- 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: Illinois’ plan to void the 2nd Amendment
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:59 pm to VOR
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:59 pm to VOR
quote:
No one who is a literalist or strict constructionist could argue those bills violate the 2nd Amendment. People would be free to own firearms. Their choice
You are amazingly stupid.
0
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:00 pm to VOR
quote:
Tjhe 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee that gun ownership will be inexpensive.
But it does
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:00 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Incorrect. Those bills easily constitute undue infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms, thus violating the 2nd amendment. Not at all difficult to make an argument against this.
Agreed.
From a technical standpoint, even "permissive" laws surrounding issuance of permits for concealed carry could constitute infringement.
No governmental permit should be necessary in the exercise of this right.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:00 pm to VOR
quote:
No one who is a literalist or strict constructionist could argue those bills violate the 2nd Amendment. People would be free to own firearms. Their choice
Full of shite as usual, I see. Get back to me when you get your pea brain around the definition of infringed.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:01 pm to VOR
quote:
2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee that gun ownership will be inexpensive.
Dude, this is an intellectually untenable argument you're making here. I think you know that.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:03 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Don't imagine VOR to be anything approaching an intellectual.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:04 pm to Apollyon
quote:
From a technical standpoint, even "permissive" laws surrounding issuance of permits for concealed carry could constitute infringement.
True. VOR wants to talking about literalism, the fact is the 2A is already extremely infringed upon as it stands today. How many gun laws on the books today? Something north of 22,000 or something like that? Further infringement should be out of the question if one is adopting the literalist view.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:07 pm to MeatCleaverWeaver
Who the hell is down voting the fact the armory is in Massachusetts?
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:10 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
A photo ID seems to infringe the right to vote.
Not nearly to the same degree, and certainly not under the same auspices. The entire purpose of the voting process is to allow citizens to exercise their right to participate in the selection of their representatives. Requiring an ID isn't infringing upon that right--it is preventing that right from being infringed upon by those not intended to be a part of that selection process (i.e., foreign influences). And it is not prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain an ID. It is the bare minimum form of verification required for daily matters of much lesser import in our society.
Nothing about voter ID is comparable to the measures being proposed regarding gun ownership in Illinois.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:13 pm to roadGator
quote:
Springfield, Massachusetts
it's shocking to think that Massachusetts was once America's arsenal.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:14 pm to VOR
quote:
Tjhe 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee that gun ownership will be inexpensive.
Let's examine this retarded statement further. The 2nd Amendment is an individual civil right, that is indisputable. VOR here argues that it is permissable for the State to set conditions on an individual civil right, that would effectively bar large swathes of the population from exercising this right. He then argues that such a thing would be in line with originalist legal interpretation, without citing anything that supports such an idiotic notion.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:17 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
I can see this going over like a lead Ballon in areas from Champaign all the way to the Ohio River. Lots of baws down in South Illinois ......good hunting in the hill country down there around Harrisburg/Eldorado.
Correct. Problem is the state is run by urban liberals due to population alloted seats in the statehouse and popular vote for governor.
It is why so many liberals are harping on popular vote instead of the electoral college. They want the same thing to happen on a national scale - for the rural population to be ruled by the urban "elites". After all you don't need much grey matter to be a farmer.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:22 pm to TrueTiger
I guess you’d be shocked at 1849 San Francisco...seriously? Founding Fathers?
Btw, if you are a gun guy and up there, the armory has an awesome museum.
Btw, if you are a gun guy and up there, the armory has an awesome museum.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:27 pm to teke184
quote:
Requiring excessive amounts of insurance seems to fricking infringe.
Welp... If healthcare is a right then certainly this insurance would qualify as a right to since its protected under the 2nd A... therefore the government pays for it through additional taxes..
I kinda like the idea the the taxes paid by liberal gun haters would help fund my 2nd Amendment right insurance...
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:43 pm to VOR
What about the one person that cannot get insurance? Do you think they will give insurance away? You have zero knowledge of the insurance industry, the regulation, the risk, the underwriting policies.
Your ignorance is on display. You might want to sit the rest of this one out.
Your ignorance is on display. You might want to sit the rest of this one out.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:47 pm to Mizooag94
quote:
guess you’d be shocked at 1849 San Francisco...seriously? Founding Fathers?
no, I'm shocked by how cucked areas of the country have become over the decades.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:49 pm to Clames
quote:
Let's examine this retarded statement further. The 2nd Amendment is an individual civil right, that is indisputable. VOR here argues that it is permissable for the State to set conditions on an individual civil right, that would effectively bar large swathes of the population from exercising this right. He then argues that such a thing would be in line with originalist legal interpretation, without citing anything that supports such an idiotic notion.
See, your first mistake is that you're trying to have a logical argument with that brain damaged (literally) retard. Just insult him and move on.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:49 pm to PEPE
"...shall not be infringed" would still apply here.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
See, your first mistake is that you're trying to have a logical argument with that brain damaged (literally) retard. Just insult him and move on.
Starting to see a pattern with VOR. He just leaves little piles of shite (aka bullshite liberal talking points) and then ghosts, so he doesn’t have to read actual facts, the not ignorant opinions, what the Constitution actually says, etcetera.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 8:15 pm to MeatCleaverWeaver
A shite load of hunters in Middle to Bottom part of Illinois.
They would go crazy and start shooting shite, if you tried to take their shite..
And i doubt any PD in Southern Part of state would obey. Majority of them hunt
They would go crazy and start shooting shite, if you tried to take their shite..
And i doubt any PD in Southern Part of state would obey. Majority of them hunt
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News