- 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: This is how you 2nd Amendment
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:15 am to troyt37
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:15 am to troyt37
quote:
As if activist judges are a new thing? The fact that 19th century courts took it upon themselves to redefine "infringe", ignored it, or simply used verbal diarrhea to circumvent the Constitution doesn't change the fact that any such ruling, law, or legislation is by definition unconstitutional.
..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The point is that those laws were considered constitutional while the founders were still around. What better proof could you need?
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 1:15 pm
2
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:27 am to bmy
quote:
What better proof could you need?
Troll.
I would need proof that an infringement isn't an infringement, which is impossible. Thus unconstitutional. When you group letters together, they form words. Words have definitions. If Jesus himself came down to tell me that laws preventing citizens from keeping and bearing arms wasn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, I'd tell him he's wrong.
That goes for the founding fathers, activist judges, lawyers, constitutional scholars, Antonin Scalia or anyone else you can name. Knowledge of the law, level of education, or being the very person who first wrote the language of the Second Amendment has absolutely no bearing on the definition of the damn words in the Bill of Rights!
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:29 am to bmy
quote:
"For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues"
Judge J. Dickinson opinioned in a 19th-century case that the 2nd Amendment was a Federal power. An opinion ignored by later courts as it cited no authority or evidence to support it.
Typical bmy, ignorant and uneducated.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:34 am to bmy
quote:
bmy
Why is it that you people are eager to fall back to the Founders, but only when it's convenient to your point?
Posted on 1/31/19 at 10:51 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Here in Mississippi a permit is not required to carry concealed. They still issue them though as you would need one to carry across state lines.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 11:32 am to bayoudude
quote:
Here in Mississippi a permit is not required to carry concealed. They still issue them though as you would need one to carry across state lines.
Until a week or so ago here in Arkansas, a CCL cost about $150, plus $50 to the Arkansas State Police for the background check. Since Act 746, and now the reduction in fees, the state government is like a cat covering up shite in a sandbox. We have CC instructors, state troopers, county and municipal LE still telling people you need the license.
SECTION 2. Arkansas Code § 5-73-120 is amended to read as follows:
5-73-120. Carrying a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.
Arkansas is Constitutional Carry.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why is it that you people are eager to fall back to the Founders, but only when it's convenient to your point?
I have no problem with a state choosing to not require a permit to carry. Same goes for a state choosing to require a permit.
States rights
Posted on 1/31/19 at 1:58 pm to bmy
quote:
I have no problem with a state choosing to not require a permit to carry. Same goes for a state choosing to require a permit.
Sure, but that's only one side of your hypocrisy.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 2:15 pm to bmy
quote:
I have no problem with a state choosing to not require a permit to carry. Same goes for a state choosing to require a permit. States rights
The consummate troll.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That pretty much prohibits it to the states, or anyone else, doesn't it? Or am I missing the part in the Second where it says "unless a state, county, or municipality says so."?
What does the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part mean to you? Seems pretty clear that the FF are saying to each state that security is necessary, and here is how you'll do it.
ETA:
Something tells me that if Backsass, Arkansas decided that you had to buy a permit, pass a test, register with the state, and give them your fingerprints upon deciding that you were going to exercise your right to free speech, you wouldn't be talking about states rights.
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 1/31/19 at 3:12 pm to troyt37
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That pretty much prohibits it to the states, or anyone else, doesn't it? Or am I missing the part in the Second where it says "unless a state, county, or municipality says so."?
I don't think it does. State militias were a check against federal power/standing armies. Some state militias also required that firearms were stored in a specific manner or met certain criteria...
In modern days it would read something like:
A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security/sovereignty of a free State and Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
This post was edited on 1/31/19 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 1/31/19 at 3:52 pm to bmy
quote:
In modern days it would read something like:
A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security/sovereignty of a free State and Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
You know what? In their infinite wisdom, the founding fathers made provisions for changing the wording of the Constitution to suit you. Pretty simple process, actually. Knock yourself out. You'll forgive if in the meantime, the sane among us hold to what the document actually says.
I edited to add about Backsass, Arkansas in my previous post. I'd be interested to know what you think. And how about if Backsass, or the whole state of Arkansas just decided that the First Amendment didn't apply there? States rights?
Posted on 1/31/19 at 4:03 pm to troyt37
quote:
Something tells me that if Backsass, Arkansas decided that you had to buy a permit, pass a test, register with the state, and give them your fingerprints upon deciding that you were going to exercise your right to free speech, you wouldn't be talking about states rights
There are plenty of restrictions on our right to free speech and many states require permits to assemble
Posted on 1/31/19 at 4:04 pm to bmy
quote:
plenty of restrictions on our right to free speech
Do tell.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 4:16 pm to bmy
quote:
State militias were a check against federal power/standing armies.
Militias exist to enable an armed populace.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 5:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
State militias were a check against federal power/standing armies.
quote:....and a deterent to Tyranny.
Militias exist to enable an armed populace.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 5:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I have agreed with you twice in the same post.
I worry for my sanity.
I worry for my sanity.
Posted on 1/31/19 at 5:33 pm to IslandBuckeye
You probably agree with me on more than you might think.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 6:32 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Militias exist to enable an armed populace.
It's the opposite of this but it's also fairly circular. An armed populace exists to enable a militia. That has zero to do with concealed carry laws.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 9:10 am to bmy
Considering that you've thoroughly embarrassed yourself once again in yet another thread, but you continue to post, I thought I'd let you know where Backsass, Arkansas came from. I thought it entirely appropriate.
Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke?
Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you's back-slide on us?
Luke: Oh no I won't. I won't, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you's to back-sass?
Luke: No I won't. I won't. I got my mind right.
Boss Paul: You got your mind right, Luke?
Luke: Yeah. I got it right. I got it right, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you's back-slide on us?
Luke: Oh no I won't. I won't, boss.
Boss Paul: Suppose you's to back-sass?
Luke: No I won't. I won't. I got my mind right.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 9:12 am to Wtodd
Constitutional Carry in Mississippi
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News