- 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: Hot Take: There is no 2nd Amendment
Posted on 5/31/22 at 2:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 5/31/22 at 2:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Absolutely, and their intention is to infringe as far as possible.
1
Posted on 5/31/22 at 2:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Yes, just because they supplied arms doesn't erase the fact that they are limiting quantity and choices.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 2:59 pm to Hester Carries
I think our guns should be given the same rights as women.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A "well-regulated" militia is subordinate to civil authority.
You are unequivocally wrong.
Nowhere does it state this in the Constitution.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:01 pm to Tigerinthewoods
The militia is meant to be the people no question about it. No where does it specify it has to be organized
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:01 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A "well-regulated" militia is subordinate to civil authority.
or, perhaps the civil authority owes its existence to the militia
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:03 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
just because they supplied arms doesn't erase the fact that they are limiting quantity and choices.
How is limiting your supply and choices infringing on your right to keep and bear arms?
If the government issues you firearms:
Can you keep arms? Yes.
Can you bear arms? Yes.
I'm not seeing the infringement.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:03 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
Absolutely
How so if the government actually issues the firearms?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
If it’s on uncle Sams nickel I would like a couple belt feds and a barret 50 cal
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:05 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
You are unequivocally wrong.
Nowhere does it state this in the Constitution.
There's a lot of stuff that isn't actually defined in the Constitution.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:07 pm to bayoudude
quote:
If it’s on uncle Sams nickel I would like a couple belt feds and a barret 50 cal
No.
The government issues you two of the guns listed.
Can they then be accused of infringing on your right to keep and bear arms?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:08 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
It would be like the government saying that you can only use Twitter and Facebook to exercise your first amendment rights.
That would feel like and infringement from all the other technology out there wouldn't it?
OR,
Let's take Obamacare for example.
We are limited to only the type of health care policies that are approved. Other types that people enjoyed for years and that served their needs are outlawed.
Plenty of people feel like that was an infringement on their healthcare choices.
That would feel like and infringement from all the other technology out there wouldn't it?
OR,
Let's take Obamacare for example.
We are limited to only the type of health care policies that are approved. Other types that people enjoyed for years and that served their needs are outlawed.
Plenty of people feel like that was an infringement on their healthcare choices.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:08 pm to Hester Carries
I would argue that we have gun rights per 2nd amendment but also have v government infringement illegally
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
How is limiting your supply and choices infringing on your right to keep and bear arms?
Ask the legal geniuses who thought limiting marriage to men/women infringed on someone's right to marry.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:10 pm to EasterEgg
quote:
"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."
People simply cant read with good comprehensions. The first part is simply them establishing why they are establishing the amendment. It is not a qualifier or a further permission.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:12 pm to Hester Carries
Yep just says an armed populace is necessary for the security Of the free states and that right shall not be infringed. It isn’t complicated and anyone trying to interpret otherwise is being disingenuous
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:13 pm to EasterEgg
quote:I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say: “what if SCOTUS interprets the Constitution to mean you have to formally be in a militia to own guns AND what if your state decides they don’t want you in their militia? Can your gun rights be stripped from you?
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and point out the the full amendment reads: "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."
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A "well-regulated" militia is subordinate to civil authority.
You do know that in a republic the "civil authority" belongs to the people? A militia was meant to be an arm of defense loosely affiliated with the central government because they had similar goals. When the government does not have the goals of the people in mind it is no longer a valid authority. Nor was it ever the top authority.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:15 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
There's a lot of stuff that isn't actually defined in the Constitution.
There's a lot of stuff floating around in your head as well. Doesn't make it founded in reality.
Let's just stick with actual law and facts for now, OK?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:16 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
It would be like the government saying that you can only use Twitter and Facebook to exercise your first amendment rights.
That would feel like and infringement from all the other technology out there wouldn't it?
Slander and libel laws already infringe on my 1st Amendment rights. But then, the 1st doesn't say anything about the government not infringing on those rights.
If infringing is in any way keeping a citizen from his right to bear arms, issuing the firearms deemed lawful (as long as they're effective, as the ones listed are) the right has not been infringed upon, IMO.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News