- 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: New York Gov. Hochul warned that her state is "just getting started" on gun restrictions
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:35 pm to Jimmy2shoes
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:35 pm to Jimmy2shoes
quote:
Is she any better than that jackwad Cuomo?
I mean she evidently doesn't believe in the US Constitution or The US government's Separation of Powers, so you tell me.
0
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:38 pm to Jimmy2shoes
quote:
Is she any better than that jackwad Cuomo?
She hasn't sentenced thousands of seniors in nursing homes to death, yet.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:41 pm to Bamatab
As always, these idiots provide humor and one-liners without even trying.
....with muskets.....b--ch, muskets ARE guns!
....with muskets.....b--ch, muskets ARE guns!
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:45 pm to Bamatab
I absolutely can't stand the moral inconsistencies of either parties, but the Democrats are by far the worst. This stupid bitch literally has these two inconsistent positions:
1. The Supreme Court has to leave an enumerated Constitutional right up to the states so they can infringe at their will.
2. The Supreme court has to support a non-enumerated Constitutional right and not leave it up to the states so they can't infringe at their will.
I want to punch anyone in the face that can argue this position. It pisses me off to no end.
1. The Supreme Court has to leave an enumerated Constitutional right up to the states so they can infringe at their will.
2. The Supreme court has to support a non-enumerated Constitutional right and not leave it up to the states so they can't infringe at their will.
I want to punch anyone in the face that can argue this position. It pisses me off to no end.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:50 pm to Bamatab
quote:
quote:
"This decision isn't just reckless. It's reprehensible. It's not what New Yorkers want. And we should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state."
As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution of the United States, you marxist twat.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:52 pm to LSURep864
quote:
As a Christian I only advocate the peaceful way. But I see it ending otherwise unfortunately.
You should do some reading on the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. Violence is nothing more than a tool that can be used for both good and evil.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:52 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Except that it doesn't.
And we should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state."quote:
No you shouldn’t. Not when the constitution explicitly states you can’t.
The BoR was written to limit the actions of the FEDERAL government. Limitations on the actions of State governments contained specific language ("no state shall ..."). See Art. I, Sec. 10. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers understands this. Extension of the BoR limitations to State governments depends upon the Incorporation Doctrine, which is as flimsy as the reasoning of Roe and which should be discarded completely.
Under the actual language of the Constitution, the Feds are barred from interference with the Right to Bear Arms. The States are not. Texas can allow unlimited ownership of full-auto military rifles, if it wants to do so (bc NFA is unconstitutional). New York can limit its citizens to nail files and slingshots, if IT wants to do so.
Anyone who says otherwise does not understand federalism.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:52 pm to Bamatab
Let 'em go back to muskets, they'll be easy to pick off if it comes to that.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:52 pm to Jimmy2shoes
quote:
Is she any better than that jackwad Cuomo?
At least he was actually elected so there’s that.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:52 pm to Clames
quote:
D.C. attempted to circumvent Heller for years afterwards. It took successive lawsuits to beat them into compliance and it will be the same for New York and other states that will cling to the failed "may issue" doctrine. These left-wing nutjobs talk tough but they will be bent into compliance eventually.
It wasn't just "may issue" that was a problem, some counties additional required 4 character references as well.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:53 pm to Bamatab
quote:
What's going to happen when NY blatantly ignores the SCOTUS ruling?
Thank God I'm not a resident, but if I were and was arrested/detained for carrying a weapon, I would sue the ever-loving dogshit out of them.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:54 pm to roadGator
quote:She would likely argue that is (D)ifferent.
So abortion should be state issues, right NY Gov loon?
I say, "yes, exactly."
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If you believe that the Federalist Papers support nationalization of all gun laws, I suggest that it is you who needs to do a quick re-read.
Somebody needs to read the Federalist Papers
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Except that it doesn't.
The 14th amendemet says it does moron.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 12:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
She would likely argue that is (D)ifferent.
Correct she would.
quote:
I say, "yes, exactly."
Wrong. It is nothing similar. One subject (guns) is explicitly in the constitution as a right from the creator wherein the state's ability to limit it is restricted heavily.
The other (abortion) was made up whole clothe by an activist judiciary. Once there is a constitutional amendment stating killing babies is a right conveyed by the creator and can't be restricted by the state then they will be the same.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:00 pm to Bamatab
quote:
we should have the right of determination
I guess we have come full circle.
New York certainly didn't feel that way during the War for Southern Independence.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The BoR was written to limit the actions of the FEDERAL government. Limitations on the actions of State governments contained specific language ("no state shall ..."). See Art. I, Sec. 10. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers understands this. Extension of the BoR limitations to State governments depends upon the Incorporation Doctrine, which is as flimsy as the reasoning of Roe and which should be discarded completely.
Under the actual language of the Constitution, the Feds are barred from interference with the Right to Bear Arms. The States are not. Texas can allow unlimited ownership of full-auto military rifles, if it wants to do so (bc NFA is unconstitutional). New York can limit its citizens to nail files and slingshots, if IT wants to do so.
Hey, I'm all for allowing the individual states the right to decide their rights on things such as conceal carry and abortion, but despite what this BSC lady stated, the Dems/leftist's heads would explode if the states actually allowed to hold the rights that originally was intended.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:05 pm to rooster108bm
quote:No, it does not.
Except that it doesn't.quote:
The 14th amendemet says it does moron.
The Incorporation Doctrine relies largely upon the following language from the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The Second Amendment does not create any "privilege or immunity" for US citizens. To the contrary, as we state so often on this forum, it simply LIMITS the actions of the federal government, and it DOES NOT itself "create" a right for any person to bear arms. As such, the 2nd Amendment does NOTHING that CAN be extended to the State governments under the 14th Amendment.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:06 pm to AggieHank86
This is actually correct and written by AggieHank. Good Lord, I thought I’d never see the day.
Incorporation Doctrine is one of the stupidest inventions in SCOTUS history and should be discarded.
Incorporation Doctrine is how you go from a ban on Congress passing a law establishing a national religion to a teacher being fired for praying or reading the Bible because the teacher- and agent of the state- somehow establishes a national religion by praying.
Idiocy.
BUT, it’s the bed the SCOTUS made for the government, and thus the government will have to lie in it.
I’m fine with discarding the trash known as Incorporation Doctrine. States should be free to make their own laws.
It’s the way the Founders intended it and anyone calling themselves an Originalist or Textualist must agree.
The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply the BoR to the states. The Blane Amendment made that pretty clear.
Incorporation Doctrine is one of the stupidest inventions in SCOTUS history and should be discarded.
Incorporation Doctrine is how you go from a ban on Congress passing a law establishing a national religion to a teacher being fired for praying or reading the Bible because the teacher- and agent of the state- somehow establishes a national religion by praying.
Idiocy.
BUT, it’s the bed the SCOTUS made for the government, and thus the government will have to lie in it.
I’m fine with discarding the trash known as Incorporation Doctrine. States should be free to make their own laws.
It’s the way the Founders intended it and anyone calling themselves an Originalist or Textualist must agree.
The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply the BoR to the states. The Blane Amendment made that pretty clear.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:06 pm to Bamatab
Sounds like she is inciting...
Gasp!
Insurrection!
Gasp!
Insurrection!
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News