You realize that you're tacitly admitted that it's also an excellent argument for voter ID.
No. I don’t believe in universal background checks. Rights are rights. If you’re going to talk about ensuring the overall security of society as an explanation of modifying rights, then you’ve made the 2A subject to the same notion.
If I want to own a fully operational battleshihp, have the financial resources, and the ownership of the battleship itself is not beyond my means to control, I should have the right to own it. Of course that sets some people's hair on fire when I say that. I the the line where society starts to have the right to limit what other people can own, is at least at whether it's even possible for people to control what they own without an inherent risk to others.
Well. No. Even then you can control the ugly. Just put it in a holster or something.So basically it's reported asSeems like a big, fat nothingburger to me.
E&E News: Trump's new Tongass rule doesn't mean more logging
<p>If the timber industry in Alaska is looking to harvest more trees, the Trump administration's proposal to open roadless areas in Tongass National Forest to logging might not be the way to get there.</p>www.eenews.net
Even though 9.2 million acres of inventoried roadless areas would be freed from the roadless rule, only 185,000 acres would be added to the areas that may be considered for timber harvest, the Forest Service said.
Overall harvest projections remain at 17,000 acres of old growth and 11,800 acres of young growth over the next 100 years, levels envisioned in the 2016 Tongass land management plan.
"The proposed rule does not change the projected timber sale quantity or timber demand projections set out in the Tongass Forest Plan," the Forest Service said in the documents. "The alternatives examine different mixes of land areas and timber restrictions that would incrementally increase management flexibility for how the forest plan's timber harvest goals can be achieved, but does not fundamentally alter the plan's underlying goals or projected outcomes."
Of course, one of the most fundamental disconnects between ... call them coastal elites (which fits the best as it's not entirely partisan) and Americans in "flyover country" is land management. Surprisingly, Trump did a lot to push that in the direction of states' rights with his nomination of Gorsuch and other actions at Interior.
I saw the after-effect of this snobbery first hand. In the late 1990s, a freak windstorm blew down millions of trees in the Routt National Forest in Western Colorado. Local timber companies volunteered their equipment and labor to go in and clean up the mess in exchange for harvesting the knocked-down trees. Sierra Club lawsuits and slow-rolling from the Federal government threw that out the window; the trees rotted on the ground.
Which created another problem - the sudden plethora of available food resources resulted in an explosion in the population of bark beetles. Once they'd eaten their way through the fallen timber, they spread to the upright, healthy trees of the forest and the surrounding communities. When I lived there in the early 2000's they were still trying to figure out how to address the problem. On the bright side, tree services had plenty of business exterminating beetles.
when the actual story is more like 
At one time it was commonplace for private owners to have armed ships. They fought off purates during times of peace and served as privateers during wars.If I want to own a fully operational battleshihp, have the financial resources, and the ownership of the battleship itself is not beyond my means to control, I should have the right to own it. Of course that sets some people's hair on fire when I say that. I the the line where society starts to have the right to limit what other people can own, is at least at whether it's even possible for people to control what they own without an inherent risk to others.
Can a person have nukes without that inherent risk? I don't think so. I'm okay with society limiting that. There is no firearm that is so inherently dangerous that no person can control it. Except for maybe a Glock?
Did it occur to you that even the most accountability-intensive voter laws still have lower requirements than buying a gun in spite of the language "shall not be infringed"?
The election may well have been stolen...but we`ll never know, because nearly no one wanted to delve into the irregularities that were found, to see the extent of the fraud. Drunk ol` uncle joe will always have an asterisk next to his name for an awful lot of people, because he`s seen as a completely illegitimate president.
Drunk ol` uncle joe campaigned hard on cracking down on guns. He threatened to make o'rourke, (the guy who said, hell yeah we`re coming for your AR-15) his "gun czar. So yeah, anyone who voted for that is without a doubt anti-Second Amendment.
Are we talking specifically about the president? Because if that's your argument, then can all the "restrictions" like ID only be applied to the top line item?
No one ever cared about ease of voting before recent history. “Pistols and Politics” by Samual Hyde jr ( a history of southern Louisiana) goes into a bit of how voting worked in the 1800’s. Like most state constitutions Louisiana had strict regulations on whom could vote.
I'm not opposed to voter ID. It's disingenuous to present the wave of new voter restrictions as basically just voter ID laws, though.
True, I read a couple more articles on it, basically hyped up by 'environmentalists'.So basically it's reported as
