It is not hard to find things that support your view, but there are others that do not. It's called confirmation bias. It is not clouding for trickery, it is actually developing a deep understanding of a complex issue even when it might not all suit your preference. As for what the 2A means, I will place more merit on Anthony Scalia's reading than yours, sorry but when you can match his resume and have a vote on SCOTUS I will re-weigh. I don't know how this nation can survive if every person gets to have their own personal reading of the constitution.
Every person is entitled to their own reading of the constitution and we may expand our knowledge by digging in to what the forefathers were saying and the true meaning of the amendment. You or no one else will stop me from searching for the truth and because I do not buy into the premise someone needs to explain it to me. When SCOTUS rules on Constitutional issues by interpreting the constitution alone without prior rulings or precedent then I will leave my confidence in the courts hands. I do think that Anthony Scalia is a brilliant man and his work in the court is exceptional. We do agree on one point his resume is much more impressive than mine.
I am genuinely curious what you mean by this. The founding fathers specifically and unambiguously expected the courts to continue the English system of common law. Its entire foundation is built on prior rulings. Are you suggesting that every year every new judge gets to re-determine what every word in every law and regulation means to their own personal liking? I have to believe I am missing something, as that obviously doesn't work for a form of government.
I love the way you manipulate the conversation , you understand what I mean and it has nothing to do with the point of law. Law and Constitution are completely different arenas !
I am not trying to manipulate, I am curious. From a legal perspective, laws and constitutions are different, but not entirely so - lots of interpretation overlap between the two. So, let me rephrase.
I appreciate his time and insight on here. What he does with his time is his business.
I run hot and cold on my HT time. The last few days have been on the hot side. As for billable hours, gave that up years ago.
Bump
If you never had a license, driving on private property is not prohibited, but if you had a license but was then revoked or suspended or you otherwise have been disqualified from getting a license then you can't drive even on private. No firearm or bow from or across an "improved public road" + there are rules about within 100 feet of a house, etc - it gets more detailed than I am willing to get into on this thread.
Even Bloomberg's Every Town has called for an end to active shooter drills as being pointless and causing unnecessary anxiety in light of the actual risk.
everytownresearch.org
Even Bloomberg's Every Town has called for an end to active shooter drills as being pointless and causing unnecessary anxiety in light of the actual risk.
The Impact of Active Shooter Drills in Schools
In their current state, active shooter drills threaten the wellbeing of entire school communities over prolonged periods of time.
No I am not suggesting that all but to some degree isn’t that what happens. In every post you are making an argument , I must say it is thought provoking and enjoyable to read. So let me rephrase .
“Good luck with that approach to persuading others”. Persuading others to do what ? My response was simply to Pmacc’s posting that he did not see the sense of restricting law abiding gun owners from owning legal firearms to stop crime. But you omitted that part and only entered my answer, which out of context gave a different concept. There was no attempt to persuade, nor was there any disagreement with anyone.
