351–360 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weirdly enough this isn’t much of an issue in most other parts of the world.
Really? Because Canadian customs officers are known to be a bunch of tough guys too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are cases of doing this to U.S. Citizens, in some cases, quite disturbingly, to journalists .
It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More specifically, "regulated" means something like "trained."
Q: How were colonial era soldiers trained? A: Soldiers were trained to follow rules (aka regulations) and obey. Line up shoulder to shoulder and fire 3-5 volleys a minute in a prescribed manner. A rabble would get 1-2 off and die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're on US soil you're subject to US law, including all provisions of the Constitution. And the Constitution makes a distinction between 'citizens' and 'people' (i.e., everybody, including noncitizens)
Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Because Canadian customs officers are known to be a bunch of tough guys too.
I travel across the US Canada land border from time to time (in the mountain west). My experience has been that Canadian officials are universally civil and respectful while US officials are universally not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Because Canadian customs officers are known to be a bunch of tough guys too.
I travel across the US Canada land border from time to time (in the mountain west). My experience has been that Canadian officials are universally civil and respectful while US officials are universally not.
And I have Canadian citizenship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for the purpose of militia in this context and therefore that of the 2nd amendment, the power of Congress over the militia is deemed "unlimited" [0]. As such, regulating it's use of arms would be well within it's remit. [0] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-mili...
... as long as such regulation does not infringe the right of the people to keep or bear arms for all the purposes envisioned by the constitutional framers. Wikipedia has an excellent reference on this. See the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
Also, what's the use of a militia being recognized and, wow, regulated by the very government they are designed to oppose if push comes to shove.