Are you confident that the 11th Circuit or SCOTUS will keep that in place? Are you confident that some fascists won't arrest and deport her on the basis that she doesn't have 2A rights, just in order to get it to SCOTUS?
Orientation isn't terribly relevant, although it is easier to design a two stroke engine in an "odd" orientation, because it does not have to be concerned about engine oil draining back into a sump.
In the simplest kind of two stroke, the compression and intake happen at the same time. Piston goes up (toward the cylinder head), compressing the fuel in the combustion chamber, while at the same time, fuel is drawn in beneath the piston, around the crankshaft. At top dead center (ish), spark occurs. Combustion powers the piston down (power), while at the same time forcing the fuel charge from beneath the piston into the combustion chamber via a transfer port, which also directs the exhaust to exit the exhaust port.
These two strokes - one up, one down - are one complete "cycle" of the engine's operation.
In a four stroke, starting with the intake stroke, the piston moves down and the intake valve opens via a camshaft. Intake fuel charge enters the cylinder between the piston and cylinder head. The next stroke is compression. Both intake and exhaust valves are closed as the piston goes up. When the piston is all the way up (ish) to the cylinder head, spark occurs, causing combustion. The intake and exhaust valves remain closed, and the piston moves down. That was the power stroke. The next time the piston moves up, the exhaust valve is open, and exhaust is ejected through it. Intake, compression, power, exhaust; or colloquially "suck, squeeze, bang, blow." Those four strokes complete one "cycle" of the engine's operation.
Each engine has a crankshaft. This is the rotating shaft on which the piston is attached with a connecting rod. On the crank end of that rod there are bearings. (Two strokes will use roller bearings while four strokes will (usually) use flat bearings.) The connecting rod attaches to the piston with a wrist pin bearing. These bearings require lubrication. Without a thin layer of oil between the metal surfaces moving against one another, friction will quickly create heat and catastrophic bearing failure. (A four stroke also needs lubrication of the valve train, contained in the cylinder head; two strokes have no valves, and so no top end lubrication is required.)
A four stroke engine accomplishes this lubrication with thick engine oil. Most commonly, this oil collects in a "wet sump" oil pan at the bottom of the engine, is picked up by an oil pump, and circulated through the engine, being directed at the parts which require it, finally draining back into the sump. (There are also "dry sump" systems, where the oil resides in an elevated oil tank.)
A two stroke engine - since the crankshaft portion is also the engine's fuel intake - does not have an independent oiling system. Such a system would interfere with the fuel intake, so the lubrication for the crankshaft bearings has to be included in the fuel. As described previously, this can be either with an oil injection system, where oil in a separate reservoir is delivered directly into the crankcase, or by premixing thin two stroke oil into the gasoline. In either case, the two stroke oil provides lubrication to the crankshaft, and then is burned in combustion. This is why two stroke engines have tha blue exhaust plume; that's the two stroke oil burning.
Two strokes also have incredibly good power to weight ratios, mainly because they have twice as many power strokes per engine rotation. They are also incredibly simple, what with not having camshaft and valve train. Why don't we use two strokes all the time then?
Well, mainly because they burn oil by design. But they are also noisy, and their design makes them severly RPM limited (they'll lose power as they're unable to intake enough air/fuel to keep running). Where two stroke engines shine is in very small applications (weed trimmers and model airplanes) or very large applications (industrial and maritime), though the latter makes use of fuel injection as opposed to carburetion, and does use a wet/dry sump engine lubrication system.
These people may not have the legal right to defend themselves, verbally or physically. It is entirely possible that the current SCOTUS would deny them the right to free speech; the right to bear arms; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to incriminate themselves; the rights to speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel; or the protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishment.
This is how the threatened "mass deportations" are going to happen, and it will be completely legal. Hell, deportations? They could be executed without trial, and that would still be legal.
Is the Pope a US citizen now?
I'm not sure you can even buy a two stroke lawnmower. Snowblower, maybe.
Yes, you need to have oil mixed with the gasoline in a two stroke, because the area under the piston (where the crankshaft is) creates the vacuum on the upstroke to draw in the next fuel charge. Lubrication of the crankshaft bearings, then, must come from oil that is in the gasoline, either by premixing it, or from an oil injection system.
A four stroke, on the other hand, uses the top of the cylinder, above the piston, to draw in the next fuel charge through an intake valve, and the area underneath the piston is bathed with oil. Over time, that oil (including its additives) breaks down and loses its lubricity, and must be changed for fresh oil.
Sounds like typing on a keyboard made of Jujubes.
These people may not have the legal right to defend themselves, verbally or physically. It is entirely possible that the current SCOTUS would deny them the right to free speech; the right to bear arms; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to incriminate themselves; the rights to speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel; or the protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishment.
This is how the threatened "mass deportations" are going to happen, and it will be completely legal. Hell, deportations? They could be executed without trial, and that would still be legal.
Nicky Jam: "Just like you, Trump has no idea who I am. Today you learn that I am a man, and a Nazi."
“My opponents are simultaneously bumbling fools and criminal masterminds!”
Big fish in a small pond.
If the police want to talk to you, shut the fuck up.
The letter referred to mentions "more than 150 people currently serving federal sentences for non-violent cannabis-related offenses" -- not the "estimated 3,000 individuals still incarcerated in our federal prison system for cannabis" that the article states.
Almost all non-violent cannabis-related offenses are state convictions, for which the president has no pardon power. This article seems to gloss over that fact. As others in this thread have stated, no such action is going to happen until after the election anyway.
Whle I don't disagree with the main thrust of this opinion article, it's a bit misleading and unrealistic in its timeline.