- 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 5/2/14 at 8:17 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:I know this. Hence, why it is funny that there are so many leftists out there who think it's some sort of Republican plot.
The Dems in the Northeast perfected gerrymandering. Both parties do it.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:18 am to ShortyRob
quote:
gerrymandering was created in the first place to guarantee black seats in congress
Exactly. Does La. still have the district that runs from southeast La. along the eastern border and then crosses over to Shreveport? I've been gone for a while so I haven't kept up with it.
FWIW, this same thing will happen with the nuclear option in the Senate when the Reps get the majority. The left is numero uno when it comes to opening cans with worms in them.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:19 am to samson'sseed
his 2nd amendment proposal is shite...it wasn't written poorly...those men wrote it exactly how they meant it....ordinary citizens should be able to have their guns..not just militia, which is essentially a military force that can be used against the citizens....they meant it to enable the people to fight if they needed to against tyranny...
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:20 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Hence, why it is funny that there are so many leftists out there who think it's some sort of Republican plot.
draconinan and i went at this very topic (with reference to just LA) for like 1-2 hours a few months ago
louisiana'a 2nd district = gerrymandering for a guaranteed black candidate
look at the map. which district looks gerrymandered? and it can't be affected without federal approval
that means that every other district surrounding that area (1) has fewer minority voters and (2) has fewer DEM voters
what, logically, will happen in that political vacuum created by the gerrymandering of teh 2nd district?
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
The LA map no so bad. New jersey was rigged so much to protect incumbents. Funny I think of Northeast Dems re gerrymandering.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:26 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
The LA map no so bad.
they were just re-drawn a couple years ago b/c we lost a district. that caused drama (b/c somebody had to lose their seat), but otherwise it isn't that difficult b/c LA has the gerrymandering of the 2nd to help out every other district (in a republican state)
gerrymandering exists everywhere and yes
quote:
rigged so much to protect incumbents
that is very common. in the south, though, we have federal oversight to ensure minority representation, which does protect those incumbents, but also creates an advantage for the GOP in the surrounding districts
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:28 am to samson'sseed
quote:
The original 2nd amendment is ambiguous and poorly written and therefore has been badly misinterpeted.
In your opinion. Too many Dems don't like the second amendment so suddenly it becomes "poorly written".
And "...when serving in the militia"? What would that be now? The National Guard? So we could only have guns when serving in a government role? That does nothing to allow citizens to protect themselves from criminals or the government. Basically it would be "you can only have guns when and if the government decides you can."
This post was edited on 5/2/14 at 8:36 am
Posted on 5/2/14 at 8:42 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why would they include a "right" limited to soldiers bearing arms?
So it really reads that everyone has the 'right' to arms so long as they are an agent of government
Posted on 5/2/14 at 9:01 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
I agree with the 2nd amendment revision.
So that the people can not bear arms. Never will I agree with that.
quote:
Get rid of state boundaries I have said that for years. No need for states
Only if one agrees that states have no rights. I do. Therefore I disagree with that.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 9:25 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
I agree with the 2nd amendment revision.
As stated above, making an amendment to establish that members of the military can carry firearms is ridiculous. Your stance shows a lack of deep thought not just in that respect but also a complete non-understanding of history.
The 2nd Amendment was not only inherited from prior English rule (even if you didn't own a gun you were expected to know how to use, clean and care for one), but both Federalists and Anti-federalists believed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked. This was not only to fend off external threads but to hold government itself in check.
Scroll to Page 13 for more info on this and their belief in the dangers of a standing army.
quote:
Get rid of state boundaries I have said that for years. No need for states.
You have a very poor understanding of what the Framers established if you don't see a need for the states. Read the Federalist Papers. It's dry as desert sand, but it gives an exacting view of what was intended and how far from it we have moved.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 9:33 am to Bard
quote:
but both Federalists and Anti-federalists believed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.
Correct. One of the few things that Madison and Hamilton agreed upon was that people's right to possess weapons was fundamental to the health of the United States.
The intent behind the Second Amendment really isn't hard to discover so long as you devout just a little bit of time reading the writings of the seven crucial founders. Not a single one of the them would agree with the collective right argument. Furthermore, "militia" in 1789 was every able-bodied male. So if you want to go down that route, have fun explaining to women that they have no protected right to possess guns.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 9:34 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Get rid of state boundaries I have said that for years. No need for states
You are rather authoritarian.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 9:59 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Furthermore, "militia" in 1789 was every able-bodied male. So if you want to go down that route, have fun explaining to women that they have no protected right to possess guns.
War on women.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:09 am to samson'sseed
quote:
I agree with his version of the 2nd amendment.
Shocking.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:10 am to TROLA
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to give the states the ability to defend themselves against Indian attacks, local insurrections, and invasions from foreign powers.
Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment is archaic and obsolete. Nevertheless, Steven's proposal clarifies it.
Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment is archaic and obsolete. Nevertheless, Steven's proposal clarifies it.
This post was edited on 5/2/14 at 10:11 am
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:10 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
I agree with the 2nd amendment revision
Also shocking.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:11 am to samson'sseed
quote:
I agree with his version of the 2nd amendment. The original 2nd amendment is ambiguous and poorly written and therefore has been badly misinterpeted.
I can guarantee you've never read Heller or McDonald.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:13 am to weagle99
Speaking of districts, here is Jim Clyburn's that was created to basically guarantee a black candidate wins every time.
Clyburn is lucky he is part of the Republican Party.
Clyburn is lucky he is part of the Republican Party.
Posted on 5/2/14 at 10:15 am to SthGADawg
Than why did they use the word...MILITIA...in a clause by itself?
It's impossible to determine, from the way it was written, whether the authors of the 2nd amendment meant the right to own a group was individual or collective.
Therefore, it is very poorly written.
It's impossible to determine, from the way it was written, whether the authors of the 2nd amendment meant the right to own a group was individual or collective.
Therefore, it is very poorly written.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News