- 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: Maher/Noir: A Respectful Discussion of Gun Rights
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:19 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Nothing remotely misleading.
Person 1 owns property and does not want guns on the property. Person 2 owns guns and wants to carry them everywhere and at all times, including when visiting Person 1’s property.
Does Person 1’s right to carry a weapon trump Person 2’s right to control his own property?
If not, property rights are meaningless.
lol wut? you also got your persons mixed up.
If Person 1 doesnt want person 2 on his property, Person 2 is trespassing and breaking the law, whether carrying or not.
I dont see what you are trying to prove here.
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 9:21 am
1
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:23 am to roadGator
quote:
I believe it's due to Hanks failed attempt to become the cherished hero of the board.
He's also admitted to purposeful trolling. He called it devils advocate another time. He's not the most modest person among us and that turns people off.
This and he is a liar who wont admit hes a Liberal beta
But hes our Liberal Open Borders Zero Hank
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:27 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Dunno. This board doesn’t seem to cotton to at civil non-
Hyperbolic discussion.
I fully admit that it sucks me in from time to time, but it’s primarily reaction for my part.
Hyperbolic discussion.
I fully admit that it sucks me in from time to time, but it’s primarily reaction for my part.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:27 am to Bulldogblitz
quote:
If the anti 2nd amendment person realizes he's in a "discussion" with someone who may likely be conceal carry at that very moment, I would not be surprised it's a civil discussion.
I once theorized on another board that citizens would get much better service from government employees if they were not forbidden from carrying in government buildings. It was not well received.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:29 am to CarRamrod
quote:I know. It happens when you do notnread the entire thread.
I dont see what you are trying to prove here.
The person to whom I originally responded said, to paraphrase, that he has a right to carry anywhere at any time and that no government OR PERSON has a right to stop him.
I am exploring that assertion.
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 9:33 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I know. It happens when you do notnread the entire thread.
i read the whole thread. you are trying to get an "i gotcha" from someone extremely pro gun. And your argument is flawed. quote:that is not at all what he said. he said
The person to whom I originally responded said, to paraphrase, that he has a right to carry anywhere at any time and that no government OR PERSON has a right to stop him.
quote:He said it isnt your place to decided if it is a good idea, when and where you can carry. that has nothing to do with not allowing someone to carry on private property.
That is very explicit. And "shall not be infringed" does not allow for you or anyone else to decide "to whether it is a good idea" to bare arms. Your "I don't think its a good idea for you to have it" does not have more sway when the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 9:50 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 10:05 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
why would anyone downvote this OP?
Because Maher's name is in it and it's not negative. That's the rule around here. One of the major problems with society currently. Lots of tribalism here and no independent thought.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 11:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
let's assume that the 2d Amendment is broad-enough to prohibit any governmental unit from interfering with ownership of any weapon whatsoever (nukes, tanks, aircraft carriers)
This is where the discussion usually ends, because it goes off the rails.
I'm as pro-Second Amendment as can be found, anywhere. I have never encountered any like-minded individual making this argument in a serious manner regarding the Second Amendment.
The only time I ever see this used is when anti-gun types (those who favor extreme gun laws/bans) attempt to paint those who cherish the Second Amendment as nutjobs.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News