Messages
290
Reactions
342
Here's the police sketch of the suspect in question:
falling_down_drawing_michael_douglas_by_sbdrawings-d6avwog-3490683138.jpg
 
Messages
214
Reactions
369
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,...

Our so-called "Prepper" friend from Everett should be banished to a remote San Juan Island with food and water deliveries made to him until, gratefully, time takes it's course.

The wife, who told authorities that her husband is a "Prepper," her image should be on a large billboard on I-5 in the middle of Seattle letting everyone know that she first slept with and then married such a intellectually deficient fellow,...

Good thing I'm not king of the world eh? :D
 
Messages
4,705
Reactions
3,714
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.”
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?
 
Messages
6,234
Reactions
16,417
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?
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.
 
Messages
4,705
Reactions
3,714
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.
well since so many people have told scotus to do that and they wont, i dont think thats a solution.

im serious tho - what is the solution? this is something that never really gets discussed among pro2A groups. we complain that the laws are unconstitutional, but we never address the fact that they actually are constitutional so long as the scotus says they are. its like dudes just dont even want to address it, when it is THE reason- or, at least, rationalization given for why- our expressly protected rights are being violated.

and lets be clear - rights are collectively self-professed. they arent given to us by a document. the constitution made an admirable attempt at permanently protecting the rights apparently most foremost in the minds of the framers, but the framers also built a bypass into the document via scotus. unfortunately theres nothing in there that requires the guardians of the document to adhere to any particular reading. presumably to accommodate the evolving needs and desires of We the People.

gun laws ARE constitutional. at least the ones scotus has made decisions on or that follow precedent. so we cant just fall back on "its unconstitutional!" and stop... thats patently false.
 
Messages
113
Reactions
236
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.
"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."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Actually they did.. If they could afford them and saw fit to purchase or make.

"largely through the efforts of Benjamin Franklin, a plan was undertaken by locals colonists to found companies of “horse, foot and artillery” that the volume stresses “was a purely volunteer organization, and was armed and equipped at its own expense, while its officers were selected by its members.”
 

Knobgoblin

Messages
4,714
Reactions
12,352
Thanks for the quick, interesting and informative read.

Seems a bit of a stretch to compare keeping local records of having a single, serviceable weapon kept at home tied to an individual to actual " registration ".

The article's author using the word " registration " might be taken as partisan.
 

Upcoming Events

Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington Gun Show
Battle Ground, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top