- 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: Received registered letter today from my ex-employer wanting to review my need for my FFL.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 7:45 am to Jack Bauers HnK
Posted on 4/20/21 at 7:45 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
How do you regulate and not infringe simultaneously?
By being capable of nuanced thought.
quote:
Perhaps you should reconsider whether those phrases are meant to be interpreted together if doing so presents an absurdity.
I can’t even imagine trying to argue that two clauses in the same sentence shouldn’t be interpreted together. That would fly in the face of just about every norm of legal interpretation.
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 7:48 am
1
Posted on 4/20/21 at 7:46 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
I believe they're after my fully automatic weapons
No way.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 7:56 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
I guess after 20+ years with ATF I've become problematic
No, you've been problematic for 20+ years.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 7:58 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
Received registered letter today from my ex-employer wanting to review my need for my FFL.
...licence. I guess after 20+ years with ATF I've become problematic. My "request" to attend my interview has been set for June 15th here in Atlanta. That's exactly one month before my renewal date. I'm not feeling comfortable in this "interview" situation . I believe they're after my fully automatic weapons I've collected since 1982. Already contacted my attorney, the one who helps me with my HOA. He will be in attendance.
I'll keep you posted.
Get "sick" and reschedule the meeting after July 15th after your FFL renewal.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:02 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
the Waco snafu
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:05 am to TigerMikeAtl
Going out on a limb here but I would say that is none of his beeswax…
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:14 am to TigerMikeAtl
The "weeding out" has started. It is obviously a part of their master plan.
They will make it harder, and harder, and harder, to buy a GUN!
Biden is a coward! He won't face the criticism and opposition!
They will make it harder, and harder, and harder, to buy a GUN!
Biden is a coward! He won't face the criticism and opposition!
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:17 am to GumboPot
Covid exposure, right baw?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:21 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
TigerMikeAtl
Patriot!
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:36 am to Indefatigable
For someone who claims to be capable of nuanced thought, it's strange how you don't understand that regulated is describing militia, not the right to bear arms.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:45 am to F73ME
And it has nothing to do with government. The founders intended for a militia to be orderly and organized with rules established from within. It never mentions being regulated by any government agency.
It means to be organized with rules from within and with a proper chain of command.
It means to be organized with rules from within and with a proper chain of command.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:58 am to IslandBuckeye
quote:
WTF is your major malfunction Pvt. Pyle?
OP has made a 20+ year career out of infringing on the rights of other people, so frick him.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 8:59 am to F73ME
quote:
it's strange how you don't understand that regulated is describing militia, not the right to bear arms.
You don’t read or interpret sentences in pieces. All three clauses before shall not be infringed relate to each other. “Well regulated militia” is synonymous with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The middle clause provides the explanation/justification.
Madison’s original draft of the amendment confirms that this is the intention:
quote:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:00 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I guess you’re ignoring the “well regulated” part of the sentence?
In what way were arms regulated at the founding? Which arms were banned? What permits were needed by citizens to own them? Were they registered with the state in any way? Did anyone undergo any kind of background check?
Surely if owning a firearm needed to be "well regulated" it would have started off that way, correct?
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:01 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:This guy fricks! I like it!
Blame my Amazon spellchecker Karen! Didn't realize there were old fashion english teachers still grading posts here. Sorry if I upset you.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:04 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I guess you’re ignoring the “well regulated” part of the sentence?
A well educated citizenry is paramount to the function of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
"Regulated" in the context you are citing means "trained/equipped/prepared". It does not mean "government restrictions on rights". Furthermore, it is not a prerequisite for the keeping and bearing of arms, it is cited as part of the reason for doing so.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:06 am to TigerMikeAtl
I'll gladly hold your collection on my boat.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:09 am to CptRusty
quote:
A well educated citizenry is paramount to the function of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
There is no "therefore" in the second amendment.
"A well regulated citizenry, being necessary to the function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Language matters and punctuation matters.
quote:
"Regulated" in the context you are citing means "trained/equipped/prepared". It does not mean "government restrictions on rights". Furthermore, it is not a prerequisite for the keeping and bearing of arms, it is cited as part of the reason for doing so
I don't disagree with anything here. I support the Heller interpretation of the second amendment. I just think its hilarious when people try to pretend like the clauses don't relate to each other.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 9:16 am to Indefatigable
quote:
There is no "therefore" in the second amendment.
it's implied, and it's a distinction without a difference.
quote:
I just think its hilarious when people try to pretend like the clauses don't relate to each other.
They do. The first is a brief statement of justification for the second.
Posted on 4/20/21 at 10:39 am to TigerMikeAtl
quote:
This was an operation that went horribly wrong quickly! I still, to this day, blame the feebees who let their egos overrule their better judgement.
So what were yall doing there? Trying to infringe on citizens' 2a rights? Moral support? Honestly, if we're gonna start reviewing ffl holders, people like you should be first. You can be a party to mass slaughter, but I'm rejected from all nfa class 3 stamps because of some plants in my closet. Well according to question 11e on the 4473 I'm not allowed to purchase anything nowadays
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News