- 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: Can anyone defend being a libertarian anymore?
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:24 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.
1
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:25 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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:26 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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:26 pm to OBReb6
The Second Amendment is an individual right. It always has been. It always will be. There's nothing you can post to change that.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Culture is agnostic to ethnicity.
This is confusing. Would appreciate clarification.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:26 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.
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.
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 7:28 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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:30 pm to SlayTime
quote:
This is confusing. Would appreciate clarification.
They're separate concepts.
Culture is agnostic to ethnicity. It's exportable.
Culture and ethnicity have a correlation but no causal link.
You can't be intellectually honest and substitute "ethnicity" for "culture" (and vice versa).
Hopefully one of those works.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. DisplacedCuckeye is a midwit faggot and has never made a good faith argument in his life
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:31 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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:33 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. DisplacedCuckeye is a midwit faggot and has never made a good faith argument in his life
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:33 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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm just quoting my own text so people scrolling think I'm participating in this tit for tat
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Culture and ethnicity have a correlation but no causal link
Twitter Link
Would like your thoughts on Grok’s opinion.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
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.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:36 pm to OBReb6
Yeah I’m definitely stealing this 
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:40 pm to SlayTime
quote:
Would like your thoughts on Grok’s opinion.
You only chose one to snipe an AI response
quote:
Ethnicity often encompasses shared cultural practices, traditions, and heritage that are passed down through generations within a particular group.
Culture includes aspects like language, religion, customs, and social behaviors, which can be strongly influenced by one's ethnic background.
The exportability of culture shows it's completely separate from ethnicity.
Culture is a societal trial and error. While "shared cultural practices, traditions, and heritage" played a role in that developmental process, the "final" (at that particular moment) form of culture can be severed from all of those things and transported to a population who lacks a "shared cultural practices, traditions, and heritage" , and that society can fully adopt the culture presented.
See: Asia during the industrial era. You will not find a more closed off and racist society than Japan and they adopted Western culture within a generation and were buttfricking all of Asia from a small island with little natural resources by the 3rd generation. We also have various examples of the differences in impact of the scale of adoption (Taiwan v. China and North v. South Korea).
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:49 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Why am I not surprised that you're misrepresenting my posts?
My first to reference the 2nd was here:
...because the context was security vs liberty.
And that's where in the Constitution it mentions defending and providing security as functions of the state. We form armies and militias so that we may defend and secure the rights of the People. These are ways we give up some liberty for some security.
My first to reference the 2nd was here:
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."
"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."
...because the context was security vs liberty.
And that's where in the Constitution it mentions defending and providing security as functions of the state. We form armies and militias so that we may defend and secure the rights of the People. These are ways we give up some liberty for some security.
Posted on 2/16/25 at 7:50 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Why am I not surprised that you're misrepresenting my posts?
I directly quoted you....
Here it is again:
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.
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News