- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Chris Cuomo thinks Scalia Invented the 2A
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:53 am
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:53 am
I wish that I were kidding. This is what he said:
Chris Cuomo Tweets Peak Stupid
quote:
Do you remember what the 2a was created for? That there was no individual right contemplated until Scalia read it in? If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state controls access.
Chris Cuomo Tweets Peak Stupid
18
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:55 am to Wednesday
quote:
If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state controls access.
So originalists think the state controls rights and individual rights don't exist?
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of this says the state controls the right and its not an individual right?
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 8:56 am
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:58 am to Wednesday
These people think the BoR is a document that states what rights the government grants you, not the inalienable rights they are aren't allowed to infringe upon.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:01 am to Wednesday
quote:
That there was no individual right contemplated until Scalia read it in?
Well, if that is true, that's true for every single thing in the Constitution, because it has all been litigated.
They so badly want to make it read, "The Second Amendment says that the government entities like the police and military can be armed." Now, that's nonsense, both in context and just the plain reading of it. Yet they reject any argument or suggestion to the contrary.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:01 am to Wednesday
I think Chris Cuomo is legit retarded. But for his last name he would probably be selling Hyundais in Rochester.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:03 am to Wednesday
Chris Cuomo: The 2nd amendment exists to protect the government's right to carry weapons.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:05 am to upgrayedd
quote:
These people think the BoR is a document that states what rights the government grants you, not the inalienable rights they are aren't allowed to infringe upon.
This.
It’s a complete misreading of the document’s intent.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:07 am to Wednesday
Let a Cuomo talk long enough, and he'll reveal his stupidity
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:08 am to Wednesday
Scalia did not “read in” an individual right. He did his job, which was to interpret the Second Amendment and apply it to the case. He did that. He literally interpreted the exact language of the Second Amendment. He said that the prefatory clause (militia part) announced a purpose for, but did not limit, the second part, which said the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 9:11 am
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:08 am to Wednesday
Remember when the left used to say "No one is coming for your precious guns"?
I miss those days.
I miss those days.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:18 am to Wednesday
And just to think, for the last 250 years, Americans have completely misread the 2nd Amendment and have been illegally personally owning guns.
Thanks for coming along and clearing that up for us, Chris.
What a douche.
Thanks for coming along and clearing that up for us, Chris.
What a douche.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:20 am to Wednesday
quote:
Chris Cuomo thinks
This has never happened
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:35 am to Wednesday
There’s a reason he is known as Fredo, of the Cuomo crime family. This is juat one example.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 10:12 am to Wednesday
Every amendment in the BoR is not a “granting of rights.” In the FF’s eyes, all men were born with those rights and the amendments were to be an assurance of individual liberty against the government.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 10:21 am to Wednesday
I typically find something good in most folks. I think having a beer with Rachel Maddow would be very interesting and entertaining.
But Chris Cuomo is an epic douche. 100% unlikable and uninteresting. He's so arrogant for such a dumass. Who can forget him telling everyone that they were not to form their own opinions based on wikileaks emails. Rather we should get our opinion from him and other media....cause it's illegal for us to read them
But Chris Cuomo is an epic douche. 100% unlikable and uninteresting. He's so arrogant for such a dumass. Who can forget him telling everyone that they were not to form their own opinions based on wikileaks emails. Rather we should get our opinion from him and other media....cause it's illegal for us to read them
Posted on 8/8/19 at 11:13 am to Wednesday
your thread title is bad and stupid.
But we owe a lot to Scalia. If it weren't for Scalia hammering out a deal with Kennedy, Heller would have gone the other way and screwed us badly. Kennedy screwed us anyway bc he demanded Heller only apply to the home, but that doesn't take away from Scalia's achievement. Cuomo is obviously wrong about his angle, but Scalia for all intents and purposes is the reason we didn't have that individual right stolen.
But we owe a lot to Scalia. If it weren't for Scalia hammering out a deal with Kennedy, Heller would have gone the other way and screwed us badly. Kennedy screwed us anyway bc he demanded Heller only apply to the home, but that doesn't take away from Scalia's achievement. Cuomo is obviously wrong about his angle, but Scalia for all intents and purposes is the reason we didn't have that individual right stolen.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 11:27 am to Wednesday
Just when you thought Cuomo couldn’t get anymore delusional.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 11:34 am to Wednesday
quote:It is true that the history of jurisprudence on the matter seems to indicate that interpreting it as an individual right was a very recent construct.
Do you remember what the 2a was created for? That there was no individual right contemplated until Scalia read it in? If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state controls access.
podcast on the topic
Posted on 8/8/19 at 12:02 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
It is true that the history of jurisprudence on the matter seems to indicate that interpreting it as an individual right was a very recent construct.
Yeah, no. LINK
Posted on 8/8/19 at 12:07 pm to Wednesday
quote:
That there was no individual right contemplated until Scalia read it in? If you are an originalist about the constitution you have no basis for thinking you and not the state controls access.
That is Toddy level stupid.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News