Amentep

So...state universities should stop doing the thing they do well to do a thing they're not equipped to do and which there are already state schools in most states doing?

I can't tell you the number of times I've asked people to read what I was handing them before they signed it and they ignored my pleas and started to sign it right after I handed it to them.

RIP

There are usury laws that define the legal amount of interest that can be charged on a loan. In the US this has typically been the jurisdiction of state law, not federal law.

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Personal attacks that are intended to cause unwanted attention, embarrassment, or harm will not be tolerated

Doubt it supposed to represent anything other than animal characteristics - the "panther" has at least 6 limbs from the picture (4 legs and 2 arms)

Does anyone have a link to the full text of what Schumer said? I've seen the pull quotes, would be curious to see the full context.

The Tennessee Valley Authority went somewhere?

I think Miller was the one that led - to my understanding - the thinking the guns had to tie into a theorized militia use, and thus the first part of the amendment was primary over the second. But I'm not an expert. The 'guns everywhere' laws I know of aren't concealed carry, but open carry.

You seem to have made the mistake of spelling "Planescape" as "Starjammer, or Darksun". 😛 Seriously, only masochists play Dark Sun.

I think its The Dwarves https://store.steampowered.com/app/403970/The_Dwarves/

I agree that there's no interpretation that would limit all ownership so DC's law was invalid. I was trying to describe my understanding of the argument pre-Heller, that the interpretation that put extra weight to the first part was an argument that the intent of the amendment was for a state's right to have a militia, which then made the second part subsidiary to the first part. Heller obviously established the second part as the primary piece, which has then led to interpretations that individual right to own for self protection means individual right to carry anywhere for protection (excluding, you know, government offices).

See, this is the crux of the argument, as I understand it. People who believe the law was intended to protect the state's rights to have a militia put the weight on the first part, those who believe its for individual rights put it on the second. Heller, as I understand it, sided with the second part, but that decision isn't without controversy. Personally I am not a fan of Heller as it has bolstered the "guns everywhere" movement which I am not a fan of.

Isn't the literal interpretation of the right to bear arms, as defined in the US Constitution, literally tied to militia membership though? Wasn't this the interpretation that allowed the clean-up of the west (in that sheriff's were able to legally tell cowboys they couldn't enter town with their guns on as they weren't part of a militia) as opposed to the interpretation in District of Columbia vs Heller that expanded rights to the individual unconnected with militia membership? (I'm neutral on removing gun ownership as the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, but removal of gun ownership needs a Constitutional amendment to happen, anything else would be...well...unconstitutional).

New thread:

Old thread: Last few posts:

If it helps, last few posts from the old thread:

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Personal attacks that are intended to cause unwanted attention, embarrassment, or harm will not be tolerated.

If you take away the 4 years you were wrong with him and add them to her, you'd be spot on. 😛

Post limit reached - please see new discussion here:

New thread:

Last thread: