Ah, but you didn’t notice him walking around in disguise!
McCartney donned his disguise after passing through French customs. Wig Creations, the film cosmetic company used by The Beatles on A Hard Day’s Night, had made him a moustache to wear.
They measure you and match the colour of your hair, so it was like a genuine moustache with real glue. And I had a couple of pairs of glasses made with clear lenses, which just made me look a bit different. I put a long blue overcoat on and slicked my hair back with Vaseline and just wandered around and of course nobody recognised me at all. It was good, it was quite liberating for me.
In his autobiography he tells this story, and that he knocked on George Harrison’s door in the hotel with the disguise on. He was a bit shocked by George’s rough manner and “What do you want?” when he opened the door. “It’s me!” “Yeah, yeah, what do you want!?” He said he’d never seen that side of him before. Funny (maybe this was a different occasion though)
SCOTUS already ruled against a couple of the ideas you brought up. In McDonald v. Chicago they ruled against Chicago on their blanket prohibition against registering handguns and requiring annual re-registration with fee for long guns. It’s unlikely the SCOTUS would look favorably on the idea that an individual must carry additional insurance for 2A only. It would disenfranchise low income individuals and would have a similar effect that a poll tax had for voting.
The training and license idea took a hit in another Chicago case. In Ezell v Chicago the 7th Circuit reversed Chicago’s requirement that you undergo firearms training at a range to get a gun permit. Now they mostly did that because Chicago for all intents and purposes banned firearm ranges within the limits of Chicago. The court didn’t like the idea that Chicago could dictate where a constitutional right was exercised arbitrarily.
It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.
Post Heller there is pretty high hurdle to restrict lawful gun ownership. Anything arbitrary will get reversed and even the parts of Prop 63 in CA that required owners of grandfathered high-capacity magazines sell, surrender or destroy them was found to cause “irreparable injury under the Takings Clause of the Constitution”
“The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 included language that prohibited semiautomatic rifles such the AR-15, and also large-capacity magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. The ban was allowed to expire on September 13, 2004, after 10 years.”
Countries change their constitutions regularly.
Its anti democratic to be against debating changes to a Constitution.
Its also stupid not to as obviously ‘times change’.
don’t know twitter as don’t have an account.
that’s my point. and you agree with it in another way.
Something happens (deaths, killings) and people want to get rid of something (knives, guns) that was involved in those deaths, killings.
Your point is poorly made because nothing is as simple as that.
For instance, London could have a higher crime rate now because it’s youth population might be bigger.
