- 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 3:18 pm to Tigerinthewoods
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:18 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
Let's just stick with actual law and facts for now, OK?
Fine.
If the government restricted gun ownership to only those guns issued (shall issue) by the government, could it be considered infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms?
2
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:18 pm to Hester Carries
You Sir are an idiot. That is the worst constitutional analysis that I have ever seen. Luckily for you, you have just been qualified to be nominated for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Let's go BRANDON
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:19 pm to Flats
quote:
Ask the legal geniuses who thought limiting marriage to men/women infringed on someone's right to marry.
Are they on this board?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:19 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
issuing the firearms deemed lawful (as long as they're effective, as the ones listed are) the right has not been infringed upon, IMO.
maybe in a technical sense
but in a practical sense, it's an infringement
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:19 pm to Tigerinthewoods
The left has active and violent armed militias.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:21 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Are they on this board?
Nah; just a poor excuse for a troll.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:22 pm to Hester Carries
Prior to the constitution, gun ownership was a given and a right from day 1 in European Americas.
Guns are more American than Apple Pie. Way more than gay marriage, woman voting, trans-conversion of children, etc.
If we had some good political fighters on the Right, they wouldn't let the left turn the narrative so successfully. Letting them out of the corner like usual. Especially when they can point to Canada's new approach, and show that is where the left wants to take us. Looking forward to seeing who all will be sent in to take guns away.
I've said it before, and won't ever change my opinion...there are a whole lot of "rights" that need to go away before gun rights are taken away.
This is just another feather in the "fundamental transformation of America" hat.
Guns are more American than Apple Pie. Way more than gay marriage, woman voting, trans-conversion of children, etc.
If we had some good political fighters on the Right, they wouldn't let the left turn the narrative so successfully. Letting them out of the corner like usual. Especially when they can point to Canada's new approach, and show that is where the left wants to take us. Looking forward to seeing who all will be sent in to take guns away.
I've said it before, and won't ever change my opinion...there are a whole lot of "rights" that need to go away before gun rights are taken away.
This is just another feather in the "fundamental transformation of America" hat.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:22 pm to tgerb8
quote:
A militia was meant to be an arm of defense loosely affiliated with the central government because they had similar goals.
Wrong. The militia generally answers to the governor of a state, or the president. Sometimes to local law enforcement. Well regulated militias never act independently from the government.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:24 pm to Flats
quote:
Nah; just a poor excuse for a troll.
Ah, I see.
Well, what's your opinion? If the government actually issues guns from a list of lawful firearms, and allows citizens to keep and bear them, could the government be legally consider to be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
If the government restricted gun ownership to only those guns issued (shall issue) by the government, could it be considered infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms?
Is this a serious question?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
If the government restricted gun ownership to only those guns issued (shall issue) by the government, could it be considered infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms?
It absolutely is infringement on our rights.
The 2nd Amendment gives the citizen the right to form a Militia and to keep and bear arms. It does not give the government the right to limit those freedoms in any way, shape, or form.
It does not say "keep and bear arms as outlined/defined by the Federal Government."
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:28 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
maybe in a technical sense
but in a practical sense, it's an infringement
I'm wondering about a legal sense.
It's just something that occurred to me years ago when I was looking around at CMP Springfields and realizing that I waited too long. I first thought, "Wouldn't it be cool if the government just issued these rifles?"
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:30 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Wrong. The militia generally answers to the governor of a state, or the president. Sometimes to local law enforcement. Well regulated militias never act independently from the government.
You are wrong..
A militia does not answer to anyone, but are bound by the laws of the State/US.
Don't confuse a militia with the National Guard or Reserve. They answer to the branch of the military that they are attached to, and by the states they are part of.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The militia generally answers to the governor of a state, or the president. Sometimes to local law enforcement. Well regulated militias never act independently from the government.
Again, you are without question, WRONG.
Just because you like the way you think, does not mean you are correct.
Why don't you back up your thinking with Law?
You can't, that's why.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:35 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
The 2nd Amendment gives the citizen the right to form a Militia and to keep and bear arms.
If the government issued the firearms, they wouldn't be infringing on these rights, would they?
quote:
It does not say "keep and bear arms as outlined/defined by the Federal Government."
No, but it also doesn't say, "Whatever the hell arms anybody can dream up" either.
Does the government have to allow the People any means desired to bear whatever arms they please in order to not be considered infringing? Or does the government just simply have to allow the People to be able to bear some arms (which must be effective) in order to satisfy 2A?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:36 pm to subotic
quote:
Is this a serious question?
Yes. Infringing on the type of arms is not infringing on the right to bear arms.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I’m glad you aren’t on the Supreme Court, wildTcommie.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:40 pm to rltiger
quote:
You are wrong..
I may be, but your post doesn't really say how.
You seem to be the one confusing militia with nation guard. See here:
quote:
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That's what I'm talking about. That militia reports to civilian authority.
Otherwise it's just an armed gang.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:41 pm to Tigerinthewoods
They sure don't do anything to the black paramilitary group that has marched around Georgia armed up them black "assault rifles"
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:44 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Infringing on the type of arms is not infringing on the right to bear arms.
Law/s and Precident/s that support?
I'll wait...
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News