- 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: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:01 am to TD422
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:01 am to TD422
You’re just moralizing government benefits. The benefits you receive are good so you can vote. The government benefits a poor person receives are bad so they can’t vote. It’s inconsistent and intentionally exclusive of already marginalized populations. Would you count Medicaid as welfare? What about Medicare? Social Security? Military disability?
2
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:08 am to 4cubbies
quote:
You’re just moralizing government benefits. The benefits you receive are good so you can vote. The government benefits a poor person receives are bad so they can’t vote.
81 million votes for a vegetable says you're full of shite
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:22 am to ArHog
Are you referring to people who receive farm subsidies? They shouldn’t be able to vote either?
At least that’s consistent.
At least that’s consistent.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:50 am to Churchill
Not immediately (because I have a job that drug tests), but if I ever again have another professional job that doesn’t, I will.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 11:39 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Truthfully, I think it’s silly that we look to this 300-year-old document as some sort of sacred Gospel.
Sure. All populists do. And whether you think of yourself as a populist or not, your posts indicate that you are.
That's because populists scoff at the idea of navigating logically using underlying foundational principles. Populism is basically the post-modern equivalent of politics.
quote:
The people who wrote it couldn’t possibly fathom the world we live in today
They understood the foundational principles of freedom, responsibility, and government just fine. And they wrote their documents to allow for us to tweak the details, which is all you're talking about when you say that. Nothing has happened since 1776 that has changed any of the foundational principles that the Constitution was conceived upon.
What you are saying is like saying that gravity doesn't apply anymore or that it's silly that we act like it does because we have new objects hat will fall toward the Earth if unsupported that didn't exist when Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity.
quote:
philosophies presented in it to modern dilemmas makes very little sense to me. I understand there needs to be some guiding framework for government and government restrictions, I just wonder if this one has run it’s course.
Then let's hear what you would replace those foundational principles with.
People a whole lot smarter than you or I wrote that document and for 250 years it has held up as arguably the wisest set of philosophical precepts by which to govern in the world.
What do you have on tap (or what does anyone you've heard about or read about) have on tap that you think is better?
Posted on 6/19/26 at 11:44 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Freedom is access, not an ability. But I think that’s the core of what you’re arguing too.
Yes and no, I guess. Freedom is the opportunity to act without unnatural restraint. Sure, you may have opportunity but not ability, but the key point is whether you have someone actively standing in your way. If someone is preventing you from acting on a natural opportunity, that's a lack of freedom. If you simply don't have the natural means to take it, that's not.
quote:
I don’t know where the providing caveat came from.
It seemed to be inherently applied in the context of the conversation. If I misunderstood at first I apologize.
quote:
I argued that rights don’t exist outside of our consciousness. They are conditional human constructs, not objective feature of the universe.
Then they are completely subjective and therefore useless in this context. Yet your statement seemed to conclude that they meant something (other than the mere preferences of any given individual).
This post was edited on 6/19/26 at 11:46 am
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:01 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Cool. People call me all kinds of things here. I waste not one single second of thought on labeling myself politically.
Sure. All populists do. And whether you think of yourself as a populist or not, your posts indicate that you are.
quote:A whole slew of Supreme Court cases beg to differ. Buck v. Bell gave the government the ability to forcefully sterilize someone. Skinner v. Oklahoma contradicted Bell. Since they are conflicting, one of them changed our misinterpreted a foundational principle upon which Constitution was conceived.
And they wrote their documents to allow for us to tweak the details, which is all you're talking about when you say that. Nothing has happened since 1776 that has changed any of the foundational principles that the Constitution was conceived upon.
quote:No, I’m saying that applying 18th-century language to technologies and circumstances the authors could never have anticipated makes very little sense.
What you are saying is like saying that gravity doesn't apply anymore or that it's silly that we act like it does because we have new objects hat will fall toward the Earth if unsupported that didn't exist when Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity.
But, using your analogy, gravity is observable across place and time. What we call rights are not.
quote:
Then let's hear what you would replace those foundational principles with.
Some other flawed system that would be perverted and exploited by the few at the expense of the many. I guess that’s my whole point. People are the problem with government.
quote:I’m questioning the premise, not inciting a revolution.
What do you have on tap (or what does anyone you've heard about or read about) have on tap that you think is better?
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:07 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Are you suggesting the government shouldn’t concern itself with wheelchairs or wheelchair ramps because some people lack the natural means to walk?
If you simply don't have the natural means to take it, that's not.
Or are you calling social constructs like wealth and privilege “natural means”?
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:12 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
wackatimesthree
Just as an aside, all your posts have an air of condescension about them, man. I feel like you’re scolding me with every response
I’m willing to consider that it’s a perception problem on my end though. Although perception is reality…
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:16 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
So I can now protect my weed field with an AR or two? Awesome duuuuude
Absolutely!!!
And in the states runs by Liberals/Communists, you don’t even have to be a U.S Citizen to do that!
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:26 pm to stuntman
quote:
"The Law" by Frederic Bastiat
I started reading this last night. I really dig the author’s enthusiasm. It’s palpable.
I am confused by this:
Is he saying these things are synonymous? I can see personality and existence being synonymous but faculties and liberty? Sometimes it seems like faculties are a prison
and I don’t see the connection between assimilation and property, but maybe I just need to keep reading. 
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:37 pm to stout
quote:
You really don't see the violence cut off between a class D and E felon (who can get their gun rights restored) vs a class C or higher as pretty reasonable?
I know of 2 Class A felons, both for white collar racketeering who had their rights restored.
It is crazy a white collar racketeer is classed the same as murder and treason.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:40 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
People call me all kinds of things here. I waste not one single second of thought on labeling myself politically.
Which is exactly what a populist would say. It's why people proudly announce that they are "independent" even though they've never once in their life voted for any party but the same one they've always voted for. It's another way to reject foundational principles. And to virtue signal that one is "above it all."
quote:
Since they are conflicting, one of them changed our misinterpreted a foundational principle upon which Constitution was conceived.
LOL. Not at all. They disagreed about the application of the principles in a particular incidence. Like I said, it was written to allow that. The Founders knew they couldn't anticipate an infinite number of applications.
quote:
But, using your analogy, gravity is observable across place and time. What we call rights are not.
Neither are mathematical principles. Does that mean they only exist in our heads? If no humans existed to count them, does that mean that if two sticks fell from a tree to join two that were already on the ground, there wouldn't be four sticks (regardless of what semantics you used to describe the reality?).
And if you do say they only exist in our heads, that necessarily means that we could change them at will. Do you see any evidence that that is true?
quote:
No, I’m saying that applying 18th-century language to technologies and circumstances the authors could never have anticipated makes very little sense.
Yeah, that's what I said. "Sir Issac Newton couldn't have imaged that a laptop computer would exist. Therefore, we need to ditch this concept of gravity."
quote:
Some other flawed system that would be perverted and exploited by the few at the expense of the many.
Which one? You said you thought we might need to ditch the one we have now, so which one seems better?
quote:
I’m questioning the premise
I don't see how that semantic niggle makes any difference to the conversation. But if you like, which premise do you think would be better to base a system on?
This post was edited on 6/19/26 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:43 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Just as an aside, all your posts have an air of condescension about them, man.
Sorry.
This isn't really a polite board.
I honestly think I give you more respect than 98% of the posters here. At least I respond to what you've actually written instead of just calling you some name or claiming you boned a hobo over a bike and never addressing any substance.
Plus, you have your own faults as a poster here. Surely you are aware of that.
This post was edited on 6/19/26 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 6/19/26 at 1:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Are you suggesting the government shouldn’t concern itself with wheelchairs or wheelchair ramps because some people lack the natural means to walk?
I haven't gotten to applying the terms yet. I thought we were still defining them.
But to answer the question, I would say in a perfect world government could entirely concern itself with wheelchair accommodations. In government buildings.
Everybody else (private citizens, private businesses) would be free to accommodate wheelchair bound people or not. Those who did would probably be visited by people in wheelchairs. Those who didn't, probably wouldn't.
I wouldn't mind if that demarcated application of principle included exceptions for health care facilities or other essential services, but the government has no business IMO mandating that Bob's Fine Foods out on highway 14 has to build a wheelchair ramp or pay a fine. If Bob doesn't care about serving wheelchair bound customers, the government ought not force him to do so.
quote:
Or are you calling social constructs like wealth and privilege “natural means”?
By natural means, I just mean that the important part in the discussion is whether a person is permitted to pursue opportunities that he finds himself faced with or whether a person or institution is stopping him from doing so.
So if a guy is born into wealth and the government prevents him from utilizing that wealth, he's not free with respect to that circumstance.
"Privilege" is another one of those terms that, once explored, is pretty much useless. Almost everybody is "privileged" in some regard. I played baseball growing up with kids who were dumb as a bag of hammers, but they were "privileged" in their ability to hit a baseball out of the park. Some people are height privileged, or weight privileged, or physically attractive privileged or extrovert privileged or intelligence privileged or temperament privileged or family privileged or courage privileged or money privileged or athletically privileged.
Some of those are physical attributes that are responded to positively by society and some of them are purely social.
To me, the difference between them is a distinction without a difference.
This post was edited on 6/19/26 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 6/19/26 at 3:12 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I At least I respond to what you've actually written instead of just calling you some name or claiming you boned a hobo over a bike and never addressing any substance.
such a low bar. quote:Most people don’t consider beauty and intelligence to be faults…
Plus, you have your own faults as a poster here.
Kidding. I will respond to your substantive posts later. My daughter’s cabbage ball team has a playoff game tonight and I’m in the middle of making a big banner (Go Blunicorns!) and some “drip” for the team.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 4:18 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
moralizing government benefits
I'd argue maybe we need that. There are people out there who base their vote entirely on what's given to them. Where's the morality in that?
Posted on 6/19/26 at 4:48 pm to 4cubbies
You stated here that you do not own a gun. That's ok. That's certainly your right. I am curious, however, as to your reason for not owning a gun. You can't afford one? I doubt that. You have made a deliberative decision to NOT own a firearm. What is that reason? Not trying to be combative or argumentative here with the question. I just want to understand and know your motive(s).
This post was edited on 6/19/26 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 6/19/26 at 5:47 pm to 4cubbies
This is a towel throw folks. It’s over
Posted on 6/19/26 at 6:08 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Truthfully, I think it’s silly that we look to this 300-year-old document as some sort of sacred Gospel.
Given the long history of human suffering at the hands of oppressive government, I don’t think revering the Constitution is weird at all. Nearly every republic in the world has based their government off the US Constitution for good reaon.
quote:
The people who wrote it couldn’t possibly fathom the world we live in today so applying the archaic language and philosophies presented in it to modern dilemmas makes very little sense to me.
What “archaic language and philosophy” are you referring to? The Constitution is an incredibly modern document that has mechanisms to adapt and change as society does.
quote:
I understand there needs to be some guiding framework for government and government restrictions, I just wonder if this one has run it’s course.
That is an incredibly naive opinion. Even with all of our problems, the US is the literally peak of human history. US citizens have more freedom, wealth, and resources than any other group of people at any other time of history. Our poorest and most dysfunctional people live lives like the royalty of past:
Page 7 of 11
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News