- 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 four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
It would be infringed if they prohibited you from owning/purchasing arms. Regardless if they give you firearms. These rights are not granted by the government. They are granted by the people.
It’s we the people who ALLOW the government to operate. Unfortunately too many people think otherwise
It’s we the people who ALLOW the government to operate. Unfortunately too many people think otherwise
2
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.
This is sad.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
And that's one of the stupidest responses you can make. Congrats
Nah, his response was perfect. Your troll attempt was weak.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
quote:
This is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.
And that's one of the stupidest responses you can make. Congrats.
How would our right be infringed if the government actually supplied us with arms?
(In case you're wondering, this is a 'hypothetical' question.)
Because it is not their place to issue us a weapon, and any such weapon would not be sufficient to keep them in line. The supplied "firearm" would probably be a single shot .22 rifle.
The thing that gets me every time about liberals and guns is the fact that they want to do away with the only thing that protects themselves from any of their other rights (amendment protected rights) being taken away.
Do you honestly believe that if the 2nd amendment was repealed, that your first amendment right can stop the government from taking away your 4th amendment rights? Words wont do shite.
If a magical wand was waved and all firearms in civilian hands were removed do you really think that government would not use that fact to put you under their thumb? How can you give up your ability to protect yourself from the magnificent orange bastard? Without guns he could put all the democrats in camps and all the other bullshite things yall spout off about.
Guns on both sides are what keeps everyone equal.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
WildTchoupitoulas
Ftr, I don’t think you’re being idiotic, and your hypothetical is interesting and not totally invalid. I don’t believe the authors of the Consitition intended that the government should be in control of the civilians arms, but I understand what you’re saying.
quote:
No, but the WOD was
You’re saying it was “right”, as opposed to left, but truthfully left and right both want government control.
There just really isn’t any “far right” with any kind of power in the US, and I don’t know that there ever was.
The WOD has been ineffective, but to say it’s a “rightist” thing only makes sense in regards to the American “right”, which is not hard right in any meaningful sense.
Also,Anti-Communists weren’t Fascists (hard right), they were just pro-American.
quote:
Well, we've largely lost our 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendment rights, so how is the 2nd protecting them again?
Most people have not felt their rights to be lost, so you wouldn’t expect whatever’s happened to have triggered a violent response by the citizenry.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:36 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
4. "You will not stop the US military with an AR-15, so it is pointless to have one."
This is a fallacy parroted a lot by the filth
Add also, there are many modern examples of civilians significantly resisting even our powerful military with basic weaponry.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:53 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
act so as to limit
quote:
That really doesn't seem to support your position.
quote:
How is your right to bear arms infringed if the law allows you to possess them and use them at will?
Are the angels in government also supplying unlimited replacements, replacement parts, and ammunition?
quote:
Technically it wouldn't ban the manufacture, just restrict it. And, again, the 2nd A doesn't protect our right to trade arms, just bear them. If we were issued arms, we could bear them at will.
So to make your hypothetical work, they would have to supply all equipment for perpetual use. Wouldn't that fly in the face of any argument for safety and the reason why you want them banned in the first place?
Posted on 3/2/18 at 12:54 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
It would be infringed if they prohibited you from owning/purchasing arms. Regardless if they give you firearms. These rights are not granted by the government. They are granted by the people.
They are granted by natural law, God, flying spaghetti monster, or however you see the Universe. A bear has no restriction on its teeth and claws.
quote:
It’s we the people who ALLOW the government to operate
BINGO
Posted on 3/2/18 at 1:17 pm to Centinel
If the US government issued an '03 Springfield and a Stevens SXS to each able bodied male, and prohibited the purchase of any firearms, would the 2nd Amendment still be protecting our right to bear arms?
1+
quote:
The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms, it just says we have the right to bear arms, and if the government supplied us with arms, we would still maintain the right to bear them.
This is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.
1+
Posted on 3/2/18 at 1:20 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
act so as to limit
Can you please remove a little more context from that?
Curiously you seemed to have ignored this statement:
"If we were issued arms, we could bear them at will."
quote:
the reason why you want them banned in the first place?
What the frick are you talking about? Do you have a link to where I've said I want guns banned?
My sole point in this exercise is to determine how far the government can go with restrictions on guns. ban fully auto weapons, check. ban semi-auto weapons? If they were able to ban fully-auto, why not semi-auto under the exact same justification? Once they're there, what's to stop them from proposing just what I proposed, issue arms that the government is comfortable with the citizenry bearing, remove all others and make it illegal to trade arms?
While I don't want them to do it, I just don't see where the 2nd would stop them - especially in light of the passage of the NFA.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 1:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
If the US government issued an '03 Springfield and a Stevens SXS to each able bodied male, and prohibited the purchase of any firearms, would the 2nd Amendment still be protecting our right to bear arms?
yes
quote:
The 2nd A doesn't specify that the people have the right to purchase arms, nor does it specify what type of arms
How about you read the rest of the amendments and get back to us.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 1:40 pm to uway
quote:
Fascists (hard right)
Fascists are socialists, and very close to communists. They simply disagree on how the State should lord over the people. The "fascist=right" or "right=nazi" is a Leftist narrative to separate themselves from the universally hated Nazis.
Freedom, liberty, and limited government does not belong between totalitarianism and totalitarianism on the political spectrum.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 1:58 pm to SoulGlo
I read a book called Liberty's Last Stand, by Stephen Coonts. It's about a President who uses a series of terrorist attacks as an excuse to declare martial law. He then arrests his key political opponents on phony charges of planning to assassinate him.
Things snowball, and Texas declares it intent to secede. The President sends the military in, but most won't fight because of guns. It's one thing for a soldier to arrest an unarmed civilian, but it's another thing altogether for a soldier to get into a shootout with armed Americans. That's where the military guys will say"frick it, I didn't sign up to slaughter fellow countrymen over political differences."
Things snowball, and Texas declares it intent to secede. The President sends the military in, but most won't fight because of guns. It's one thing for a soldier to arrest an unarmed civilian, but it's another thing altogether for a soldier to get into a shootout with armed Americans. That's where the military guys will say"frick it, I didn't sign up to slaughter fellow countrymen over political differences."
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:07 pm to Walkthedawg
If you want a good reason for the Second Amendment look at South Africa today, and see what is happening there.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:18 pm to antibarner
quote:
If you want a good reason for the Second Amendment look at South Africa today, and see what is happening there.
INB4 the "that could never happen here" crowd.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:35 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
It would be infringed if they prohibited you from owning arms.
Yes.
quote:
It would be infringed if they prohibited you from purchasing arms.
Prove it. You don't need to buy one to bear one if the gov't issues it to you.
quote:
These rights are not granted by the government. They are granted by the people.
Not germane to the discussion.
quote:
It’s we the people who ALLOW the government to operate.
Not exactly, in a country of self-rule, such as ours, it's we the people who actually operate the government. Unfortunately too many people think otherwise.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
it just says we have the right to bear arms
Winnie the Pooh also has the right to bear arms.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 2:53 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
Fascists are socialists, and very close to communists. They simply disagree on how the State should lord over the people. The "fascist=right" or "right=nazi" is a Leftist narrative to separate themselves from the universally hated Nazis
Thanks, Jonah Goldberg, but no.
quote:
Freedom, liberty, and limited government does not belong between totalitarianism and totalitarianism on the political spectrum
It kind of does, though.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 3:34 pm to skrayper
quote:
Winnie the Pooh also has the right to bear arms.
So does Rosie the Riveter.
Posted on 3/2/18 at 3:52 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
You're a dumb mother fricker
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News