- 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: Hot Take: There is no 2nd Amendment
Posted on 5/31/22 at 8:11 pm to jonnyanony
Posted on 5/31/22 at 8:11 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
If we're being honest, the "right to bear arms" is not restricted to guns. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to guarantee that we can arm ourselves by whatever means we see fit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say shite about "guns."
Correct. We have been conditioned to believe it's all about guns. We should have access to any weapon the US government would use against us.
I have no doubt some will be screaming "shall not be infringed" all the way up to the government confiscating their single shot 20 gauge
1
Posted on 5/31/22 at 8:18 pm to SleepyJoe
Oh and if you want to regulate firearms due to school shootings or any shooting, you deserve tyranny.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 8:33 pm to troyt37
quote:
Have the rights of the citizens to bear arms been infringed at all?
quote:
Of course
quote:
You mean besides ensuring millions of Americans had the means to defend themselves?
Hmmm. Sounds like it didn’t ensure it at all.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 9:01 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
cool new switchblade drones
How about the SWITCHBLADE knife? Taking our weapons is not a new thing.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 9:04 pm to AM
quote:
let's not forget though that the heller case only agreed to handgun ownership in the home.
Wrong. Heller applies to all firearms in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense within a home. Heller specifically cites Miller in that the types of firearms protected are those suitable for militia purposes. Heller was carefully worded to not be exclusive to handguns.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 9:08 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Hmmm. Sounds like it didn’t ensure it at all.
Hmmm. You realize that there are 300+ million firearms in the hands of American citizens, somewhere north of a billion rounds of ammo, and that those firearms are used in self defense and to thwart crime an estimated 3 million times per year?
Posted on 5/31/22 at 9:25 pm to troyt37
quote:
Hmmm. You realize that there are 300+ million firearms in the hands of American citizens, somewhere north of a billion rounds of ammo, and that those firearms are used in self defense and to thwart crime an estimated 3 million times per year?
I knew this would be one of the response before I even started writing the OP. It’s faulty logic. Again, the 2A doesn’t give you the right to own a gun. It doesn’t even ensure that everyone does. It forbids the government upon infringing on that right. Full stop. So it’s not effective in doing the only thing it’s meant to do. If the 2A had said “government shall not completely ban all firearms” then your point may be relevant. But it doesn’t, so it’s not.
People owning guns is in no way proof that the government hasn’t taken action to restrict aspects of gun ownership.
In the same way that the existence of offensive speech isn’t proof that there haven’t been actions taken to restrict speech.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 5/31/22 at 9:37 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
knew this would be one of the response before I even started writing the OP. It’s faulty logic. Again, the 2A doesn’t give you the right to own a gun. It doesn’t even ensure that everyone does. It forbids the government upon infringing on that right. Full stop. So it’s not effective in doing the only thing it’s meant to do. If the 2A had said “government shall not completely ban all firearms” then your point may be relevant. But it doesn’t, so it’s not. People owning guns is in no way proof that the government hasn’t taken action to restrict aspects of gun ownership. In the same way that the existence of offensive speech isn’t proof that there haven’t been actions taken to restrict speech.
Yes, and? This isn’t any kind of new thinking. You are absolutely right, that the 2A does not bestow any rights on anyone. You are absolutely right that there have been infringements and violations that have came with Supreme Courts that were more tyrannical than others. But the existence of the 2A puts a huge stumbling block in front of the gun grabbers at times like this, when if it were only a matter of creating legislation, lilly livered republicans would be more than happy to capitulate.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 10:55 pm to EasterEgg
Negative GhostRider…only the Militia should be well regulated…that means trained…AKA the National Guard that keeps being activated to not guard the homeland.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 11:20 pm to ValhallaAwaits
It doesn’t say anything about government backed militias, it says militias. When they wrote the Constitution, there wasn’t a national guard. Throughout the years there have been private citizens who formed militias. In Louisiana the Washington Artillery was a private militia, and they owned cannons.
During the civil war, private citizens raised their own companies and battalions of militias, and those were mustered into both the Union and Confederate armies. Louisiana Zouaves, also known as the Louisiana Tigers, comes to mind. A privately raised militia, with cannons, who brought their own arms to fight.
During the civil war, private citizens raised their own companies and battalions of militias, and those were mustered into both the Union and Confederate armies. Louisiana Zouaves, also known as the Louisiana Tigers, comes to mind. A privately raised militia, with cannons, who brought their own arms to fight.
Posted on 5/31/22 at 11:46 pm to troyt37
quote:
But the existence of the 2A puts a huge stumbling block in front of the gun grabbers at times like this,
How so? It says “shall not infringe” and they immediately began infringing. How is it putting stumbling blocks? They don’t give a rats arse about. It’s meaningless to them and they don’t answer to it.
This post was edited on 5/31/22 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 6/1/22 at 6:49 am to WildTchoupitoulas
The government issuing guns is not infringement
Limiting it to complete government control is
Limiting it to complete government control is
Posted on 6/1/22 at 7:09 am to Hester Carries
quote:
How so? It says “shall not infringe” and they immediately began infringing. How is it putting stumbling blocks? They don’t give a rats arse about. It’s meaningless to them and they don’t answer to it.
I think you’re just trolling at this point, but I’ll go one more round.
What do you think the difference is between living in the US and just about all of Europe, regarding guns?
Posted on 6/1/22 at 7:12 am to Hester Carries
The 2nd amendment exists.
But, like all laws and rights, it is meaningless to a tyrannical government. Only guns themselves might be able to stop that.
But, like all laws and rights, it is meaningless to a tyrannical government. Only guns themselves might be able to stop that.
Posted on 6/1/22 at 7:13 am to troyt37
quote:
I think you’re just trolling at this point, but I’ll go one more round. What do you think the difference is between living in the US and just about all of Europe, regarding guns?
The difference is that our government currently allows us to have more guns than them.
The US has more guns. So what? That’s not the point of the 2A. The 2As purpose is singular. To keep the federal government making ANY laws infringing on the right to bear arms.
You seem to think a rule that states “zero tolerance” for an action can be responsible for the outcome of “some tolerance”. That’s not possible.
This post was edited on 6/1/22 at 7:17 am
Posted on 6/1/22 at 8:01 am to Hester Carries
You are barking up the wrong tree if you want to argue about the 2A being absolute. I’ve been arguing it, and taking shite for it for over a decade here.
But just because the tyrants in the government have given themselves permission to violate the 2A, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It means we have to fight harder to restore it, and to keep it.
But just because the tyrants in the government have given themselves permission to violate the 2A, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It means we have to fight harder to restore it, and to keep it.
Posted on 6/1/22 at 8:33 am to troyt37
quote:
But just because the tyrants in the government have given themselves permission to violate the 2A, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
If someone can simply give themselves permission to not follow a rule, it’s not a rule to them. I’m not sure how this is a debate
This post was edited on 6/1/22 at 8:37 am
Posted on 6/1/22 at 8:44 am to Hester Carries
quote:
If someone can simply give themselves permission to not follow a rule, it’s not a rule to them. I’m not sure how this is a debate
I’m not sure how you think the 2A is the lone example of this. Mrs. Clinton’s treatment of classified information and documents would have nearly anyone else in prison. Does that mean those rules and laws don’t exist?
Posted on 6/1/22 at 9:38 am to troyt37
quote:
I’m not sure how you think the 2A is the lone example of this.
I don’t think it is. Where have I implied that?
quote:
Mrs. Clinton’s treatment of classified information and documents would have nearly anyone else in prison. Does that mean those rules and laws don’t exist?
Essentially
Posted on 6/1/22 at 10:18 am to ValhallaAwaits
quote:
only the Militia should be well regulated…that means trained…AKA the National Guard that keeps being activated to not guard the homeland.
Trained and equipped. Also, 10 USC defines the militia as "organized" (National Guard) and "unorganized" (everyone else). The 2A is an individual right unconnected to service in any militia though, the People have the right to train and equip themselves as they see fit and if a militia is formed then the militia is better for it.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News