Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?Star Trek > Star Wars, always and forever. However:
Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?Star Trek > Star Wars, always and forever. However:
Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?
That's correct, as previously acknowledged. I was intrigued that the same word as defined for modern use remains central to discussion of government control over constitutional rights but should have resisted that play on this forum to avoid unnecessary distraction.That's not what it meant then
...so to get this discussion back on track, I will rephrase without words that on this forum should be used only as defined in the 18th century:And we're the ones who don't understand....
Such a good idea. We need to make a law that violent felons should not be allowed to carry. That will solve all of our problems.It’s easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots me”, but it’s not to easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots my child”. So no, in my opinion, and probably most people with children, a proven, violent felon, who is walking around free, shouldn’t carry.
Yes, they are, as acknowledged previously. For additional clarity, to my earlier post I have appended my understanding of that 2A phrase based on my reading of Cottrol's book and relevant Federalist papers (29 and 46, IIRC) about ten years ago when I joined this forum.Please research the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” instead of looking at the current definitions of “regulated”. They are very different.
This makes sense, though to your point about trust, it is imperative that such decisions be made objectively and consistently. LawsI figure that if people are dangerous, they should probably be incarcerated. If we feel they have paid their price to society they should get their rights back.
I'm not sure what you are even asking, because, like Owen Lift, I'm fat and stupid.1. Does regulation (legal control) of who can bear what, where, when, why or how constitute infringement (violation of rights) in all cases, or only some? This was among the examples I offered:
2. How can such cases be clarified more comprehensively before individuals (such as this Marine Veteran) are forced to test them and endure the consequences (which tend to be severe even when ultimately found innocent)?
I am asking about alternatives to statutes that depend so heavily on case law.I'm not sure what you are even asking
My alternative is the same as carrying a candy bar, a Bible, a bottle of Moxie, or my fat ugly Jew hide, from state to state.I am asking about alternatives to statutes that depend so heavily on case law.
My alternative is the same as carrying a candy bar, a Bible, a bottle of Moxie, or my fat ugly Jew hide, from state to state.
Nothing. Carry on as though we were all free Americans
No ifs, ands, or buts
Larry Hogan won't be Governor when this goes to trial. And what make you think that RINO would pardon anyone that did the right thing but was arrested anyway?If convicted, Larry Hogan needs to pardon this guy
Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?
I really enjoyed the new series. Tricia Helfer and Grace Park. Yes please.Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.
COME AT ME BRO!
If he plead guilty there'd be time for a pardon. But he would need to be d*mn sure that pardon was coming before he stood up in front of the judge to admit guilt.Larry Hogan won't be Governor when this goes to trial. And what make you think that RINO would pardon anyone that did the right thing but was arrested anyway?
The 2000's version or the Lorne Greene original?Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.
COME AT ME BRO!
YesThe 2000's version or the Lorne Greene original?