Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

well you look at the regulations and you try to make sense of them. I don't believe this particular regulation is equal to a full steam train heading to the bottom of the slope I think it's another inch.

The regulation makes no kind of sense. If the only question you come up with and support of the regulation is why do you need so much ammo then the regulation doesn't make sense. What if I just want so much ammo what if I like to stock up and not purchase any for 2 years. There's legitimate reasons for one thing to purchase ammo in that quantity there is not legitimate reasons for wanting to interfere with that.

I don't see it so much as a slope more of a war of attrition. It's too inflect minor damage over and over and over until you can take a mile

I applied the bullshit test to the proposed regulation. It seems it's only purpose is to interfere with lawful gun ownership.

Why would you support that?

 

I am not against debating the efficacy or rationality of any gun reg.

My point was the hysterics going around the right wing echo chamber that suggests 'regulation equals eventual total ban" which is the 'slippery slope logical fallacy'.

As for a lot of ammo that you do not want to buy for 2 years, do you apply that sentiment to your other purchases you make in life?

Because, if you don't, it doesn't compute.

To a lawmaker, it looks like you are preparing for an insurrection, or some fanciful fight against a tyrannical government, a favorite fantasy meme being tossed around in second amendment advocate circles the odds of which are zero, given that the framers were thinking of their recent departure from the tyranny of the King and colonial rule, a situation which does not exist, in modernity. .

The only way we are going to reach a meeting of minds on this issue is to be honest with each other.

 

You don't have to be a lawyer to google the case, hit ctrl +f and type (arms) then scroll through until you find a discussion of the definition of the term.

The case is DC v. HELLER, 2008.

It is YOUR claim that cars are arms by definition, provide evidence of your claim.

 

Operating a motor vehicle is literally not in the Constitution.

Ah, so your 'logic' boils down to 'one right is in jeopardy, so all must sacrifice all rights".
I'm not going to address it further.

 

My evidence is its not excluded.

 

I see. So the fact it continuously progressed, to you, means its not slippery.
How droll.

Again: It progresses and a "win" trying to get back to the origination point before the slope which you acknowledge exists start is never a 'win'. They're trying to bring the brady bill back, that's what every state and federal floated so called assault weapons ban is.

 

And you would know that from the actual legal definition you admit you haven't seen?
My, your opinion is so well-informed, how could anyone argue against you?

 

Umm i dont want to sacrifice any rights,. I want the same privlages gun enthusiasts enjoy with my car. I dont want to be harassed with all those pesky regulations.

 

Its too legalize for me.
But lets see anything i can take in my hands...sounds like all my examples

 

You want to make keeping and bearing arms a privilege, and you've said since abortion is in jeopardy and other related bodily autonomy rights, that essentially all must suffer until you get your way.
Further: PRIVILEGES and what persons exercising their RIGHT to keep and bear arms have are RIGHTS, not privileges.

You have said car fits the legal definition of arm. You have outright admitted you've never read the best case for a discussion of the definition of arms, Heller, and EVEN GOOGLE was not cited by you.
Your opinion is, frankly, uninformed and therefore worthless.

 

Legalese, and no, it isn't.

I can tell, because you haven't even TRIED to read it. If you HAD you'd have at least TRIED to offer an argument you thought worked.
Instead, you're sitting there demanding I spoonfeed you your own ****ing argument. That I back up YOUR claim.
That's not how the forum rules work. Please review them if you're curious.

 

You can pick up a car then can you?

To quote another website: Proof or ban.

 

Obviously it is if somehow "Anything i take in my hands" doesnt fit the description of the tools i mentioned earlier.

 

Steering wheel is in my hands....Im operating it.
Why is that excluded.

 

Again: You can pick up a car and brandish it can you?

A motor vehicle is not an arm. It can be USED as one, but it ISNT one.

 

See, this is why you need to read the actual case and cite to the section. Because if you had read the case, you'd already know why that doesn't work.

 

And once again, im not a lawyer!

 

well that's what this threads about so let's do it.

What do you think Elizabeth Warren is trying to accomplish and explain how?

the fact that you label this a right wing thing and think that it only exists in the right wing shows that you are engaging in hysterics. You have a framed this as an us against them conflict when really its more about elites versus commoners.

this couldn't be less relevant if you tried.

If I wanted to buy a dump truck full of Cheetos it's not the government's ****ing business. We're not talking about nuclear material or TNT.

This isn't legitimate.

The government doesn't get to suspend your rights because they incompetently believe with no information whatsoever that you might be starting an insurrection if they were then you would be able to have free speech or your Fourth amendment rights or your fifth amendment rights.

I think it's really sad that you think that government fears trump Liberty

In order to have a meeting of the meeting minds you must first understand that the government needs a damn good reason to infringe on your rights.

If you don't understand this there can be no meeting of minds.

I would point out that's not a legitimate reason to suspend the first amendment or the Fourth amendment. So how are you going to say that it's legitimate for any other amendment?

 

that is a foolharty statement to make.

Regulations and absolutely be harassment. Let's remember in 1950s us particularly on Southern States there was a regulation that said you have to have separate but equal accommodations for whites and colored people. I would argue that regulation was specifically a 100% about harassment and nothing else.

Also doing something called the 18th amendment which was designed specifically so that people could harass people for doing something they didn't like.

Regulations can absolutely be harassment. And if they're designed to interfere with you exercising your rights that's precisely what they are.p

regulations must have a purpose. And preventing you from doing something that certain people don't like isn't it good enough purpose.

Think about States making regulations against abortion.

That's a red flag right there. When you have to proclaim with no rationale for it that regulations are common sense it's a pretty good indication that they're not.

Common Sense doesn't need to be identified it's common sense.

Typically people call the absolutely dumbest regulations conceived by humanity common sense because they have to it's a lie I have to lie about what they believe and what they support because it's absurd.

 

You don't need to be. You can read english, you can read a discussion of the historic use of a word.

 

Then it seems my examples fit the description of arms. Im missing what excludes them.

 

Im sorry those specific regulation in the OP. They are far less harsh then those applied to drivers, yet I dont see the ones applied to drivers stopping anyone from driving.

 

Maybe you should CITE HELLER where you pull your definition from and we can get started educating you. I promise it only hurts for a moment while it burns out the core of your ignorance.
But nothing happens if don't do the work. So do the ****ing work, so you can ****ing learn something.

 

I sorta did...the same line that gives handguns protections.
"Any thing a man takes into his hands or uses in wrath, etc. Including weapons not specifically designed for military use...A car. Steering wheel in my hands. A drone controller in my hands, etc

 

None of that equals "on the deliberate path to a total ban" as you imply. There is a slope but it isn't slippery.