Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup, I was thinking of that movieHere's the police sketch of the suspect in question:
View attachment 1202225
Well, that's sure a refreshing change from the 'usual' suspects...Here's the police sketch of the suspect in question:
View attachment 1202225
I beg to differ. The character played by Michael Douglas is the 1993 film Falling Down had infinitely more going on upstairs than the 39 year old rocket scientist from Everett,...Here's the police sketch of the suspect in question:
View attachment 1202225
Oh, I'd forgotten about that film, it was a good one. I especially enjoyed the Nazi surplus store experience. I've known a few meatheads like that.Michael Douglas is the 1993 film Falling Down
i dont even disagree with your sentiment - the words of the bill o rights are plain as day, and modern laws are almost entirely clear infringements.You'd have to consider the intent of the 2nd amendment before applying a lense of what people did or did not personally possess.
If the intent was/is, to help prevent tyrannical government action (relevant to the birth of this nation and something they were personally familiar with) it wouldn't do much good if the government you are concerned about becoming tyrannical can decree that the citizenry isn't allowed to own the arms similar to what the government possesses.
With respect to the courts. Asking the government to see its infringement as infringement is like asking a wolf what is a fair amount of sheep it should eat and not taking the sheep's opinion into consideration.
Edit: before 1791 when the bill of rights was included as some of the first amendments to the constitution I am not aware of ANY laws that pertained to personal ownership of ANY arms. So you have to consider that it was absolute freedom that was then codified as something that "shall not be infringed."
Except the technique with the firecracker is holding it at the bottom between the tips of your thumb and index finger.just like a Black Cat firecracker,
Yes indeed. If blasting caps were neurons the guy in Everett would not have enough power to blow his nose,...Someone might have offered money to him, to demonstrate that if you blow a blasting cap in an open hand, just like a Black Cat firecracker, you won't be injured. Good times.
That works too, though we did the firecracker laying on our hand.Except the technique with the firecracker is holding it at the bottom between the tips of your thumb and index finger.
I don't know if this would work with a blasting cap
When the words, "shall not be infringed" are so plainly written and yet ignored, the validity of SCOTUS' constitutional interpretation as aligned with the intent of the constitution - is questionable.i dont even disagree with your sentiment - the words of the bill o rights are plain as day, and modern laws are almost entirely clear infringements.
however, the scotus is the constitutionally appointed interpreter of the constitution - legally speaking, their opinions about what the constitution provides for and doesnt are, effectively, no different than words written right into the constitution.
does the constitution need to be tossed and rewritten? gun laws are, legally, factually, actually constitutional, even if they are fully in conflict with the letter of the constitution, if the scotus interprets them to be constitutional.
whats the solution?
well since so many people have told scotus to do that and they wont, i dont think thats a solution.When the words, "shall not be infringed" are so plainly written and yet ignored, the validity of SCOTUS' constitutional interpretation as aligned with the intent of the constitution - is questionable.
The solution is to read what the constitution says, and not interpret it beyond what it explicitly states.
"I don't think common citizens had explosive cannon balls in the American Revolution. Which was before the 2A, actually, which came along in 1791."Theoretically, civilians can own grenades legally. But they are an NFA controlled item, and as a destructive device, permits are needed and fees need to be paid. As a practical matter, I don't know if the ATF gets many such requests because grenades are made for the military and police forces, it might be difficult to buy one legitimately.
Is the NFA and revisions thereto unconstitutional? Court decisions have ruled that it isn't.
Does the 2A grant complete freedom to own any weapon you want? Courts have ruled against this many times. I don't think common citizens had explosive cannon balls in the American Revolution. Which was before the 2A, actually, which came along in 1791.
Registration of firearms in the American colonies?I don't believe there was a unified set of rules across the colonies, some banned open carry, others ignored it, some had registration, others didn't, and so on.
Registration of firearms in the American colonies?
You got my attention. Proceed
Thanks for the quick, interesting and informative read.Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.theconversation.com