Jump to content

VakAttack

Members
  • Posts

    2,594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

VakAttack last won the day on May 1

VakAttack had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About VakAttack

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

VakAttack's Achievements

Big Brain

Big Brain (14/14)

  • One Year In
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Very Popular
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

1.6k

Reputation

  1. @Husker_Du said on HR that Iowa is trying to flip Lockett also, which god I hope so, lol.
  2. ....well, one of those actions is a crime, and involve an adult striking a college student, so I see that differently. That said, there was a Michigan wrestler who flexed on the Brands brothers a few years ago, I thought that was all in good fun.
  3. Yeah, I don't care about this at all. In fact I love it; I want more theatrics and showmanship. This kind of theatrics I'm fine with; in fact, I was fine when AJ was doing it as a freshman.
  4. https://www.instagram.com/p/C8ZsoN3MBXK/?utm_source=ig_web_button_native_share The only important thing regarding Iowa and Ferrari at this point.
  5. Northern Colorado makes some sense, given all the Baylor Fernandez stuff. The rumor re: Cass is AJ said something undefinedly douchey to Rose Cass, she told Slim Tony, he told Terry, Terry told AJ to hit the bricks.
  6. The reason, IMO, were to get Angelo. No inside info on that. I said this on the Hawkeye Report board, but, once AJ was already in the door, this may end up being the best possible way this could have played out. Nothing illegal, AJ's shenanigans occurred not in an Iowa singlet, and Angelo appears to still be on board. I do not consider "AJ keeps it together for 3 years as a viable possibility.
  7. Not sure what's happening here other than Cinnabon's typical inanity, but I can confirm @Hammerlock3 is not a fat guy.
  8. Definitely the federal ban. As to your second paragraph, that was more of what I was trying to get at, using the Heller case as the prism. The language in the amendments says the right shall not be infringed, but we definitely allow infringements Do you agree or disagree that, if we're interpreting the language as is under the Heller case and using originalist interpretation that many of the Heller court and definitely the current court favor, that any gun ownership law at all is illegal? This is more of a philosophical and legal interpretation debate that just, frankly, may only be interesting to me.
  9. Related case: SCOTUS just overturned a ban on the sale of bump stocks, the ban put in place during the Trump administration.
  10. A lot of debate about this, I'm typically more persuaded by arguments like this one, which cites to some of the Federalist Papers (specifically #29 from Hamilton) as well as Federalist #46 by Madison to define the phrase. Essentially, I feel that the purpose was basically a bulwark against a pure federal military by allowing for states to have their own militaries to protect the separation of powers between the individual states and the federal government. I do not believe it was intended to confer an individual right without infringement to individual citizens but to "the people" more generally. I am just one humble lawyer, though, and there's a lot of debate on that issue.
  11. So, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." After the Heller case, the legal analysis of the amendment became much looser, and essentially said the phrase "well regulated militia" didn't hold sway over the rest of the text. Using that reading, there should be no infringement in any way on anybody's right to bear firearms. However, the country still does have some. I mentioned in another thread that obviously most felons lose their rights to a firearm. Courts can remove firearms, sometimes. However, under the reading SCOTUS promulgated in Heller, it seems to me that these restrictions run counter to that logic. If the right can't be infringed, it can't be infringed. What do you guys think of that reading? Should gun rights be completely unfettered under SCOTUS' logic? ETA: I want to be clear, I'm not trying to trick anybody. I personally believe we should have more restrictions on gun access than we do, I'm just having a thought experiment with current legal interpretations.
  12. The two choices suck, but not for these reasons. I don't think people over 65 should be eligible for this position. JMO.
×
×
  • Create New...