Well crap
Thank God we beat the british with bows and arrows along with spears. Funny how people will claim unlimited for the other rights but not the second. Also regardless of if I have a machine gun or tank, really isnt it about the gov not having any right to impede/ limit? So the mother may i should be null and void as well as if i carry on a tuesday on a red moon if not raining bullcrap. Like we say to the other side. Not agree but their right. Now when their freedom to be them impedes my freedom to be me then on like donkey kong. Should not be rights of feel good
Tired of hearing about this crap. You know if you read any of the 2A drafts they all state the obvious. They only edited to not sound verbose. Now when people start arguing over a gd comma and whatever it becomes a joke like that bug eyed donk that is the poster child of the 2000 election hanging clandestine fame. Rabbit hole city
Text history and tradition are not always the easiest things to find and interpret. Just look at Peruta. The actual text of past cases suggest that concealed carry can be prohibited. Yet when you look at why they prohibited concealed carry you come to a different conclusion. The plaintiffs in the case never argued this and instead tried to get around the issue by arguing that they banned open carry so you need to allow concealed carry.
Dangerous and unusual is equally difficult for the same reason. The text is not always clear and understanding the intent may not be exactly clear. Nobody is around that could clear this up.
From what I have read "in common use" is the opposite of dangerous and unusual. Typically common use gets into numerical arguments, which leads to circular arguments over whether new things can be banned because they are not really used much. I would argue common use includes all government uses. If the police are allowed to use something, so can everyone else. If the police should be prohibited from using something, than everyone can be prohibited.
We don't have a clearer understanding because we continue to want to look at the 2A as more unlimited than it really is. The arguments that we make need to address the historical limitations that have occurred.
Thank God we beat the british with bows and arrows along with spears. Funny how people will claim unlimited for the other rights but not the second. Also regardless of if I have a machine gun or tank, really isnt it about the gov not having any right to impede/ limit? So the mother may i should be null and void as well as if i carry on a tuesday on a red moon if not raining bullcrap. Like we say to the other side. Not agree but their right. Now when their freedom to be them impedes my freedom to be me then on like donkey kong. Should not be rights of feel good
Tired of hearing about this crap. You know if you read any of the 2A drafts they all state the obvious. They only edited to not sound verbose. Now when people start arguing over a gd comma and whatever it becomes a joke like that bug eyed donk that is the poster child of the 2000 election hanging clandestine fame. Rabbit hole city