That may be true about what the data may show. But it's outside the TSA's scope and mission. They are NOT law enforcement. It's not their job to find out what people might be planning in the future, or what groups they might support. Their job is simple. Keep weapons and bombs out of the secure areas of airports.
Even the most radical ISIS believer, if they have no weapons or explosives cannot be refused entry to the secure zone of an airport by TSA. That isn't their job. Their job is to make sure he has nothing on him at that point that can be used as a weapon to hijack or destroy an airplane in flight. Funds, interests, photographs, support documentation, literature, none of that has any relevance to the TSA.
The TSA is not Customs, it is not the FBI or any other Law enforcement agency. It is a physical security screening agency.
Why? Maybe because such searches are not in the scope or mission of the TSA. The TSA is not a law enforcement agency, they've tried to become one. but have been repeatedly rebuffed. Get caught trying to pass through security with a weapon and they call the airport or local city police to arrest you because they can't.
They have no business searching any electronic devices. Their mission is simple, screen passengers and their checked luggage for weapons capable of bringing down or hijacking an aircraft. Nothing more.
This is not a border crossing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to Travel freely within and out of this country as one of the non-enumerated fundamental rights of this country. These searches are a massive invasion of our 4th amendment rights and a massive mission creep of an agency that has a very simple job (that they are rather inept at doing).
They are not Customs which is tasked to control illegal content (pirated IP, Kidde porn etc) from entering the country. They are not a Law enforcement agency (FBI) tasked with trying to stop the existence and movement of illegal content. They are the TSA, tasked with making sure no weapons or bombs get into our airport Secure zones.
Please explain what content security screeners need to be looking for. What file (that a TSA goon is likely to find) is going to threaten a flight?
Searches at borders by Customs when you are crossing said border are considered reasonable. They have a duty and a law enforcement roll to ensure that our borders are secure and that you are not bringing illegal or pirated content into this country.
The TSA has no such ruling, they have no such scope of operations. Their job is to screen for weapons, nothing more. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no basis or cause to be searching electronic devices for anything. But they are getting away with it because people can't usually afford to miss a flight.
Snopes is reliable for debunking urban legends, scams and email hoaxes. But when it comes to anything remotely political they lean so obviously far to the left it's obvious. They have been caught out time and again insisting their fact checking is accurate even when presented with facts clearly proving them to be in the wrong. Politifact is biased but will occasionally admit they are wrong, not Snopes, cite proof to them and they double down defending their falsehoods and equivocations.
Example this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outback-steakhouse-gun-policy-controversy/ Snopes continues to try an draw some imaginary distinction between this POST certified Law Enforcement Officer and a police officer or state trooper. They all have the same certification requirements and like the State trooper this officer also has statewide law enforcement jurisdiction. He is a police officer, he was in uniform, yet they insist on trying to qualify that he is not a Local Police Officer or State Trooper, when his legal authority is the same and nobody reported him as a local police officer or state trooper. Just as a Uniformed Officer who was asked to leave because he was armed as required by his superiors and possibly the law.
This is just one example that comes to mind, I questioned them on it and they stuck to justifying the "Mixture" rating because of their imaginary distinction.
When it comes to politics Snopes is so biased they are a joke as a "Fact Checker".
True with the exception of a few very key subsets of the population. Most notably the Jewish Citizens of Germany. The NAZI's did relax gun controls as they sought to prepare their population for mass militarization. But they did not extend those relaxed rules to the Jews, the Roma and a few other undesirables.
This is just one source, but it is commonly accepted and published that they collected between 675k and 1 million weapons which accounts for roughly 1/5th of the firearms believed to be held by the public at that time.
A similar success rate in the US would net roughly 80 million firearms leaving 320 million still in our hands. Similarly when Connecticut mandated anyone with an AR style rifle they had a response rate 10% of what the expected inventory would result in.
There were several multi-shot weapons in existence at the time the Constitution was being drafted. (Puckle gun, Giridoni Air Rifle and others) But by that same logic the 1st Amendment only applies to speech expressed verbally in person, via hand written or hand cranked press printed documents. Surely the founding fathers could never have imagined being able to post a Message or opinion in a way that could be instantly seen across the nation and even around the world.
By your logic the freedom of speech does not apply to any of our modern communication methods. No phones, no computers, no Radio, no TV or interweb. Not even multi-color high speed presses capable of producing thousands of newspapers an hour.
If the 2nd only applies to muzzle loaders, then the 1st and 4th are equally limited to protecting our rights via the technology of the 1780's.
Never helped those in slavery? Well ignoring that the Union forces were not a Standing army but rather Militia units formed throughout the many states and forwarded to Federal service. The Standing military at that time was little more than a shell of Officers around which the mobilized militias could be formed into a structured military. The Confederate Army was basically the same structure.
Then there are those who used arms to defend escaping slaves from slave hunters. And to protect those on the Underground railroad. There was John Brown's failed raid. There was the use of arms in bloody Kansas before the war fighting to keep slavery out (and on the other side fighting to bring it in). Gun control in this country was started by southern Democrats to keep freedmen from trying to force the release of the slaves and after the Civil war to keep the black man subservient to the whites. (in fact the NRA was founded to help defend the rights of black Americans to keep arms for defense against the likes of the democrat created KKK.
Then there was the battle of Athens after WWII, when citizens did in deed fight a corrupt loal government off to defend the free election.
In more recent times, while I disagreed with their cause, it can be argued that the Bundy stand-off in Nevada was just such an action. The cattle in question are still grazing on those lands today, and all those who refused to accept a plea deal have been acquitted of all charges.
No our history isn't always pretty, earlier on we were far more selective over who we allowed the rights we supposedly claimed belonged to all men. But your claim of never using them to defend against tyranny is false.
You mean the originalists who were clearly intending that the right be reserved to the people? The originalists who clearly stated repeatedly in the Federalist Papers and their own personal writings that disarming the people is not acceptable?
No, they did not throw the orgininalist view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window, rather they stuck very closely to the original intent of the founding fathers.
Citations please. Actually there had been no such rulings prior to Heller as you claimed. In fact the topic hadn't really even been touched. Other than US v Miller, which would indicate we should be able to own fully automatic weapons with little restriction as they are in common use by the military, the courts had not ruled on the meaning of the 2nd at all.
Historical revisionists have tried to claim that meant that it means that prior to Heller the thought was that it applied only to militias (we the people are the militia btw). But there is no jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level to support such a claim. Thus Scalia and the court went back to the writings of the founding fathers for their intent and there it is quite clear that the right was (as will all the other rights before the 9th amendment) to be reserved to the people not the militia.
Heller affirmed the view of the founding fathers, and McDonald applied the protections of 2nd to limiting the states as well as the Feds.
Freedom of Religion, one of the founding principles of the United Sates means that they don't have to lose their headscarf to adapt and join our society.
Or does the Bill of Rights only apply to people of white western European decent?
It's really more of a statement on the cost of an Ambulance ride.
Yes calling Uber or Lyft is not the right choice. They are not medical professionals, if you need care during the ride you are not going to get it. If you are infectious you could cost them days of work as they recover from your disease or cause your disease to spread not only to the driver but to anyone they carry after you. And the liability if your "illness" turns fatal on them.
But then again when a simple Ambulance ride will start at over $1000, if the patient has no insurance or cheap insurance that won't cover it, it can be the only real option they can hope to afford. Even with insurance the cost might be more than they can afford. yes the service has to be paid for but Ambulances are too expensive, claiming they over-charge those who can pay to make up for the poor and indigent patients. Reign in the costs. Or people will keep using Uber and Lyft, or Taxi's to get to medical care without breaking the bank (the Dr./Hospital get to break their bank instead).
Far more than 50 non LEO teachers carry. In addition to the examples ScentCone gives Utah has had legal carry in schools for almost two decades. All it requires is the State Concealed Firearm Permit and you are exempt from the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act.
Every year several CFP classes are offered at no cost to Teachers by various Instructors. Those classes always fill in a hurry exceeding capacity. There are plenty of teachers who recognize that push comes to shove they are the last line of defense for their students and they are happy to be able to actually be able to offer a defense other than their body as a shield.
John Ringo covered this in Live Free or Die, the first book of the Troy Rising series. When the Glatun just give the President and several other heads of state a phone call because our systems are so weak even a poor tramp freighter has the ability to just stroll through our networks and security with ease.
Many others have done it as well in one way or another, that one's just fresh in my mind from my latest re-read of the series.
Iceland is not a good example as it is right on the mid-oceanic ridge where the Atlantic is spreading at the juncture of two plates moving away from each other.
A better mid continental hotspot example would be Yellowstone.
I have no problem with text or even static image adds to the side of the content. But so many pages insist on autoplay video ads, interstitial ads, that's that appear while you are trying to read shifting the text up or down until you find the ad and close it.
The Internet industry caused the creation of ad-blockers because of these and more ways they abuse those who visit their sites. They think we own them something, but we don't. If their content is interesting we will read it. If interested I may whitelist a site, but the first add that disrupts my reading of their article results in their being blocked again and my being less willing to unblock them in the future.
What about for someone to braid your hair? This also requires a license with extensive hours of schooling in some states. This is the problem, NOT the professions you mentioned.
Not many people have issues with electricians needing a level of licensing. But how about your hair-stylist, or even someone who just braids hair.
This is where it's getting out of control. If someone messes up the electrical work, injuries and death can occur. If a hairstylist or barber messes up my hair, I go find one that knows what they are doing and the person that screwed up my haircut/style loses business, if they don't learn how to do it right they go out of business but no real harm occurs because they are inept at their chosen job. Yet these licenses are requiring people who have found they can get paid for their skills at braiding hair to get a hairstylist license costing thousands of dollars and requiring over a thousand hours of training to obtain. (real story btw).
It actually takes longer (required classroom hours) to get licensed as a Hair stylist in some states, then it does to become a licensed apprentice Electrician where you learn in greater detail, while getting paid, on the job working for a journeyman or Master Electrician.
Try four or five mass shootings. The 317 number is from the admitted propaganda site shootingtracker.com and they do not follow the established definition of Mass shooting: 4 or more non-family fatalities. If you stick to the long used FBI definition we are getting about four or five such horrible events a year, out of over 100 million gun owners. . Even left leaning, anti-gun MotherJones.com has called them out on their falsely inflated numbers.
And of those 11k roughly 9k are inner city gang violence in just a few cities with strict gun controls, leaving roughly 1700 homicides for the rest of the rather large country. Add in a few hundred accidental shootings (those are dropping even as more and more guns are being sold) to round out the numbers.
Second as to your biased and incorrect claims about "assault weapons" First of all homicides using long guns of all types is usually less than 300 per year, lower than the number killed with blunt objects. Yes they get used in High profile, big news events but otherwise are very rarely used in homicides. They are not the biggest problem. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearm homicides.
Additionally regarding "Assault Weapons" That classification is based entirely on cosmetic features that do not impact their functionality. They are semi-automatic as are most firearms sold today. That means pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. They are not automatic or burst capable. Such weapons have been tightly restricted and controlled since 1934 and since the Hughes Amendment of 1986 have become very expensive as no new automatic weapons can be sold to the public.
And yes one could argue that those other weapons could and should fall under the 2nd. Cannon certainly did. Citizens owned licensed warships and cannon. But more specifically, why shouldn't I be allowed to own them if I can use them safely? If by my negligence or intentional actions with said weapons injury or damage to others or their property occurs I would be fully liable. But if I can drive my Self Propelled Howitzer to the local public artillery range and safely send the rounds down range why not let me waste my money throwing 100 lb slugs of metal a few miles downrange? If I use it inappropriately and cause harm or damage throw the book at me.
As to Nukes (people love to bring up Nukes) they are not safe to use anywhere due to the spread of fall-out thus they are not in consideration.
No I'm not going to campaign or push for the right to own my own howitzer (I can already own one if it's a muzzle loader) but if we go back to the principle of holding people responsible for when their actions harm others why shouldn't a responsible owner be able to own one?
Nope, it was the 13th amendment. During the Civil War, as a tactic to aid the north and weaken the South, Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring slaves freed in the states rebelling against the Union. He didn't declare slavery illegal, he didn't free all slaves, there were slave states that stayed in the Union whose slaves were not freed. Later Emancipation was extended to all slaves but it was still not illegal.
It wasn't until after the war had ended settling the secession question that the 13th Amendment was passed making Slavery Illegal.
Please if you are going to try to champion Republican values and the role of the Right in the battle for civil rights try to get your facts straight. Using falsehoods to support your argument is not effective.
Gatling gun anyone? Of course we can go earlier though I haven't seen much reference to it ever being used in the US but the Puckle Gun was by definition an automatic and it predated the Constitution.
He was a resident of the US over the age of 18. Under the militia act he was by definition a member of the unorganized militia of the United States of America and the Militia of the State of Florida.
And no where does it say "state sanctioned" militia. The wording is Well Regulated Militia. Which in the parlance or terminology of the late 1700's meant a functional militia. A disarmed people cannot form a functional militia. Only with a populace that can respond with their privately owned weapons and ammunition can you have a functional (or Well Regulated) militia.
What is our plan, actually as firearm ownership has increased, violent crimes of all kinds have decreased. The Homicide rate has dropped since the Shall issue laws started spreading across the country in the late 80's. Remove a few democratically controlled counties (all gang battle zones with strict gun controls) and our homicide rate drops dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true about what the data may show. But it's outside the TSA's scope and mission. They are NOT law enforcement. It's not their job to find out what people might be planning in the future, or what groups they might support. Their job is simple. Keep weapons and bombs out of the secure areas of airports.
Even the most radical ISIS believer, if they have no weapons or explosives cannot be refused entry to the secure zone of an airport by TSA. That isn't their job. Their job is to make sure he has nothing on him at that point that can be used as a weapon to hijack or destroy an airplane in flight. Funds, interests, photographs, support documentation, literature, none of that has any relevance to the TSA.
The TSA is not Customs, it is not the FBI or any other Law enforcement agency. It is a physical security screening agency.
Why? Maybe because such searches are not in the scope or mission of the TSA. The TSA is not a law enforcement agency, they've tried to become one. but have been repeatedly rebuffed. Get caught trying to pass through security with a weapon and they call the airport or local city police to arrest you because they can't.
They have no business searching any electronic devices. Their mission is simple, screen passengers and their checked luggage for weapons capable of bringing down or hijacking an aircraft. Nothing more.
This is not a border crossing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to Travel freely within and out of this country as one of the non-enumerated fundamental rights of this country. These searches are a massive invasion of our 4th amendment rights and a massive mission creep of an agency that has a very simple job (that they are rather inept at doing).
They are not Customs which is tasked to control illegal content (pirated IP, Kidde porn etc) from entering the country. They are not a Law enforcement agency (FBI) tasked with trying to stop the existence and movement of illegal content. They are the TSA, tasked with making sure no weapons or bombs get into our airport Secure zones.
Please explain what content security screeners need to be looking for. What file (that a TSA goon is likely to find) is going to threaten a flight?
Searches at borders by Customs when you are crossing said border are considered reasonable. They have a duty and a law enforcement roll to ensure that our borders are secure and that you are not bringing illegal or pirated content into this country.
The TSA has no such ruling, they have no such scope of operations. Their job is to screen for weapons, nothing more. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no basis or cause to be searching electronic devices for anything. But they are getting away with it because people can't usually afford to miss a flight.
Snopes is reliable for debunking urban legends, scams and email hoaxes. But when it comes to anything remotely political they lean so obviously far to the left it's obvious. They have been caught out time and again insisting their fact checking is accurate even when presented with facts clearly proving them to be in the wrong. Politifact is biased but will occasionally admit they are wrong, not Snopes, cite proof to them and they double down defending their falsehoods and equivocations.
Example this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outback-steakhouse-gun-policy-controversy/
Snopes continues to try an draw some imaginary distinction between this POST certified Law Enforcement Officer and a police officer or state trooper. They all have the same certification requirements and like the State trooper this officer also has statewide law enforcement jurisdiction. He is a police officer, he was in uniform, yet they insist on trying to qualify that he is not a Local Police Officer or State Trooper, when his legal authority is the same and nobody reported him as a local police officer or state trooper. Just as a Uniformed Officer who was asked to leave because he was armed as required by his superiors and possibly the law.
This is just one example that comes to mind, I questioned them on it and they stuck to justifying the "Mixture" rating because of their imaginary distinction.
When it comes to politics Snopes is so biased they are a joke as a "Fact Checker".
True with the exception of a few very key subsets of the population. Most notably the Jewish Citizens of Germany. The NAZI's did relax gun controls as they sought to prepare their population for mass militarization. But they did not extend those relaxed rules to the Jews, the Roma and a few other undesirables.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
This is just one source, but it is commonly accepted and published that they collected between 675k and 1 million weapons which accounts for roughly 1/5th of the firearms believed to be held by the public at that time.
A similar success rate in the US would net roughly 80 million firearms leaving 320 million still in our hands. Similarly when Connecticut mandated anyone with an AR style rifle they had a response rate 10% of what the expected inventory would result in.
There were several multi-shot weapons in existence at the time the Constitution was being drafted. (Puckle gun, Giridoni Air Rifle and others) But by that same logic the 1st Amendment only applies to speech expressed verbally in person, via hand written or hand cranked press printed documents. Surely the founding fathers could never have imagined being able to post a Message or opinion in a way that could be instantly seen across the nation and even around the world.
By your logic the freedom of speech does not apply to any of our modern communication methods. No phones, no computers, no Radio, no TV or interweb. Not even multi-color high speed presses capable of producing thousands of newspapers an hour.
If the 2nd only applies to muzzle loaders, then the 1st and 4th are equally limited to protecting our rights via the technology of the 1780's.
Never helped those in slavery? Well ignoring that the Union forces were not a Standing army but rather Militia units formed throughout the many states and forwarded to Federal service. The Standing military at that time was little more than a shell of Officers around which the mobilized militias could be formed into a structured military. The Confederate Army was basically the same structure.
Then there are those who used arms to defend escaping slaves from slave hunters. And to protect those on the Underground railroad. There was John Brown's failed raid. There was the use of arms in bloody Kansas before the war fighting to keep slavery out (and on the other side fighting to bring it in). Gun control in this country was started by southern Democrats to keep freedmen from trying to force the release of the slaves and after the Civil war to keep the black man subservient to the whites. (in fact the NRA was founded to help defend the rights of black Americans to keep arms for defense against the likes of the democrat created KKK.
Then there was the battle of Athens after WWII, when citizens did in deed fight a corrupt loal government off to defend the free election.
In more recent times, while I disagreed with their cause, it can be argued that the Bundy stand-off in Nevada was just such an action. The cattle in question are still grazing on those lands today, and all those who refused to accept a plea deal have been acquitted of all charges.
No our history isn't always pretty, earlier on we were far more selective over who we allowed the rights we supposedly claimed belonged to all men. But your claim of never using them to defend against tyranny is false.
You mean the originalists who were clearly intending that the right be reserved to the people? The originalists who clearly stated repeatedly in the Federalist Papers and their own personal writings that disarming the people is not acceptable?
No, they did not throw the orgininalist view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window, rather they stuck very closely to the original intent of the founding fathers.
Citations please. Actually there had been no such rulings prior to Heller as you claimed. In fact the topic hadn't really even been touched. Other than US v Miller, which would indicate we should be able to own fully automatic weapons with little restriction as they are in common use by the military, the courts had not ruled on the meaning of the 2nd at all.
Historical revisionists have tried to claim that meant that it means that prior to Heller the thought was that it applied only to militias (we the people are the militia btw). But there is no jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level to support such a claim. Thus Scalia and the court went back to the writings of the founding fathers for their intent and there it is quite clear that the right was (as will all the other rights before the 9th amendment) to be reserved to the people not the militia.
Heller affirmed the view of the founding fathers, and McDonald applied the protections of 2nd to limiting the states as well as the Feds.
Freedom of Religion, one of the founding principles of the United Sates means that they don't have to lose their headscarf to adapt and join our society.
Or does the Bill of Rights only apply to people of white western European decent?
It's really more of a statement on the cost of an Ambulance ride.
Yes calling Uber or Lyft is not the right choice. They are not medical professionals, if you need care during the ride you are not going to get it. If you are infectious you could cost them days of work as they recover from your disease or cause your disease to spread not only to the driver but to anyone they carry after you. And the liability if your "illness" turns fatal on them.
But then again when a simple Ambulance ride will start at over $1000, if the patient has no insurance or cheap insurance that won't cover it, it can be the only real option they can hope to afford. Even with insurance the cost might be more than they can afford. yes the service has to be paid for but Ambulances are too expensive, claiming they over-charge those who can pay to make up for the poor and indigent patients. Reign in the costs. Or people will keep using Uber and Lyft, or Taxi's to get to medical care without breaking the bank (the Dr./Hospital get to break their bank instead).
Far more than 50 non LEO teachers carry. In addition to the examples ScentCone gives Utah has had legal carry in schools for almost two decades. All it requires is the State Concealed Firearm Permit and you are exempt from the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act.
Every year several CFP classes are offered at no cost to Teachers by various Instructors. Those classes always fill in a hurry exceeding capacity. There are plenty of teachers who recognize that push comes to shove they are the last line of defense for their students and they are happy to be able to actually be able to offer a defense other than their body as a shield.
You and other far more successful authors.
John Ringo covered this in Live Free or Die, the first book of the Troy Rising series. When the Glatun just give the President and several other heads of state a phone call because our systems are so weak even a poor tramp freighter has the ability to just stroll through our networks and security with ease.
Many others have done it as well in one way or another, that one's just fresh in my mind from my latest re-read of the series.
Nope. you missed at least one step, Geocities was the first test.
Iceland is not a good example as it is right on the mid-oceanic ridge where the Atlantic is spreading at the juncture of two plates moving away from each other.
A better mid continental hotspot example would be Yellowstone.
This!
I have no problem with text or even static image adds to the side of the content. But so many pages insist on autoplay video ads, interstitial ads, that's that appear while you are trying to read shifting the text up or down until you find the ad and close it.
The Internet industry caused the creation of ad-blockers because of these and more ways they abuse those who visit their sites. They think we own them something, but we don't. If their content is interesting we will read it. If interested I may whitelist a site, but the first add that disrupts my reading of their article results in their being blocked again and my being less willing to unblock them in the future.
What about for someone to braid your hair? This also requires a license with extensive hours of schooling in some states. This is the problem, NOT the professions you mentioned.
Not many people have issues with electricians needing a level of licensing. But how about your hair-stylist, or even someone who just braids hair.
This is where it's getting out of control. If someone messes up the electrical work, injuries and death can occur. If a hairstylist or barber messes up my hair, I go find one that knows what they are doing and the person that screwed up my haircut/style loses business, if they don't learn how to do it right they go out of business but no real harm occurs because they are inept at their chosen job. Yet these licenses are requiring people who have found they can get paid for their skills at braiding hair to get a hairstylist license costing thousands of dollars and requiring over a thousand hours of training to obtain. (real story btw).
It actually takes longer (required classroom hours) to get licensed as a Hair stylist in some states, then it does to become a licensed apprentice Electrician where you learn in greater detail, while getting paid, on the job working for a journeyman or Master Electrician.
Try four or five mass shootings. The 317 number is from the admitted propaganda site shootingtracker.com and they do not follow the established definition of Mass shooting: 4 or more non-family fatalities. If you stick to the long used FBI definition we are getting about four or five such horrible events a year, out of over 100 million gun owners. . Even left leaning, anti-gun MotherJones.com has called them out on their falsely inflated numbers.
And of those 11k roughly 9k are inner city gang violence in just a few cities with strict gun controls, leaving roughly 1700 homicides for the rest of the rather large country. Add in a few hundred accidental shootings (those are dropping even as more and more guns are being sold) to round out the numbers.
Second as to your biased and incorrect claims about "assault weapons" First of all homicides using long guns of all types is usually less than 300 per year, lower than the number killed with blunt objects. Yes they get used in High profile, big news events but otherwise are very rarely used in homicides. They are not the biggest problem. Handguns account for the vast majority of firearm homicides.
Additionally regarding "Assault Weapons" That classification is based entirely on cosmetic features that do not impact their functionality. They are semi-automatic as are most firearms sold today. That means pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. They are not automatic or burst capable. Such weapons have been tightly restricted and controlled since 1934 and since the Hughes Amendment of 1986 have become very expensive as no new automatic weapons can be sold to the public.
And yes one could argue that those other weapons could and should fall under the 2nd. Cannon certainly did. Citizens owned licensed warships and cannon. But more specifically, why shouldn't I be allowed to own them if I can use them safely? If by my negligence or intentional actions with said weapons injury or damage to others or their property occurs I would be fully liable. But if I can drive my Self Propelled Howitzer to the local public artillery range and safely send the rounds down range why not let me waste my money throwing 100 lb slugs of metal a few miles downrange? If I use it inappropriately and cause harm or damage throw the book at me.
As to Nukes (people love to bring up Nukes) they are not safe to use anywhere due to the spread of fall-out thus they are not in consideration.
No I'm not going to campaign or push for the right to own my own howitzer (I can already own one if it's a muzzle loader) but if we go back to the principle of holding people responsible for when their actions harm others why shouldn't a responsible owner be able to own one?
That's not what I said. I said Saddam was also an ally of ours in the 80's. Against Iran.
Again learn some history.
Nope, it was the 13th amendment. During the Civil War, as a tactic to aid the north and weaken the South, Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring slaves freed in the states rebelling against the Union. He didn't declare slavery illegal, he didn't free all slaves, there were slave states that stayed in the Union whose slaves were not freed. Later Emancipation was extended to all slaves but it was still not illegal.
It wasn't until after the war had ended settling the secession question that the 13th Amendment was passed making Slavery Illegal.
Please if you are going to try to champion Republican values and the role of the Right in the battle for civil rights try to get your facts straight. Using falsehoods to support your argument is not effective.
Gatling gun anyone? Of course we can go earlier though I haven't seen much reference to it ever being used in the US but the Puckle Gun was by definition an automatic and it predated the Constitution.
He was a resident of the US over the age of 18. Under the militia act he was by definition a member of the unorganized militia of the United States of America and the Militia of the State of Florida.
And no where does it say "state sanctioned" militia. The wording is Well Regulated Militia. Which in the parlance or terminology of the late 1700's meant a functional militia. A disarmed people cannot form a functional militia. Only with a populace that can respond with their privately owned weapons and ammunition can you have a functional (or Well Regulated) militia.
What is our plan, actually as firearm ownership has increased, violent crimes of all kinds have decreased. The Homicide rate has dropped since the Shall issue laws started spreading across the country in the late 80's. Remove a few democratically controlled counties (all gang battle zones with strict gun controls) and our homicide rate drops dramatically.