Just about everything I find on that are temporary bans due to wildfire hazards. Hardly think that counts as liberal fascism.

What kind of terrier? Boston, Jack Russel, Patterdale? And when did the dogs get EMP weapons?

Some of them, yes, given that both a compromise documents. Some of the Federalists in particular would, I think, have been perfectly all right with expansive views of the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses.

Um, yes. Remember the Northeast US blackout a decade ago? Ultimately caused by the failure of one transmission line and the resulting rerouting of power over the grid?

They're all interconnected anyway, so a plant going out can have major effects on the grid as a whole.

I "ignored" it because I read it and saw it had nothing to do with the misstatement I quoted, but was another point entirely.

You do realize that's not the App store, but Apple's store where they ship you a box with the software?

For one, Miller was an NFA case dealing with short barreled shotguns which upheld the NFA. But, contrary to gun control advocate's wishes, the ruling really didn't hinge at all on the collective vs. individual right debate; the only real discussion in it had to do with the type of firearm and whether that type was protected. Had the Court subscribed to the view it was a collective right related to actual militia service the Second Amendment examination would have ended with the determination that Miller was not a member of a the organized militia and wasn't carrying the shotgun pursuant to militia duty. Examining the firearm and not the person suggests they view it as an individual right.

The Heller opinion actually contains a pretty good discussion of what Miller is and is not and a number of peculiarities surrounding it.

Should probably add I don't think anyone really takes Miller too seriously; it's not a clear opinion in either direction.

Which, grammatically, isn't explanatory not operative. The operative part of the 2nd Amendment is, in full, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In modern construction and words (based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically Heller and Miller) the full amendment would be something like, "Because a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of military usefulness shall not be infringed." The first clause only explains why it's not be infringed; it doesn't impose a limit upon it.

Well, Miller did somewhat limit it based on the militia clause, by saying a firearm which wasn't demonstrated to be militarily useful was not protected, implying that if it had been demonstrated to be militarily useful it would be protected. So, under Miller, an assault rifle (obviously of military usefulness) would be protected but maybe not a break action shotgun. It's an odd case, at any rate, since Miller had died before it reached the Court and his side didn't argue before the Court.

It's pretty routine to be able to go to another country for enforcement of civil judgements. For the US, look up the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, which is law in a number of states.

Actually, the NRA Range Source Book does mention it extensively in connection with ranges, both in connection with toxicity to personnel and environmental (e.g. backstop construction for outdoor ranges). This is a manual of design best practices for safe construction and operation of a shooting range.

For example:

And so forth.

There's also fire hazard from steel bullets sparking when striking rock, etc. That's another reason their use is banned on some ranges.

Tungsten is also quite a bit harder than lead. Makes it kind of hard to make an expanding bullet from it, as is required in many states for hunting.

No, but it's about as valid a comparison, at least on the surface, as comparing lead bullets/shot to leaded gasoline. Elemental lead vs. tetraethyl lead.

Same way the Soviet and Russian navies called their Aviation Cruisers?