- 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
"...shall not be infringed."
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:30 am
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:30 am
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Does anybody on the left not know what the bolded phrase mean?
You can't tell me that the fricking framers only meant muskets. At the rate that technology was beginning to advance in those days, they absolutely knew that there would be something else than a musket in the future.
The second amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed as long as people are using muskets." It says "shall not be infringed." PERIOD.
If they had said anything about using muskets then I would begin to agree that the Constitution is a living, breathing document like so many of you Fascistic/Communistic/un-American pieces of shite, mouth breathing lefties would have us believe.
The Framers made the language broad in order to set it in stone.
15
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:31 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:32 am to TigerFanInSouthland
It’s not set in stone. It can be changed. Libs don’t have the stones, don’t care enough about it to try. This is a fundraising, vote rally orchestrated by the dnc and implemented by CNN.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:34 am to TigerFanInSouthland
At what point does the line between a weapon I can purchase legally and a military-grade weapon become blurry for you? Is there a line?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:35 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Shall not be infringed has no merit unless you understand the first part of the sentence.
You can try to interpret it however you want but that doesnt change the original meaning
You can try to interpret it however you want but that doesnt change the original meaning
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:42 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
At what point does the line between a weapon I can purchase legally and a military-grade weapon become blurry for you? Is there a line?
I really don't care, as 99% of all weapons owners in this country have not and will not murder another person. I understand why they don't want your everyday Joe getting his hands on something like a fricking tank, though.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:44 am to SleauxPlay
To be honest, I have a much higher risk of dying because some a-hole "has" to text or tweet while driving (something NOT protected by the second fricking amendment ever written to the constitution) than being shot by an AR-15, et al.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:45 am to winston318
quote:
Shall not be infringed has no merit unless you understand the first part of the sentence. You can try to interpret it however you want but that doesnt change the original meaning
It doesn’t say only people in a well regulated militia should own guns...simply states the logic on which the right of all men to own guns is being explicitly protected by the amendment.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:46 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
Is there a line?
Of course there is but in all seriousness if anyone has to ask this question they don't understand firearms.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:48 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
At what point does the line between a weapon I can purchase legally and a military-grade weapon become blurry for you? Is there a line?
You do realize that muskets in 18th century America were considered "military grade" because that's all they had, don't you?
The whole point of the Second Amendment was for average citizens to be able to defend themselves against invading armies, whether that army be foreign or domestic.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:48 am to winston318
quote:
Shall not be infringed has no merit unless you understand the first part of the sentence.
You can try to interpret it however you want but that doesnt change the original meaning
SCOTUS says you're wrong. Reading other writings of that time period says you're wrong. Logic says you're wrong. Grammar says you're wrong.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:51 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
At what point does the line between a weapon I can purchase legally and a military-grade weapon become blurry for you? Is there a line?
The 2nd amendment was written by men who owned “military-grade weapons” and stood toe to toe in battle with the lawful and rightful government’s military and won.
Personal protection was important. Hunting food for the family was important. But the ability of individuals to form a militia and stand up for their freedom was the primary reason they said the individual had the right to keep and bear arms.
Note, they could keep and bear canon that are illegal today.
Arms were for shooting red coats, not red squirrels.
The founders saw no line, and gave the purpose of the right: the security of a free state depended upon a well armed people, to be able to form a militia, that could fight and defeat the strongest army in the world. They wanted us to be equally armed as the US Army.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:52 am to TigerFanInSouthland
I mean, I get what you're saying, but the courts have said that there can be reasonable restrictions in place. Otherwise, every single restriction on firearms would have been overturned long ago.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:54 am to winston318
quote:
Shall not be infringed has no merit unless you understand the first part of the sentence.
You can try to interpret it however you want but that doesnt change the original meaning
And what was that original meaning? Let's break it down.
"A well-regulated militia...."
A common phrase the left tries to point to and say gotcha. Obviously the Founders intended the federal government to regulate and provide oversight to gun owners! Until you actually look up what the term "well-regulated" meant to 18th Century Americans.
"Well-regulated" simply meant "in proper working order." So all that phrase means is that the Founders wanted a militia that was well-trained and proficient in firearm usage.
And what was the militia? Reading primary sources from people who were involved in writing the Constitution, they considered the militia to be every able-bodied male with a firearm.
The rest of the amendment becomes self-explanatory after that.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:55 am to GetCocky11
quote:
I mean, I get what you're saying, but the courts have said that there can be reasonable restrictions in place. Otherwise, every single restriction on firearms would have been overturned long ago.
I understand that, which is why I said in a previous post that it's pretty much common sense that the gov't would be pretty reasonable to not just allow everyday people to have a tank.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 8:57 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
At what point does the line between a weapon I can purchase legally and a military-grade weapon become blurry for you? Is there a line?
Arms are historically categorized as weapons you can carry... with your arms. Is this where you take a logical leap and say "WELL CAN I HAVE A BAZOOKA" ?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 9:00 am to Damone
quote:
Is this where you take a logical leap and say "WELL CAN I HAVE A BAZOOKA" ?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 9:10 am to Damone
quote:
WELL CAN I HAVE A BAZOOKA
You can’t even have what the founding fathers could, back when evil-rights suppressing King George III ran the country.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 9:16 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Does anybody on the left not know what the bolded phrase mean?
I'm beginning to wonder if Donald Trump knows what that means?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 9:18 am to SleauxPlay
quote:
military-grade weapon
I doubt the gun used in the Parkland school shooting was military-grade. What does that even mean?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News