Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

Im demonstrating that regulations arnt harassment.
When prohibition goes byby, you think its productive to not have any regulations on drugs?
There will obviously have to be some commonsense reforms that are made. The same applies to arms.

 

registration is harassment and can be far worse

registration requires affirmative action on the part of the gun owner and they can be punished for failing to do that-a charge that CANNOT be leveled against criminals due to the fifth amendment
Registration can be used for confiscation or by crooked cops to steal guns. Criminals can hack registration lists and target houses for theft.

Registration has zero use in preventing violent crime

 

Sound argument to abolish it for cars too then.

 

Registration is ineffective, unnecessary, and violates the constitution.
No more need be said.

 

no-because use of cars costs the public money to maintain roadways, that is the purpose of registration fees

 

Money sink isnt justification to violate the constitution is it?

 

everything harmful you can do with a gun is already subject to criminal or civil punishment

1) use a gun to murder someone-you generally die in prison
2) use a gun to wound someone or rob someone or rape someone 10-20 years generally
3) threaten someone with a gun-that's assault or menacing-usually jail time
4) discharge a gun recklessly -lose the gun get fined, and if you injure someone you may get jail time and you will be sued into the poor house

 

tell me what part of the constitution prevents registration or taxation of cars

 

I think the goal is prevention, so try an apply the same logic you would if you wanted to prevent an illegal from entering or an avenue to sus out inappropriate distribution.

How do those laws incentivize me to not sell weapons and ammo to a terrorist?

 

My car is my arms, so the 2nd.

 

Uh-huh now show me where in the constitution it excludes cars from arms.

 

if you go from no restrictions to restrictions: You're banning guns.
If it goes from a right to a privilege: You're banning guns.

IDK what kinda gun control types you've been listening to, but they outright admit they want to take guns.

Further: Hughes amendment bans guns. The brady bill banned guns, and every gun controller wants it back. NFA: effectively bans guns by pricing them out of reach for numerous people, a practice which disproportionately effects ethnic minorities and studies show increases the prevalence of lynchings.

 

Do you know what the definition of the word "arms" is?
HINT: See DC v Heller.

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

I'm going by the standard definition, personal property you can weaponize arms.

Sword, knives, drones, 2x4, 3D printed guns, Humvees, fetanyl laced pepper spray, or anything else you could be charged for using against another human being.

 

Thats a stretch, and counter productive to the pro gun agenda. For instance im a responsible driver. Why should I be subject to all that regulation harassment, because there is a money sink for it?

 

That's not the definition given in heller.
Why don't you try citing the definition addressed and Heller, and see if that doesn't clear up your ostrich defense?

 

Its a privilege, privileges don't follow the same rules as rights.
Further: You likely shouldn't have to, we should expand the right to travel to include operating a motor vehicle on a public road and keep malum in se crimes around (you know, vehicular manslaughter, DUI etc).
Until that expansion occurs its a privilege, and can essentially be restricted in any fashion the government feels like.

 

Your position is fully addressed in the comment to which you have just responded. Your position appears to be rooted substantially more in emotion rather than objective fact.

Moreover, you've added nothing to refute my rebuttal. You're just repeating yourself.

 

Im not a lawyer, so just gimme the part that excludes those items. Google does me no justice just claiming hand guns fit the definition, like duh.

 

But it isnt a privlage, its literally in the constitution.

You an I wont get very far we already agree with prohibition. My gripe is with those that feel the government can regulate body autonomy, and pretend there is such a thing a "law abiding". Until prohibition is repealed, guns may as well be a privlage too, because at any moment they can ban some liberty and use that to confiscate guns anyway.

 

No, because my argument is an intellectual discussion. Bruen, like I said, is a subject for another thread. I disagree with the 'constitutionality' of Bruen because it distorts the principle of gun laws should be based on public safety concerns. For the time being, I will ignore right wing distorted logic, in order to allow a more principled logic shine.

 

When you pick and chose only legal precedents and concepts which support your argument, and deliberately, a priori, ignore the legal precedents and concepts that negate it, yours is an intellectually dishonest argument.

 

I accept there is a slope. Where I disagree is that it is slippery, as you imply. Meaning, you're suggesting that new regulations are equal to a full steam train heading to the bottom of the slope (where total ban on guns would be).

That's absurd, There is a slope, but it's not slippery. Your implication is tantamount to hysterics.

See above. Your horse analogy just confirms the slippery slope logical fallacy.

I suggest a thorough review of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection kit. Google. it.

 

It is clearly not about crime it's about you. Or people like you.

If they don't like you because you spread what is most dangerous to them.

Information.