- 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: Free Speech is a right. How come we do not register our speech, thought, or writings?
Posted on 5/14/24 at 12:24 pm to Smeg
Posted on 5/14/24 at 12:24 pm to Smeg
quote:
Don't give these commies any ideas.
Agreed. They are already tracking who we are, where we are at, when we logged in and what we've written. And like a camera, this is captured in perpetuity.
0
Posted on 5/14/24 at 12:42 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Why is the right to protect and feed your family and self treated differently?
...because a lot of the people who claim to support the Second Amendment are "real big 2A guys, but..." Fudds who are happy to accept infringement if it's something they don't care about.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 12:54 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Why wouldn’t limitations on the Second Amendment be subject to the same analysis as the limitations placed on the First Amendment? Both contain absolute textual prohibitions on infringement of the rights described in them.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Negative, ghost rider.
No shite.
I was making fun of his ridiculous parallelism.Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:14 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Both contain absolute textual prohibitions on infringement of the rights described in them.
Go on...
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I asked a question. Ball is in your court.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:20 pm to Indefatigable
You made an assertion...
Support it.
quote:
Both contain absolute textual prohibitions on infringement of the rights described in them.
Support it.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I’ve already stated it in this thread. “Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” are equally restrictive from a textual standpoint on legislation limiting enumerated rights.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:25 pm to Indefatigable
OK, so you agree with the OP.
That was easy.
That was easy.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
OP doesn’t even make a point that I could agree or disagree with. And to the extent he does, my post on the first page directly addresses that by raising the question that you yet again are dodging.
I’m assuming you once again aren’t going to answer my question? If you’re a textual absolutist in all statutory interpretation, why wouldn’t you just say so?
I’m assuming you once again aren’t going to answer my question? If you’re a textual absolutist in all statutory interpretation, why wouldn’t you just say so?
This post was edited on 5/14/24 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
OP doesn’t even make a point.
Sure he does. You just cherry-picked his post to make your Fudd point.
quote:
I’m assuming you once again aren’t going to answer my question?
You answered your own question, sport.
quote:
Why is the right to protect and feed your family and self treated differently?
quote:
Why wouldn’t limitations on the Second Amendment be subject to the same analysis as the limitations placed on the First Amendment?
quote:
“Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” are equally restrictive from a textual standpoint on legislation limiting enumerated rights.
You're welcome.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:37 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You’ve become one of the worst posters on here the last couple of years.
I didn’t cherry pick anything. I raised the question of why the second amendment is or should be treated differently than the first when both contain textual prohibitions on limiting rights. I’m going to keep asking that question in every “shall not be infringed” thread until someone actually answers it.
It’s bizarre that you won’t simply discuss the issue you clearly care about on a political discussion board.
quote:
You just cherry-picked his post to make your Fudd point.
I didn’t cherry pick anything. I raised the question of why the second amendment is or should be treated differently than the first when both contain textual prohibitions on limiting rights. I’m going to keep asking that question in every “shall not be infringed” thread until someone actually answers it.
It’s bizarre that you won’t simply discuss the issue you clearly care about on a political discussion board.
This post was edited on 5/14/24 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You’ve become one of the worst posters on here the last couple of years.
This means nothing to me coming from someone like you.
quote:
I didn’t cherry pick anything.
You did, and now you're trying to pivot from what I responded to in order to further whatever bullshite point you're trying to make.
I'm not interested, and you're free to frick off.
quote:
It’s bizarre that you won’t simply discuss the issue you clearly care about on a political discussion board.
I'll discuss it. I'm just not discussing it on your terms.
This post was edited on 5/14/24 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:45 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm just not discussing it on your terms.
Answering a basic question isn’t “on my terms”. It’s a legitimate question in the context of this conversation.
quote:
You did, and now you're trying to pivot from what I responded to in order to further whatever bullshite point you're trying to make.
Im not trying to make a point. I’m asking how you—or anyone else who feels that the second amendment is absolute based on the plain text—would answer the question on how that view extends to the first amendment.
Are you that cynical that you can’t even have an intellectual discussion on that point? Or have you not thought about it?
It would be far easier to just post a thoughtful answer than waste posts on emojis.
This post was edited on 5/14/24 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Answering a basic question isn’t “on my terms”.
Your question was irrelevant to what I posted.
It took me about 30 seconds to convince you to answer it yourself.
That's why I ignored it.
If you want a discussion, read my post and ask a relevant question.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I don’t care about your first post. I just know you’re a strong 2A poster and wanted your answer to my question. Fine, you for whatever reason refuse.
Absolutely nothing I’ve posted answered how you or anyone else would respond to my question.
quote:
took me about 30 seconds to convince you to answer it yourself.
Absolutely nothing I’ve posted answered how you or anyone else would respond to my question.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 1:54 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Yeah?
Which amendment is that right enumerated in?
the 9th and hundreds more fall under the 9th. Obviously its not a car but we do have a right to move unrestricted by the government.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 2:00 pm to Timeoday
quote:
They want us to register our guns
Posted on 5/14/24 at 2:00 pm to Godfather1
quote:
The first thing you’re taught in driver’s ed is that driving is a privilege, not a right.
We all have the right to travel.
Posted on 5/14/24 at 2:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I don’t care about your first post.
Then don't fricking reply to me. I don't know why you find this so difficult to get...I don't care about whatever conversation you're trying to have. I posted what I posted. We can discuss that, or I'll keep fricking with you when you try to pivot.
quote:
Absolutely nothing I’ve posted answered
It did. I even posted the relevant quotes for you.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News