- 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: Should illegals have 2a and constitutional rights?
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:05 pm to Don Quixote
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:05 pm to Don Quixote
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:06 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Look. I know what I'm saying does not agree with the Constitution.
I've stated this before, our forefathers could not imagine today's context. Amendments have been made to the Constitution as times have changed. Ending slavery, women's Rights, civil rights, etc. This topic is another which needs to be discussed and considered. IMHO
thank you for this candid response, and i agree with you. this is actually what i've been trying to say in this thread, but some posters are way to simple and rage-filled to understand nuance like this. i appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to acknowledge that what you are saying does not marry up with the constitution.
however, when you start going down the road of what our forefathers could and could not imagine in today's context, and saying things like "times have changed", etc, you are basically making the same exact argument that leftists have been making to support the stripping of first and second amendment rights. it's a dangerous precedent to set if suddenly we conservatives are suddenly ALSO starting to claim that times have changed and that new context matters when discussing the Constitution.
it's a tough topic, which is why i've said multiple times in this thread that i am having a hard time squaring it in my own head.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:06 pm to Don Quixote
I mean they are free to wipe out the 5 "conservatives" who are defending them...
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:07 pm to Drizzt
Only blue collar felons. White collar can still own and possess firearms.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:08 pm to Sam Quint
quote:
thank you for this candid response, and i agree with you. this is actually what i've been trying to say in this thread, but some posters are way to simple and rage-filled to understand nuance like this
You are correct.
It also shatters their projected identity (and their in-group more importantly) as "Constitution-defending", "small government" "conservatives".
THAT is the biggest issue.
quote:
however, when you start going down the road of what our forefathers could and could not imagine in today's context, and saying things like "times have changed", etc, you are basically making the same exact argument that leftists have been making to support the stripping of first and second amendment rights. it's a dangerous precedent to set if suddenly we conservatives are suddenly ALSO starting to claim that times have changed and that new context matters when discussing the Constitution.
And as we saw with the Patriot Act, it's really easy to single out random groups.
Like..."right wing domestic terrorists".
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I was on this board when the Patriot Act was a hot discussion. I estimate 95% of the people who supported the Patriot Act now identify as MAGA.
i will admit that as an early twenty-something, i supported the Patriot Act. i still believe that it was put in place with the right intentions, but i was too young and stupid to understand the implications and the potential for future abuse.
however, i'm not MAGA (although i am certainly voting for Trump over Biden)
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't even understand what you're arguing.
I understand completely. Your words were clear. The founding fathers got it wrong and the constitution is old and out-of touch.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:11 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
I understand completely.
Then answer the questions
quote:
What is "Communist" about desiring to limit government for more people?
You think Communism relies on a limited government?
quote:
. Your words were clear. The founding fathers got it wrong and the constitution is old and out-of touch.
Brother, this is your argument. James Madison believed in my argument.
Since you probably don't know who he is, he wrote the Constitution.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:11 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
I understand completely. Your words were clear. The founding fathers got it wrong
Not at all.
Show me in the constitution where visitors cant possess guns.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:12 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Youve already discredited yourself and youre continuing to double down.
Oh. Johnny, I apologize. I forgot you were there. You may go now.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Show me in the constitution where visitors cant possess guns.
This is really dumb, even for JJ
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nice. Has not one thing to do with the 2nd as the high courts have ruled over and over and over again.
There are reasons we have laws and sovereignty.
There are reasons we have laws and sovereignty.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:14 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
The founding fathers got it wrong and the constitution is old and out-of touch.
but this is what YOU guys are saying
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:15 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Has not one thing to do with the 2nd as the high courts have ruled over and over and over again.
No significant rulings since Bruen.
Again, times are a changing. The USSC has really made efforts to protect everyone's rights in the 2A sphere.
quote:
There are reasons we have laws and sovereignty.
And rights restrict these laws. Hence why Heller and Bruen declared certain laws illegal.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Summary: The Supreme Court said they are to be treated the same as citizens of the USA.
Why are you ignoring the fact that higher courts have consistently ruled on the 2nd and the Scotus has yet, in all of these years, reversed those 8 cases?
Because you are .... wrong
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:16 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Why are you ignoring the fact that higher courts have consistently ruled on the 2nd and the Scotus has yet, in all of these years, reversed those 8 cases?
Because you are .... wrong
I was specifically responding to this post
quote:
"Only American citizens have natural rights PROTECTED by the UNITED STATES Constitution."
This argument is incorrect.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Lol. Now turning to VOX!!!
Not lefty at all!
Not lefty at all!
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Show me in the constitution where visitors cant possess guns.
This is really dumb, even for JJ
Does he think "not explicitly protected" means "illegal?"
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News