- 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: The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:16 am to SludgeFactory
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:16 am to SludgeFactory
Neither he nor cubbies are trolls. They are pseudo-intellectuals who think they are smarter than all of us and see it as their responsibility to educate us
0
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:26 am to UtahCajun
Corrected. Dumbfrick OP does not understand the use of the word “regulated”. And regardless, it applies to the militia, not individual gun owners.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:32 am to RFK
quote:
he 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons
Let me stop you right there, Chief.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:36 am to RFK
The militia can be well regulated, not the arms
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:38 am to Narax
RFK
Example..
Active-duty military personnel by state (2021 numbers last I could find)
Massachusetts - 3,417
Louisiana - 15,547
4 of the top 5 states are southern, gun loving states.
If he thinks that our military will blindly follow what the clowns in Washington order, he is mistaken.
quote:.
Maybe this is a moot point. If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.
quote:He really doesn’t get it.
You completely have no idea, its laughable that you dont get it.
Example..
Active-duty military personnel by state (2021 numbers last I could find)
Massachusetts - 3,417
Louisiana - 15,547
4 of the top 5 states are southern, gun loving states.
If he thinks that our military will blindly follow what the clowns in Washington order, he is mistaken.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:39 am to nealnan8
quote:
Serious question: do you think a 3 yr. old should have the right to own a firearm?
Yes. Doesn't quite fit your hyperbole, but owned a few by age 8.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:51 am to RFK
If I were to take this on as a historian, I would read as much as could of the tracts and letters of the period prior to the passing of this amendment to best see what they really meant. You may need to go back a few decades prior to the Revolution. This sounds like a scholarly book that needs to be written (if it hasn't been already written and written objectively, meaning without any agenda, meaning to present both sides of the argument as argued in their time).
Posted on 5/31/26 at 8:57 am to RFK
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:00 am to RFK
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
That means whether it be a militia, or individual, it is Right that Our Founders deemed could not be taken away.
The unarming of Europe was no accident. The leaders of the EU and other Globalists influencers know that in order to "fundamentally transform a Nation", you must first disarm a populace so they can't resist tyranny.
That means whether it be a militia, or individual, it is Right that Our Founders deemed could not be taken away.
The unarming of Europe was no accident. The leaders of the EU and other Globalists influencers know that in order to "fundamentally transform a Nation", you must first disarm a populace so they can't resist tyranny.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:01 am to RFK
Classic "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but...." post.
The Founders believed the people should have the same weapons as the military.
The Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional.
The Founders believed the people should have the same weapons as the military.
The Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:03 am to BACONisMEATcandy
quote:
BACONisMEATcandy
Long time, brother. Hope all is well for you and yours.
2nd amendment is good.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:05 am to nealnan8
quote:
Serious question: do you think a 3 yr. old should have the right to vote?
My general rule is if you wouldn't limit our other constitutional rights in the same manner, you can't apply it to the 2A.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:07 am to nealnan8
You still haven’t answered my statement towards your ridiculous question. Didn’t you say that you are waiting for an answer?
then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership.”
One could be open to no regulations on owning a gun without be so stupid in letting a child of 3 play with a working gun. I was probably 5-6 when my father and grandfather took me squirrel hunting, and maybe 7-8 on my first duck hunt. But I can definitely say they didn’t let me carry that shotgun out of worry in hurting another. That’s what is called being responsible
then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership.”
One could be open to no regulations on owning a gun without be so stupid in letting a child of 3 play with a working gun. I was probably 5-6 when my father and grandfather took me squirrel hunting, and maybe 7-8 on my first duck hunt. But I can definitely say they didn’t let me carry that shotgun out of worry in hurting another. That’s what is called being responsible
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:08 am to RFK
quote:
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
No, we do not. Those commas have meaning and you can’t wish your way into a different meaning as you’re trying to do here.
It’s people like you who think you’re the smartest in the room, yet so incredibly dumb you can’t see it.
You can’t acknowledge the grammar then say, “but they probably meant this instead.” That’s a ludicrous argument to make.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:08 am to RFK
All of that shite typed out and you don’t even comprehend “well regulated.”
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:08 am to LCA131
I stay busy these days 
Hope you and the family are well.
Hope you and the family are well.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:11 am to RFK
You’re wrong and your agenda shows. It’s the right of the frickING PEOPLE!!! Who makes the militia? THE frickING PEOPLE
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:16 am to nealnan8
quote:
If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership
What a stupidass argument. We don't base our laws on toddlers.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:23 am to Nosevens
quote:In Louisiana we have rules about these things…
One could be open to no regulations on owning a gun without be so stupid in letting a child of 3 play with a working gun. I was probably 5-6 when my father and grandfather took me squirrel hunting, and maybe 7-8 on my first duck hunt. But I can definitely say they didn’t let me carry that shotgun out of worry in hurting another. That’s what is called being responsible
Civil Code Article 2318: In Louisiana, the father and mother are strictly responsible for the damage occasioned by their minor, unemancipated children who reside with them.
Civil Code Article 223: Parents have legal authority over the physical care, discipline, and protection of their children, and must actively guide them.
Age limit: These general liability provisions apply to unemancipated minors, which usually means individuals under the age of 18
We also have laws regarding felons possessing guns.
Problem is, the above are selectively enforced.
Instead of making new regulations regarding the 2nd amendment, let’s enforce the laws with the penalties already on the books.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News