- 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
re: Does the 2nd Ammendment really exist today in the way it was intended?
Posted on 6/18/23 at 1:21 pm to Strannix
Posted on 6/18/23 at 1:21 pm to Strannix
quote:Where the Hell do you get this nonsense?
So Jim Crow was legal? Hhhhmmmmm
Getting rid of Jim Crow had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. That arose (primarily) from the Equal Protection language of the FOURTEENTH Amendment, in large part as authorization for the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s (though it started sooner just under the 14th, e.g Brown/Board).
FFS, did you even ATTEND school in your youth?
1
Posted on 6/18/23 at 1:26 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Absolutely not. It was originally intended to apply ONLY to the fedgov. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban guns as they saw fit.
Sure...but you have to ignore a frick-ton of historical context to pretend restriction by the states was ever the intent.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 1:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It was not intended to affirmatively "allow" the States to restrict gun rights. It was written and intended SOLELY to preclude the federal government from sticking its nose and hands into the issue.
Absolutely not. It was originally intended to apply ONLY to the fedgov. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban guns as they saw fit.quote:
Sure...but you have to ignore a frick-ton of historical context to pretend restriction by the states was ever the intent.
States were free to restrict, regulate or (yes) promote gun rights ... as they saw fit.
Did the Drafters of the Amendment anticipate that States would be LIKELY to restrict/regulate? Who knows. It wasn't what they were addressing.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 1:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It was not intended to affirmatively "allow" the States to restrict gun rights. It was written and intended SOLELY to preclude the federal government from sticking its nose and hands into the issue.
States were free to restrict, regulate or (yes) promote gun rights ... as they saw fit.
Did the Drafters of the Amendment anticipate that States would be LIKELY to restrict/regulate? Who knows. It wasn't what they were addressing.
This is all nice, but misses my point. It doesn't apply to states, because it wasn't necessary at the time, when state militias were independent of the federal military.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 2:09 pm to AggieHank86
You are the one that cant read MF, I was being facetious. Your mental illness is killing your mental capabilities.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 2:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
States were free to restrict
You pretending to be a lawyer is a sweet troll
Posted on 6/18/23 at 2:30 pm to Strannix
quote:
The founding fathers were out cutting throats over a 2 cent tea tax. We are weak and pampered with no backbone.
Just shows you how ballsy they were taking on the world's most powerful military.
It was unbelievably risky.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 2:34 pm to burger bearcat
The fact that citizens can’t own full auto proves that the 2A doesn’t exist.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 3:13 pm to Timeoday
quote:
I am sure, within the next 3 - 5 years, the National Firearms Act of 1934 will be challenged and overturned as unconstitutional.
I would absolutely love it but there isn’t any way this is happening. SCOTUS won’t have the balls to overturn it.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 3:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
States were free to restrict, regulate or (yes) promote gun rights ... as they saw fit.
Sorta like the anti baby killing laws?
Posted on 6/18/23 at 3:22 pm to lsufan1971
quote:Similar concept, yes.
States were free to restrict, regulate or (yes) promote gun rights ... as they saw fit.quote:
Sorta like the anti baby killing laws?
Posted on 6/18/23 at 4:24 pm to burger bearcat
Freedom and liberty is and always has been in YOUR hands, not anyone else’s. Nobody can rule a people who refuse to be ruled, and nobody can seize weapons if they refuse to surrender such weapons. I don’t care who it is that is doing the seizing. You are free until you willingly surrender that freedom.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 4:39 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
SCOTUS won’t have the balls to overturn it.
Bruen opened the door wide for it to happen. It would be very hard to save the 1935 Act when the language of Bruen definitely says "it must go"!!
This post was edited on 6/18/23 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 6/18/23 at 5:08 pm to burger bearcat
Barely. But the Marxist are trying....
Our problem wouldn't be guns but the ability to organize if any meaningful revolt would occur.
Our problem wouldn't be guns but the ability to organize if any meaningful revolt would occur.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 5:10 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Having the guns but not having the guts to use them, pretty much cancels out having the guns.
True…..but if you’re the authoritarians, knowing there are tens of millions of Americans with substantial caches of weapons….. they still have to weigh out the potential for an organized resistance.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 5:13 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
The fact that citizens can’t own full auto, nukes, chemicals and space borne platforms proves that the 2A doesn’t exist.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 5:16 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Barely. But the Marxist are trying.... Our problem wouldn't be guns but the ability to organize if any meaningful revolt would occur.
Command and Control is definitely lacking but there are hundreds of thousands of patriots with the background and skills to ramp up command and control much faster than you think.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 5:19 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
100% correct. 99.999% of Americans will have their guns taken away from them from their warm, shaking, clammy hands (not cold dead hands). The 0.0001% who actually use it to stop government tyranny when it arrives at their doorstep will be called "crazy" by the 99.999% who gave up their 2nd amendment right without a single shot fired.
I’m not so sure about this ^^^^. I think if the government starts confiscating the firearms of street level Americans it will be a flashpoint.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 6:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It was not intended to affirmatively "allow" the States to restrict gun rights. It was written and intended SOLELY to preclude the federal government from sticking its nose and hands into the issue. States were free to restrict, regulate or (yes) promote gun rights ... as they saw fit. Did the Drafters of the Amendment anticipate that States would be LIKELY to restrict/regulate? Who knows. It wasn't what they were addressing.
States can’t trump the constitution and restrict God given rights.
Posted on 6/18/23 at 6:15 pm to burger bearcat
The way it was intended was written a couple hundred years ago and there's no way the framers could possibly fathom what out civilization would look like.
They wrote needing a well armed militia because back then yeah they needed one. We don't today and such a thing doesn't exist.
I'm not saying to do away with the 2nd amendment or anything, but people just need to take the vast time and changes that have occurred to our society into account when talking about it.
They wrote needing a well armed militia because back then yeah they needed one. We don't today and such a thing doesn't exist.
I'm not saying to do away with the 2nd amendment or anything, but people just need to take the vast time and changes that have occurred to our society into account when talking about it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News