- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Second Amendment rights
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:44 am to cahoots
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:44 am to cahoots
quote:Nope. Numbers beat firepower almost every time.
If people wanted to be armed to protect from government tyranny, we'd have to allow the sale of tanks and bombers to Americans
quote:it will only be outdated when government becomes virtuous and doesn’t seek to seize power and money from its citizens. See any evidence of that happening?
The clause is clearly outdated,
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 11:48 am
1
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:46 am to cahoots
quote:
If people wanted to be armed to protect from government tyranny, we'd have to allow the sale of tanks and bombers to Americans.
I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam have all shown this isn't the case.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:51 am to cahoots
quote:
If people wanted to be armed to protect from government tyranny, we'd have to allow the sale of tanks and bombers to Americans.
Why? Give examples.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:51 am to tigereye58
I heard an interview with a psychologist on American Morning News Radio this morning. After going through an analysis of 'wazzup with all these mass killers' the final question to him was "Is their a solution to these killings?'
I was shocked when he said 'The only thing that will work is removing restrictions on conceal carry. The police will never respond to a mass shooting as quickly as a person in the audience with a gun. It would save a lot of lives.'
I was shocked when he said 'The only thing that will work is removing restrictions on conceal carry. The police will never respond to a mass shooting as quickly as a person in the audience with a gun. It would save a lot of lives.'
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:53 am to Zach
A psychologist said that?
He's going to be crucified.
He's going to be crucified.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:54 am to Centinel
quote:
A psychologist said that?
That's why I used the word 'shocked.'
Posted on 11/7/17 at 11:56 am to Zach
quote:It's true. Those who are against good guys with guns say things like "they just make things worse and can hurt/kill other innocents".
I was shocked when he said 'The only thing that will work is removing restrictions on conceal carry. The police will never respond to a mass shooting as quickly as a person in the audience with a gun. It would save a lot of lives.
Do they really think a person with a concealed carry permit will accidentally harm more people than a mass murderer would if left unopposed?
Posted on 11/7/17 at 12:01 pm to tigereye58
It’s funny how libs think the constitution is an outdated old document that needs changing, but also think the poem on the Statue of Liberty added way after the fact is unchangeable.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 12:10 pm to Centinel
quote:
I think Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam have all shown this isn't the case.
Those that say the average citizen cannot fight against government's air power and technology are not aware of how current technology available for little money will be used by insurgent groups to take out military hardware. The Department of Defense and Homeland security are now just waiting for the first time a insurgent group or terrorist uses off the shelf drones with small explosive charges to take out airliners or military aircraft, while sitting on the ground.They are almost defenseless against this type of attack, as are fuel storage depots, and other military targets.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 12:40 pm to EA6B
quote:
The clause is clearly outdated, as Justice Scalia and others have suggested.
Source?
Posted on 11/7/17 at 12:42 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Numbers beat firepower almost every time.
Scalia:
quote:
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 12:42 pm to PoBoy1
quote:
Source?
I've quoted it twice now bud
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:00 pm to cahoots
quote:Noted military tactician. But really... you should read the whole thing.
Scalia
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:01 pm to cahoots
quote:"It may" is the operative phrase here, but so is "bombers and tanks". No amount of small arms will be effective against a tank, but they don't have to be. They only have to be effective against soldiers. Other tools can be crafted for those other things.
it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:06 pm to FooManChoo
You're missing the point though. The idea is that the right to gun ownership exists independently of the militia clause. Therefore, the argument for gun ownership does not come down to being armed to effectively fight the state.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:09 pm to cahoots
quote:
Therefore, the argument for gun ownership does not come down to being armed to effectively fight the state.
Not solely, but it is the primary purpose, to be sure.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:09 pm to tigereye58
My favorite is when libs say that the 2nd amendment is archaic due to being created during primitive times. They reject the enlightenment and consider themselves modern. 
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:11 pm to cahoots
Scalia, like the Miller court's ignorance of the military's use of short-barreled shotguns, has probably no idea that cheaply made EFP mines can disable any modern battle tank, including the M1 Abrams. You are similarly ignorant, you have no idea how badly outmatched the US military is against US civilians and I have almost 20 years of service to date.
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:12 pm to Zach
quote:
I was shocked when he said 'The only thing that will work is removing restrictions on conceal carry. The police will never respond to a mass shooting as quickly as a person in the audience with a gun. It would save a lot of lives.'
quote:
A psychologist said that?
quote:
That's why I used the word 'shocked.'
I'm a psychologist, and I agree 100% with this.
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:20 pm to Clames
quote:
Scalia, like the Miller court's ignorance of the military's use of short-barreled shotguns, has probably no idea that cheaply made EFP mines can disable any modern battle tank, including the M1 Abrams. You are similarly ignorant, you have no idea how badly outmatched the US military is against US civilians and I have almost 20 years of service to date.
I suppose civilians could fight against the government without any firearms at all if they really had to. Even more the reason why the militia clause is interpreted in the modern context as being independent of the right to own firearms.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News