- 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 1:20 pm to cahoots
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:20 pm to cahoots
quote:The founders understood an inherent right to self defense. I don't think it was even in doubt that arms were lawful and encouraged for protection on top of hunting, sport, etc. The 2nd amendment wasn't included for those things alone but specifically within the context of fighting against tyranny.
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.
The BOR was provided to enumerate specific rights that the people had that the federal government wasn't allowed to violate. One of these rights was the right to bear arms against the government. The founders had done that very thing not long before the BOR was ratified and they understood its importance to preserving liberty. There are an abundance of quotes from the founding fathers about bearing arms and their usefulness, but most often were they spoken about in terms of preserving life and liberty. They didn't want the people defenseless against the government.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:23 pm to cahoots
quote:methinks it’s you hat missed the point. He’s pointing out that it’s not the sole purpose, and those the argument that “lack of firepower” is irrelevant to the purpose of the 2A. He’s literally arguing the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Therefore, the argument for gun ownership does not come down to being armed to effectively fight the state.
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:33 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
methinks it’s you hat missed the point. He’s pointing out that it’s not the sole purpose, and those the argument that “lack of firepower” is irrelevant to the purpose of the 2A. He’s literally arguing the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Man, that is not the "opposite" of what I'm saying. Somewhat different, but not opposing. Let's say there is a point in the future where firearms alone are truly ineffective against the government. We might not be there yet but let's say we get there one day. Do you think the second amendment would still protect the right to arms at that point? The answer according to Scalia is yes because the right to bear arms is not intimately tied to a purpose
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:40 pm
Popular
Back to top


0





