- 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: Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15s
Posted on 6/2/25 at 1:25 pm to Swamp Angel
Posted on 6/2/25 at 1:25 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
You expect the people who believe that some women have penises to be able to understand clear and concise language such as "shall not be infringed?"
And this is the key.
To destroy the Constitution you need only destroy the language it is written in.
0
Posted on 6/2/25 at 1:28 pm to UnclePat76
quote:
Assault rifles are bad! Even though they only accounted for 3% of murders in Illinois and most of them were self inflicted-suicides. But let’s ban them because it’s the cool thing to do!
There are people who really think AR stands for assault rifle.
This all just amounts to them wanting to ban guns that look scary to them.
Gun that looks scary = must be an assault rifle
That’s what these people think. The AR isn’t a fricking assault rifle. I’m the ultimate city guy and guns terrify me (I am still 100% pro 2nd amendment), and even I know this.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 1:48 pm to llfshoals
It’s the “well regulated militia” part that is the problem.
Some would say the national guard is an example of a well regulated militia.
Also, I’m guessing this is deciding if states have the right to ban certain semi auto rifles.
Some would say the national guard is an example of a well regulated militia.
Also, I’m guessing this is deciding if states have the right to ban certain semi auto rifles.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:00 pm to UnclePat76
Nice use of a statistic, I hope you will appreciate this one.
Of 80 mass shootings in the U.S., AR-15's were used 26% of the time.
These include the ones in Las Vegas, the Orlando nightclub and Sandy Hook.
So if some states choose to try and limit access to such guns they are within their rights.
Of 80 mass shootings in the U.S., AR-15's were used 26% of the time.
These include the ones in Las Vegas, the Orlando nightclub and Sandy Hook.
So if some states choose to try and limit access to such guns they are within their rights.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:09 pm to JacieNY
quote:
Of 80 mass shootings in the U.S., AR-15's were used 26% of the time.
So 20 out of 80 qualifying events. Seems like if you actually cared about curbing those events, you’d look at the other 74% and draw some conclusions…
How many of the 80 were perpetrated by minorities? How many were by socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals? How many were religiously motivated? How many of the perpetrators have a history of mental illness and SSRI use?
I would argue that we need to look for the connections present in the majority of the shootings instead of focusing on the “high profile” ones.
quote:
So if some states choose to try and limit access to such guns they are within their rights.
“Shall not be infringed”
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:11 pm to Jbird
I still don't understand why AR style guns are being targeted? What about AR style pellet guns or AirSoft rifles?
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:14 pm to JacieNY
quote:
So if some states choose to try and limit access to such guns they are within their rights.
quote:
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.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:14 pm to Jbird
Can we ban these 20 ton personal trucks with the gigantic tires on the road as well!!
They love to ride your azz in an act of intimidation!
They love to ride your azz in an act of intimidation!
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:15 pm to Jbird
Gun sales about to go through the roof.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:17 pm to OysterPoBoy
Give me my cannon. Tallyho.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:30 pm to Woolfpack
quote:No it isn’t. At the time the constitution, what was a militia?
It’s the “well regulated militia” part that is the problem.
The members brought their own weapons. Which was pretty much anything but cannon.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:37 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
When the 2A was written, we only had muskets. If the drafters knew what would come, I doubt it would be written as it is.
Puckle Gun
The worst argument possible. That's like saying they would have written the 1A different had they imagined anything other than quill and parchment.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What is the difference?
“Shall make no law” and “shall not” are completely identical in textual prohibition.
The biggest difference is that as written, the 2A acknowledges that the right of the people existed long before the Declaration, the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution itself. The 1A is guaranteeing rights that for the most part were a new concept of governance.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:42 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
But if we're making exceptions, why does voter IDs need to be required to vote? Where does it mention that in the Constitution?
If I have to pay $200 to be able to keep and bear a short barreled rifle, why would a poll tax be considered an infringement?
This post was edited on 6/2/25 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:49 pm to Jbird
Luckily I have ak-47, 300 blackout, AR-10 and ar-22 and mag fed 12 gauges. Whew, I was close to being disarmed.
Seriously, though, why the hardon for a souped up .22 that's not particularly lethal, relatively speaking?
Seriously, though, why the hardon for a souped up .22 that's not particularly lethal, relatively speaking?
Posted on 6/2/25 at 2:52 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Seriously, though, why the hardon for a souped up .22 that's not particularly lethal, relatively speaking?
It's so arbitrary and perpetually doomed to fail that I am starting to suspect it's AR platform manufacturers behind this to drum up sales.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 3:01 pm to troyt37
quote:
The biggest difference is that as written, the 2A acknowledges that the right of the people existed long before the Declaration, the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution itself. The 1A is guaranteeing rights that for the most part were a new concept of governance.
That has nothing to do with whether the word “shall” means the same thing.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 3:02 pm to troyt37
quote:
That's like saying they would have written the 1A different had they imagined anything other than quill and parchment.
It’s almost like they intended for reasonable restriction of everything in the bill of rights because they understood that being overly specific would cause problems.
This post was edited on 6/2/25 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 6/2/25 at 3:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That has nothing to do with whether the word “shall” means the same thing.
If you can't see a difference in the wording between the 1A and the 2A, I don't know what to tell you. The 1A is rife with qualifiers and ambiguities that would be exploited to hell and back, if it were given the same treatment as the 2A.
How about "abridged" for free speech? Abridged means shortened or condensed. Much hay could be made of that alone.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 3:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s almost like they intended for reasonable restriction of everything in the bill of rights because they understood that being overly specific would cause problems.
Sure. Reasonable restrictions in the form of amendments to the Constitution. We seem awful short on those, and long on lawyers and judges who simply make it up as they go along.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News