vagueness relied on in that article.
You can go back a few pages to see me describe why.
You can go back a few pages to see me describe why.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:58 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I believe people would rather wrap themselves in their idealisms than actually do what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Thanks, Bernie
Posted on 2/16/25 at 6:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Tell us more about how a Supreme Court ruling changed the language of the Second Amendment.
quote:
In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:00 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Tell us more about how a Supreme Court ruling changed the language of the Second Amendment.
I can wait.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:05 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You said this
As a response to this
When the second amendment was not considered an individual right at the time this was written, so it makes your point irrelevant
quote:
Holy bad fricking example to use.
The Second Amendment is an individual right.
There's still time to edit this out.
As a response to this
quote:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
When the second amendment was not considered an individual right at the time this was written, so it makes your point irrelevant
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:07 pm to OBReb6
quote:
When the second amendment was not considered an individual right at the time this was written
It was, and the language of the Second Amendment hasn't changed. There's been no need.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. Given the concerns about centralized power shared by Federalist and Anti-Federalists alike, this is no surprise. Federalist arguments for strong national power always presupposed strong power in states as well. Tellingly, all the states who proposed any amendments at all suggested the principle of the Tenth Amendment: if the Constitution does not give the national government a certain power, that power is kept by the states and the people. The idea that a distant national government knew better than the people of each individual state what kinds of laws that state should have would have been puzzling to most people during the Founding era and for the first century of the republic.
Bill of Rights Institute- Essay: The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:11 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Tell us more about how a Supreme Court ruling changed the language of the Second Amendment.
Still waiting...
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I can tell you that I do not support ethnic nationalism
quote:
That's why you instill the cultures we know are productive. Some cultures were able to fast-track adoption of Western culture, so there wasn't a real conflict. When other cultures do conflict, their choice is devolved status/culture or joining the evolved world. Remember, this digression started discussing areas who specifically have not dropped these cultures. I'm not saying all cultures are equal or that they are all compatible with Western culture or anything of the sort, FWIW>
To me it sounds like you somewhat support ethnic nationalism, as long as it’s ethnicities you deem productive/compatible with the majority.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I could not be more clear and it’s obvious you are just floundering and have no points. What you’re asking for is irrelevant to the point and you know that.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:14 pm to SlayTime
quote:
To me it sounds like you somewhat support ethnic nationalism, as long as it’s ethnicities you deem productive/compatible with the majority.
Culture is agnostic to ethnicity. That seems to be your analytical issue/assumption.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
misunderstanding
That's the only place the Constitution mentions "security".
That's what the Constitution has to say about it as applies to the state, a militia is necessary for it. That's it, that's all, the end. No more.
That's when you freaked out.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:22 pm to OBReb6
quote:
I could not be more clear
Agreed.
That doesn't make you less wrong.
The Second Amendment is an individual right. It always has been. It always will be. There's nothing you can post to change that.
quote:
What you’re asking for is irrelevant to the point and you know that.
You're doing what people often do when they're wrong. You're trying to change the point. Not happening.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Second Amendment is an individual right. It always has been. It always will be. There's nothing you can post to change that.
quote:
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. Given the concerns about centralized power shared by Federalist and Anti-Federalists alike, this is no surprise. Federalist arguments for strong national power always presupposed strong power in states as well. Tellingly, all the states who proposed any amendments at all suggested the principle of the Tenth Amendment: if the Constitution does not give the national government a certain power, that power is kept by the states and the people. The idea that a distant national government knew better than the people of each individual state what kinds of laws that state should have would have been puzzling to most people during the Founding era and for the first century of the republic.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:24 pm to Harry Boutte
Nice try.
quote:
The REALLY fricking crazy thing about the 2nd Amendment is how absolutely blind people are to this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
There's nothing "individual" about the militia. And the militia is NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a free STATE.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:24 pm to OBReb6
quote:
The Second Amendment is an individual right. It always has been. It always will be. There's nothing you can post to change that.
Page 12 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News