2nd Amendment Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

Who doesn't? Tanks are not illegal. If it has a functional canon or machine gun, you need licenses for those things.

[Ex-California]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

Who doesn't? Tanks are not illegal. If it has a functional canon or machine gun, you need licenses for those things.

I was talking about lawns

#Droughtshaming became a thing last year

[Speaker to Animals]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

Who doesn't? Tanks are not illegal. If it has a functional canon or machine gun, you need licenses for those things.

I was talking about lawns

#Droughtshaming became a thing last year

Escape from California, bro..

Though lawns kind of suck anyway.

[Okeefenokee]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

[jbird4049]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

Who doesn't? Tanks are not illegal. If it has a functional canon or machine gun, you need licenses for those things.

I was talking about lawns

#Droughtshaming became a thing last year

Yeah that's true. Green lawns are the new evil. Still 4-5 years of non rain rainy seasons.

With the recent rains, it looks like the drought is finally ending though. You might be able to have one of those postage stamp yards. The ones big enough for a motorized tricycle.

But a tank might go well with those new rocks and cactus gardens.

[jbird4049]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

It's a joke but it's not a joke!

It depends where in California you are, and how badly the drought has ruined the local water supply. Some places seem to have the water police. Extra charges, fines, water throttling, or just cut.

Unless you're agribusiness. Those people seem to get unlimited amounts of water. It couldn't have anything with their political donations.

[Okeefenokee]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

It's a joke but it's not a joke!

It depends where in California you are, and how badly the drought has ruined the local water supply. Some places seem to have the water police. Extra charges, fines, water throttling, or just cut.

Unless you're agribusiness. Those people seem to get unlimited amounts of water. It couldn't have anything with their political donations.

I live in El Paso. I know.

[SuburbanFarmer]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either

It's a joke but it's not a joke!

It depends where in California you are, and how badly the drought has ruined the local water supply. Some places seem to have the water police. Extra charges, fines, water throttling, or just cut.

Unless you're agribusiness. Those people seem to get unlimited amounts of water. It couldn't have anything with their political donations.

Good god, man, if we don't grow Walnuts RIGHT FUCKING HERE, then what would that mean for our economy?!? You don't need water anyway, drink your piss.

[C-Mag]

A great educational series on the 2nd Amendment from the NRA.
LIttle known history, the Racist history of Gun Control.
First Gun Control in the US, in 1620 the Virginia Legislature passed a law to prevent blacks from owning firearms

[de officiis]

Caetano: A Dangerous Misreading of Unusual in Heller

James Gately - 7 Calif. L. Rev. Circuit 98 (2016)

Introduction

The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the Second Amendment in a pair of opinions, Heller and McDonald, that moved the nexus of judicial review away from antiquated notions of an arm’s reasonable relation to the militia towards a modernized conception of an arm’s relationship to the individual right of self-defense. The opinions, though steeped deeply in historical context, sought to modernize Second Amendment review, but in doing so raised new questions about the scope of protection they provide. Much attention has focused, appropriately, on the opinions’ impact on firearms. Yet the framework’s impact on nonlethal weapons has gone nearly unexplored, leaving a hodge-podge of contradictory regulations in place around the nation. Owning a stun gun is a crime in at least seven states, and in numerous municipalities, yet owning a firearm is protected within those same jurisdictions. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, Massachusetts’s highest court took up the question of whether a stun gun is a protected arm under the Second Amendment, yet it engaged in a selective reading of precedent to avoid recognizing a broadened right to bear arms. In late March of this year the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision, without oral argument or full briefing, remanding the case to be reconsidered. This comment contends that the Court’s opinion in Caetano signals that nonlethal weapons are the rare class of weapons that both liberals and conservatives alike can support protecting, making the subject a ripe vehicle to revisit and clarify the protections provided under the Second Amendment.

http://www.californialawreview.org/caet ... in-heller/