putting qualifications such as 'in common use' and 'dangerous and unusual' is mostly contrary to common sense. the founders knew for a fact that the technology in arms, especially firearms, was going to make great strides. the people are the militia, and the militia is a civilian army whose purpose is to defend the nation and population from those that would endanger their freedoms and rights. men were to bring their own modern and functioning weapons when reporting for service. a militia limited to insufficient to repel such a force is pointless, and therefore obviously not what the founders had in mind. when the first semi-auto came out it was dangerous and unusual. should it have been banned? should any improvement on the smooth bored musket been banned? common sense says clearly not. no arm should be banned, only the illegal use of it should be
DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL fixed by paying $200? Makes lots of sense! How does the amount of rounds fired by pulling the trigger make a difference? How about WHAT YOU DO WITH IT? Or how long the barrel is? Or what kind of stock is on it? I have an idea...STICK WITH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
ARs would have been considered marvellous by the founders. Cannons were in possession and use by private persons, that used grapeshot. They weren’t banned whatsoever. Dangerous and unusual?
UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
One would not that they said dangerous and unusual. Not dangerously unusual. “I think that’s right” is not an argument. There are far more Swords in lawful possession (museums, reenactment, fencing clubs, martial arts schools, military ceremonial) than stun guns. Further, the question was about bearing a sword, not possession of them, thus the common use test is a step too far.
putting qualifications such as 'in common use' and 'dangerous and unusual' is mostly contrary to common sense. the founders knew for a fact that the technology in arms, especially firearms, was going to make great strides. the people are the militia, and the militia is a civilian army whose purpose is to defend the nation and population from those that would endanger their freedoms and rights. men were to bring their own modern and functioning weapons when reporting for service. a militia limited to insufficient to repel such a force is pointless, and therefore obviously not what the founders had in mind.
when the first semi-auto came out it was dangerous and unusual. should it have been banned? should any improvement on the smooth bored musket been banned? common sense says clearly not. no arm should be banned, only the illegal use of it should be
💯🎯👍
ANY arm that a MILITIA member could carry. Including Stinger missiles.
Good luck carrying that, their heavy as f**k!
DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL fixed by paying $200? Makes lots of sense! How does the amount of rounds fired by pulling the trigger make a difference? How about WHAT YOU DO WITH IT? Or how long the barrel is? Or what kind of stock is on it? I have an idea...STICK WITH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
ARs would have been considered marvellous by the founders.
Cannons were in possession and use by private persons, that used grapeshot.
They weren’t banned whatsoever.
Dangerous and unusual?
Appreciate this.
UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.)
50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ...
All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY.
After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge )
Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"!
When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"!
- USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
One would not that they said dangerous and unusual. Not dangerously unusual.
“I think that’s right” is not an argument.
There are far more Swords in lawful possession (museums, reenactment, fencing clubs, martial arts schools, military ceremonial) than stun guns.
Further, the question was about bearing a sword, not possession of them, thus the common use test is a step too far.