- 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
1
Posted on 4/6/18 at 5:10 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Wait so you can still own a gun?
As long as the gun is not defined as an "assault weapon."
What's your point?
This post was edited on 4/6/18 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 4/6/18 at 5:10 pm to JG77056
Just keep it unloaded and in a locked box and all is good apparently. Not sure what good it would do to own one in that condition but still.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 5:33 pm to UpToPar
quote:
As long as the gun is not defined as an "assault weapon."
What's your point?
That this is in no way violating the 2nd amendment.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 5:35 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
That this is in no way violating the 2nd amendment.
Ah....so it is your opinion then that as long as one is able to engage in some form of speech there can be no violation of the first amendment?
You understand how ridiculous that is, right?
This post was edited on 4/6/18 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 4/6/18 at 5:48 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
That this is in no way violating the 2nd amendment.
It actually is but we all know you are too stupid and lazy to read the relevant court rulings. Deerfield just gave Alan Gura the vehicle to make AWB's permanently off limits of this goes to the US Supreme Court like the McDonald case.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 6:17 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Ah....so it is your opinion then that as long as one is able to engage in some form of speech there can be no violation of the first amendment?
You understand how ridiculous that is, right?
You're using false equivalency.
The intent of the 2nd amendment is not harmed in anyway by an AWB.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 6:22 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
The intent of the 2nd amendment is not harmed in anyway by an AWB.
Okay. I’ll play. What do you think the intend of the 2A is?
Posted on 4/6/18 at 6:28 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Okay. I’ll play. What do you think the intend of the 2A is?
...
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.
That is the intent.
An AWB does not infringe upon that anymore than any other weapon that has been deemed unable for a civilian to possess. Seeing as those designations have not been found unconstitutional, neither is an AWB.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 6:35 pm to LSUconvert
that is the most uneducated circular argument I’ve seen on the issue. So the banning of a weapon is not an infringement on the 2A if a court seems the weapon not suitable for civilian use? You think this is a good argument?
Posted on 4/6/18 at 6:44 pm to LSUconvert
quote:read up on the heller v dc decision
The intent of the 2nd amendment is not harmed in anyway by an AWB.
learn what common use means
then figure out how that applies to the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US
Posted on 4/6/18 at 9:23 pm to joeyb147
Federal Judge just upheld Mass. rule to ban military style.
The federal judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month to not hear challenge to MD law.
The federal judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month to not hear challenge to MD law.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 9:49 pm to matthew25
quote:
The federal judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month to not hear challenge to MD law.
You have a link to that? If the federal judge actually cited a writ denial then he needs to be removed from the bench.
Posted on 4/6/18 at 11:03 pm to LSUconvert
quote:First this is the equivalent of saying "it's ok to punch a guy in the face, if you've already punched him 10 times before." Plus, it's factually incorrect to say that weapons have been deemed unable for a cvilian to possess. Civilians can (and do) possess fully automatic weapons.
An AWB does not infringe upon that anymore than any other weapon that has been deemed unable for a civilian to possess. Seeing as those designations have not been found unconstitutional, neither is an AWB.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 12:01 am to Bunyan
imagine a town banning:
free speech
the right to a fair trial
the right to privacy
etc
we lose our right to keep and bear arms, we lose them all
free speech
the right to a fair trial
the right to privacy
etc
we lose our right to keep and bear arms, we lose them all
Posted on 4/7/18 at 12:29 am to LSUconvert
quote:
That this is in no way violating the 2nd amendment.
What is your definition of infringement?
I think we all need to understand,for the next time you get spotted a the gay strip club.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 12:43 am to auggie
This seems like it wont hold up. But federal laws get violated all the time without enforcement. I know a lot of friends from small towns who had teachers holding prayer circles and other creepy "religious experiences" in public schools. 100% illegal but if the local judges allow it it will last unless it gets attention from a higher court.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News