- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
1
Posted on 6/6/14 at 3:56 pm to wickowick
...and that's what I'm talking about.This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 4:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:
these people really never give up. They really want tyranny
It's not tyranny to the tyrant, it's only tyranny to the oppressed. The tyrant is the shepherd guiding his flock.
baaaa
Posted on 6/6/14 at 4:54 pm to Porky
quote:Try answering the question.quote:Guns aren't the problem. It's people. If a person has shown to be a real present danger (of grave harm) to themselves or others, they should be locked up...without anything that can be used as a weapon, I might add.
Because "shall not be infringed" means absolutely no restrictions or laws, right? Or can you be stripped of rights (including the 2nd amendment) if the law dictates that you are a danger to others or yourself?
Do you really feel that "shall not be infringed" means that under no circumstance can guns be legally taken away from you or your ability to get them abridged?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:07 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Do you really feel that "shall not be infringed" means that under no circumstance can guns be legally taken away from you or your ability to get them abridged?
No. Just as there's no right to unlimited free speech. But, in order to regulate speech, the government has to show a compelling interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:09 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Do you really feel that "shall not be infringed" means that under no circumstance can guns be legally taken away from you or your ability to get them abridged?
It means use those guns on any anti-gun, anti-Constitution, piece of shite that wants to "INFRINGE" on your rights.
I firmly believe that is how the Founding Fathers meant it to be.
Shall not be infringed. Such a simple statement, even the morons that voted for Obama should be able to comprehend it.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:23 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Do you really feel that "shall not be infringed" means that under no circumstance can guns be legally taken away from you or your ability to get them abridged?
I'm not a threat to myself or others. Even if I was, it wouldn't be guns that were the problem, though in Arkansas, people already can lose this right.
I support the second amendment and the right of law abiding American citizens to own firearms. If a person has proven to be, and is ruled by their actions to be a threat to themselves or others, I could understand them losing this right. Convicted felons already have lost this right. At least they have in Arkansas. I may be wrong but I'm thinking there are already laws preventing some people with certain mental conditions from possessing guns but I'm thinking it's decided by court order with substantial evidence supporting it on an individual basis. And I'm OK with that.
I do believe felons should lose the right only if they have committed a crime with a gun or committed a violent crime. To my knowledge, no felon can legally possess a firearm, not in Arkansas. There may be exceptions. I don't know.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:26 pm to SavageOrangeJug
Serious question... If the founders meant Congress shall not pass laws infringing on gun ownership, period, they must have seen there was authority to pass such legislation in the first place. Now if the founders didnt contemplate the Depression era expansion of the commerce clause (which original it's believe as do I) why and how would they contemplate or see the need for this amendment? If they did not give Congress authority to do so, then why feel the need to stop them from doing something they had no right to do?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:29 pm to Porky
quote:
It's hard enough trusting politicians who are exclusively U.S. citizens. If I'm not mistaken, neither of these are
Feinstein and Boxer? Both are. Ted Cruz is not.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:30 pm to DonChowder
quote:
You really this hot headed IRL?
You really this over sensitive IRL?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:32 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:quote:
Posted by Vegas Bengal
quote:
It's hard enough trusting politicians who are exclusively U.S. citizens. If I'm not mistaken, neither of these are
Feinstein and Boxer? Both are. Ted Cruz is not.
Cruz isn't a citizen?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:34 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Feinstein and Boxer? Both are. Ted Cruz is not.
I was thinking Feinstein and Boxer both had dual citizenship. No?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:34 pm to Porky
Why would they? Both born here.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:36 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Message
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Yes. Why do you ask?
I must have read it wrong, I thought that was what you were saying...
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:37 pm to wickowick
He used the word "exclusively".
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:44 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You really this over sensitive IRL?
I wouldn't consider myself sensitive at all. I've just noticed a trend where you come flying out if nowhere armed with a bunch of vitriolic speech. I'm married to someone like that and it's not an endearing quality.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 5:47 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Why would they? Both born here.
Hell if I know why...
For some reason, I thought they both had dual citizenship. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway... FWIW, I still don't trust either of them.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 6:07 pm
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News