- 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: This gun control meme came across my FaceBook news feed
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:04 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:04 pm to Big Scrub TX
What do you mean?
2
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:05 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
I mean do you think the constitution should apply only to federal laws.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:06 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
what matters is 5 of 9 justices.
Gun "rights" hang by a thread.
The last thing the federal government wants right now is a bunch of organized, armed civilian militias. You think the Bundy/BLM standoff was bad? Those were random folks gathering together against a perceived common threat. Imagine how that would have turned out if they were organized and trained.
Be careful what you ask for...
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:09 pm to Big Scrub TX
No. It is a right, no law should infringe it.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:10 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Personally, I think gun control is racist. Inner cities have more crime and are more populated by minorities, and making it harder to get a gun is basically telling them they're on their own.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:11 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
At the time of the Bill of Rights... what did "arms" mean?
My guess is musket rifles and cannon fire.
Maybe our right to bear arms should be limited to those things?
My guess is musket rifles and cannon fire.
Maybe our right to bear arms should be limited to those things?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:12 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Maybe our right to bear arms should be limited to those things?
And maybe our free speech ought to be limited to pamphlets and anyone within shouting distance.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:13 pm to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:17 pm to LSUFanHouston
The Founding Fathers were far from stupid, and expected inventions to change the human condition, but they also knew that humans might not be able to sustain their freedom and rights very long.
Think before you start this bad idea of incremental rights abrogation because you think you are not affected, yet.
Think before you start this bad idea of incremental rights abrogation because you think you are not affected, yet.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:19 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Maybe our right to bear arms should be limited to those things?
If a federal agency can purchase the weapon, I should be able to legally buy it as well.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:23 pm to monsterballads
quote:
Think before you start this bad idea of incremental rights abrogation because you think you are not affected, yet.
I'm guessing y'all must have missed the little laughing smiley face at the end of my post. Just trying to be a bit humorous tonight. Oops.
I admit I have some concerns with the current intrepretation of the second amendment... but obviously I think those rights should be extended to whatever current forms of "arms" are out there today.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:34 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What's your view on incorporation of the constitution?
To hell with incorporation, one of the worst things to ever happen to this country. All amendments.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:39 pm to OleWar
why?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:44 pm to Sentrius
I've said this a zillion times. If it just said that the people were allowed to bear arms, there would be no issue. Instead, they decided to add what appears to be a massive caveat.
It does open the door to interpretation. That's a huge problem, but you can't blame the USSC for looking at it that way. It's how I've always read it.
It does open the door to interpretation. That's a huge problem, but you can't blame the USSC for looking at it that way. It's how I've always read it.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:45 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the States, only the federal government, Supreme Court pulled this concept out of their arse in the 1920s. Now States have very little power to create orderly societies as a result. Now either the executive or the judiciary can legislate their own partisan notions of liberty on the country as a whole as result creating all sorts of mischief.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:48 pm to OleWar
So, you think that there are acceptable levels of government that can suppress the natural rights of citizens?
Wait, what? I'm not following you now. How did incorporation allow this?
How so?
quote:
Now either the executive or the judiciary can legislate their own partisan notions of liberty on the country as a whole as result creating all sorts of mischief.
Wait, what? I'm not following you now. How did incorporation allow this?
quote:
The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the States
How so?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:54 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
The Bill of Rights, and it's amendments, are direct orders to the states.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 11:56 pm to FT
Thats kind of how I saw it. The rest of the constitution spells out what the Fed can/can't do. The BOR and amendments spell out what the fed/state can't do & what the state can do. My very limited understanding at least.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 12:11 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
So, you think that there are acceptable levels of government that can suppress the natural rights of citizens?
I think government is established to protect the natural rights of life , liberty and property and in so doing may at times suppress some perceived natural rights. I believe that in establishing this republican form of government, size matters, and when such an organism is too large, it becomes naturally corrupt and tyrannical.
quote:
Wait, what? I'm not following you now. How did incorporation allow this?
It started by the liberal judges starting in the 1920s but really gearing up in the 1960s and 1970s to deny the ability of the states to govern themselves and establish order. Name a social ill and in three moves or less, there is most likely a Supreme Court Decision using incorporation doing this.
quote:
The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the States
This is a fact, as it was initially written.
Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833 case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. For example, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against SLAVERY alleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Read more: Incorporation Doctrine - Amendment, Rights, Court, and Bill - JRank Articles LINK
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 12:15 am
Posted on 5/30/14 at 12:25 am to OleWar
quote:
Sect. 22nd. The free white men of this State, shall be armed and disciplined for its defence; but those who belong to religious societies, whose tenets forbid them to carry arms, shall not be compelled so to do, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. Sect. 23rd. The militia of this state shall be organized in such manner as may be hereafter deemed most expedient by the legislature.
This is from the Louisiana Constitution of 1812 as it relates to arms and militias. Interesting stuff.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News