- 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 3:44 pm to roadGator
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:44 pm to roadGator
quote:
I’m glad you aren’t on the Supreme Court, wildTcommie.
Do you care to expound on what exactly "infringement" requires vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment?
I'm, not sure why you want to associate discussing hypothetical situations in terms of the Bill of Rights with communism.
Or are you just ironically trying to shut down the conversation?
0
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:47 pm to Hester Carries
The right to defend one's home, family, property,and person is a natural right. It is not to be treated as a privilege or subject to regulation. This was the intent of the authors of the Constitution.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:47 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
Law/s and Precident/s that support?
Every single law passed in this country, and their supporting decisions, limiting what arms we can bear, and when and where we can bear them.
Can you appear in court brandishing a sub-machine gun? No. Your right to bear arms is restricted by the government.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
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.
And what Militia (2) would that be that reports to civilian authority?
I could start Cajun Militia and have 1,000 members. I don't have to report to anyone. As long as I'm not breaking laws, I'm good.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:50 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
Why don't you back up your thinking with Law?
You can't, that's why.
Jesus Christ, I didn't realize that everyone had to back up all of their positions with legal decisions on this board.
BTW, I answered your last request for 'law?'.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:50 pm to EasterEgg
quote:Only the idiots with a limited vocabulary. The term “regulated” is a reference to drill and maneuvers, not government oversight. Go read some von Steuben.
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."
Many people would argue that the 2nd Amendment requires that regulations be placed on gun ownership.
Also Congress gave itself the power to raise an army elsewhere in the constitution. Finally, using “regulate” (incorrectly) would mean the 2A is the only amendment of the bill of right to grant a new power to the Congress.
None of the interpretations as “government oversight” make any sense.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 3:59 pm to rltiger
quote:
I could start Cajun Militia and have 1,000 members. I don't have to report to anyone. As long as I'm not breaking laws, I'm good.
I never said you wouldn't be "good", just not a "well regulated militia".
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:02 pm to roadGator
quote:
I’m glad you aren’t on the Supreme Court, wildTcommie.
Bro, you have freedom of speech, it's just that the government has to approve of what you say first. You can still say whatever you want, as long as it's on their official list of "things you can say".
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:03 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Law/s and Precedent/s that support?
I'm still waiting...
Has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the second amendment. Period.
There is no point in having a substantial discussion with an idiot. They say what they want and call it a fact. When they are presented with real facts, they obfuscate.
You need to go take your nap. When you wake up, mommy will give you some ice cream.
I'm still waiting...
quote:
Can you appear in court brandishing a sub-machine gun?
Has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the second amendment. Period.
There is no point in having a substantial discussion with an idiot. They say what they want and call it a fact. When they are presented with real facts, they obfuscate.
You need to go take your nap. When you wake up, mommy will give you some ice cream.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:04 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Wouldn't it be cool if the government just issued these rifles?"
Interestingly, the vast majority of people for gun control claim that it doesn't apply to the people but is meant to prohibit congress from restricting states.
So, by that measure, if Congress banned private companies from making guns, the states could open their own state owned arms factories and build them for their citizens. They would then make them available to their citizens as official members of that state's militia.
There would be nothing that Congress could do.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:07 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Huh? Nothing in his post said anything about their discipline for drilling and formation.
I never said you wouldn't be "good", just not a "well regulated militia".
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Jesus Christ, I didn't realize that everyone had to back up all of their positions with legal decisions on this board.
When you call something "law", be prepared to defend it.
quote:
BTW, I answered your last request for 'law?'.
Again, you would like to think so, but again you are WRONG.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Please delete.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:11 pm to TrueTiger
History plays an important part in analyzing the 2nd amendment
At the time of the revolution, all of those fighting used guns they owned. At the time it was recognized as arguably the single biggest factor in leading to a victory. Without those guns chance of success was practically zero.
The other consideration involved states rights and the ability to fight federal dominance and the need for those citizens to have firearms.
While protection of your family and home is a consideration, the reason for arms is to allow for protection of the state against the overreach of the federal government
At the time of the revolution, all of those fighting used guns they owned. At the time it was recognized as arguably the single biggest factor in leading to a victory. Without those guns chance of success was practically zero.
The other consideration involved states rights and the ability to fight federal dominance and the need for those citizens to have firearms.
While protection of your family and home is a consideration, the reason for arms is to allow for protection of the state against the overreach of the federal government
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:14 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
There is no point in having a substantial discussion with an idiot. They say what they want and call it a fact. When they are presented with real facts, they obfuscate.
You need to go take your nap. When you wake up, mommy will give you some ice cream.
Jesus Christ, man, wtf is wrong with you? You can't have a simple discussion about hypotheticals?
I'm not here to make a case to take anyone's guns, I'm looking for opinions on if the government can be consider infringing if they actually issue firearms. You haven't exactly provided a whole lot of case law to support your position. And, as a matter of fact, when you say:
quote:
[brandishing a machine gun in court] has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the second amendment. Period.
...it doesn't make much sense. The government restricts what kind of a gun you may keep ("sub-machine gun") and restricts when and where you may bear it ("in court"). Are these restrictions "infringements"?
And try to avoid the name calling and other personal attacks, they don't work like you think they do.
I've just wondered if the government could get around the whole issue by simply issuing guns. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING WHAT GUNS WE MAY KEEP AND BEAR. Nor does it mean that I am against it. I would just like an opinion if issuing would necessarily skirt the infringement issue.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:16 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Huh? Nothing in his post said anything about their discipline for drilling and formation.
wut?
Neither did I.
You ever read about the Lafayette Vigilance Committee?
Yeah, they weren't a militia. Mostly because they applied to the governor, but he refused to sanction them.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:17 pm to EasterEgg
quote:
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."
Only part that matters.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:19 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Do we have gun laws? Yeah? Then we dont have a 2A.
If we're being honest, the "right to bear arms" is not restricted to guns.
The 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee that we can arm ourselves by whatever means we see fit.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say shite about "guns."
Posted on 5/31/22 at 4:20 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
just not a "well regulated militia".
You just have to have regular practice.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News