Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

If you can't see the difference between a truck load of ammunition and a truck load of cheetos, I can't help you

 

first there are no regulations on drivers. There are regulations on the roadway. You don't have to hear it any of these regulations at all outside of the roadway.

You could say the equivalent to this is just being out in public there are regulations regarding firearms just out in public you can't take it out pointed at people randomly you can't fire it off whenever you want.

These are common sense regulations because it's common sense it doesn't need to be explained.

Saying you can only buy this number of ammo because the government has some stick in its ass over this is not a common sense regulation.

If we were going to compare it to rodeways since you already tried to do that but failed.

It's like saying you can only buy one tire a week for your car. Not only is it completely devoid of common sense it's completely devoid of all sense in general.

That wouldn't be a regulation anyone would support because it's stupid and it serves no purpose.

But if we regulated sports cars to only being able to buy one tire a week I'm sure there'd be people that support that because they hate sports cars and thus they hate the people that drive them and that's what we're talking about here that's all this is

 

Why do people claim its a stupid analogy then here you go on to make the perfect example?

 

Well the difference is you have the right to buy ammunition as per the second amendment.

Let's take another amendment. Since you don't really understand.

The government can't just barge into your home and search and sees your property even if something you said makes them think you're interested in insurrection because you have a Fourth amendment right that protects you against that.

Now if whatever the government feels somehow precludes your rights and you don't have any rights at all.

I'm thinking you have a specific disdain for the second amendment because you picture it as some sort of culture war battlefield and you said as much by saying it was some right wing thing.

Now if you're going to say constitutional rights are a right-wing thing you are necessarily say it the left wing is absolutely and anti rights and anti-constitution I didn't say that you said that.

This culture war nonsense you engage in is precisely why there can be no meeting of the minds.

You have an emotional stick in your perceived side of winning and I think your war is stupid and it's only going to serve to get you killed.

 

I didn't offer my opinion on it I pointed out why it was an improper analogy. Because there are no regulations on drivers not a single one. There are regulations on roadways.

I also gave an example of a proper analogy between vehicles and firearms.

So what do you have to pretend like I'm saying it stupid when I clearly didn't?

A bit of self-reflection perhaps?

 

Somehow you misunderstood me. It was a compliment, everything fits on why that regulation doesnt work.

What some fail to understand is that its good for the pro gun agenda if we were proactive in keeping them out of the hand of terrorists. What current laws on the books address promoting that incentive? The current driving regulations do a fine job of that imo. I feel confident other drivers know the rules.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood you.

that is done through enforcement. Not writing words on a paper somewhere which is all law is.

This is why I mock people who say common Sense gun control because it always lacks enforcement and you can't keep guns out of the hands of people who don't obey law by writing more law.

You have to have something more than words you have to have force or enforcement.

this question following your previous statement is absolutely devoid of all sense not just common sense.

Terrorists do not obey laws so writing more laws for them to obey that they're not going to anyway is an exercise and stupidity.

The way to control criminals terrorists murderers whatever you want to call them is with enforcement not law.

They're still are no driving regulations there are regulations for the roadway.

 

You do realize they arnt talking street level enforcement right?
More like a trickle down effects on stats agenda.

The proper incentives build the societies that self police imo.

 

Yes complete and total lack of common sense I understand you don't have to explain it again.

The point isn't really about controlling terrorists. It's about taking the rights away from the people.

The excuse you fabricated about terrorists is just a lie people use to manipulate the gullible.

 

...Quite the speculation, but ok.

 

that's already illegal

 

why do you pretend to be in favor of gun ownership when your posts parrot the standard talking points of "Gun Bans R us"?

 

I think most people who actually understand the anti gun movement understand that crime control is not their goal so they will keep pushing for more and more restrictions. You already have admitted that is what you want

 

that's completely false since almost everyone who uses weapons illegally are not people who buy tons of ammo. People who buy tons of ammo tend to be high volume shooters. '

honest> I don't have to lie about why I support constitutional limits on government and oppose gun laws designed to harass honest people.

 

well here is the deal.

if you think a 10 day waiting period will deter some crimes-than you have accepted that a 30 day waiting period will deter more

if you think a 30 round magazine limit will decrease some mass shootings you have accepted the claim that a 10 round limit will reduce even more mass shooting casualties

If you think banning some guns will decrease crime with them, then you have accepted the assertion that banning more guns will lead to decreasing more crime

there is no obstacle to someone who believes such things ultimately supporting a gun ban because when they push for the first set of restrictions, they have already admitted that "public safety" is advanced by those restrictions and that public safety trumps the rights of honest gun owners

 

There is no 'right' to buy a truckload of ammunition. None of the constraints given in Heller mention something like that.

Yes,. the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, which implicitly includes the right to purchase ammunition.

The Heller decision acknowledges the right to bear arms but also recognizes that this right is subject to certain regulatory measures

While Heller does not specifically address large ammunition purchases, it suggests that reasonable regulations, such as those on the commercial sale of arms, are permissible under the Second Amendment. Though congress hasn't, however, it could conceivably include congress placing a fair limit on quantity of ammo to be in accord with constraints set by Heller, Bruen, and other rulings.

Congress has the authority to regulate large ammunition purchases, but such regulations would need to be balanced against the individual's right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, etc., as recognized in Heller.

No, I provided a clear understanding, above, demonstrating that your understanding of the second amendment is a bit foggy.

Your comment, above, is riddled with accusations, generalities and is sloppily written

You'll need to substantiate each accusation, and link to anything I posted which you 'think' supports it.

Otherwise, I am dismissing it en masse, I don't have the time to twaddle with sloppy thinking.

 

Your challenging regulations whether they, indeed, improve public safety is fair.

But that was never the point. The point, and only point was, I repeat:

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

Nothing you've stated thus far refutes that point. That's the only 'deal' I dealt.

 

The black market this would open up would be larger than the prohibition on alcohol and drugs combined. The only way to enforce this would be to serial number every bullet. The government has no business in knowing how much ammo you have or regulating it. Many sportsmen shoot thousands of rounds a year. Reloading supplies would then be questioned the same as ghost guns because they would become ghost bullets. This should never make it through congress.

 

You're tall on accusation, but short on substantiation.

Like the dude with a tall hat and no cattle.

You talk the talk, now let's see you walk the walk.

And, on this:

You already have admitted that is what you want

What I want is not what you are implying, So, your comment is disingenuous.

 

No, assuming a lawmaker's perspective, not thinking of your common criminal, thinking of future whackos from Waco, or wherever, you know, future David Koresh types. Excuse me for being inquisitive about your frickin' arsenal.

I mean, give me a break.

That's a sentiment you have yet to support with evidence.

Are you being honest about that sentiment, or is your sentiment merely a resentment of having to be burdened, like drivers of automobiles are burdened (who don't bellyache about it), with permits, licenses, and so forth?

 

Yes there is the second amendment. ammo is arms. and 2000 rounds is not even close to a truckload,

So your first statement was just a lie?

Regulatory measures have to make sense.

The only feeble pathetic excuse you could come up with is there are profoundly stupid people in the government that cook up flimsy conspiracy theories of insurrection. That isn't good enough to infringe on someones rights.

Again you need a good reason to regulate. all you came up with is that government personnel are incompetent and need to infringe on rights.

How on earth is 2000 rounds large? Such regulations have to make sense

You are the one arguing in defense of **** regulation you cant even come up with a somewhat reasonable need for.

Opinion noted.

You made the excuse for this infringement that government is too stupid to know what an insurrection is. If the government is this poor at their job it is time to suspend their ability to make regulation.

Translation: You can't come up with a good reason for this regulation and you proceed to attack me to save face? It is such utter dishonesty and such bad form and it is what you do every single time I pin you down.

 

why did Democrats ban the sale of (registered, 12 month waiting period, fingerprints, 200 dollar tax stamp) legal machine guns made after May 19th, 1986? why did NY pass a 7 round magazine limit after passing a ten round magazine limit in response to someone committing murder with 30 round magazine rifles?

 

People who want to limit what lawful shooters can buy or own have no restrictions on their desire to ban or restrict

 

He doesn't like the politics of those who advocate gun ownership. Period

 

Ammunition, integral to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, shares the same protection as firearms.
2nd Amendment law, expressed in the holdings of the USSC, does not allow for a limit on the number of firearms that may be purchased or owned; as such it does not allow for a limit on the amount of ammo that may be purchased or owned.

The Heller decision struck every regulatory measure before the court; since Heller, the court has said the state must demonstrate any regulation on the right to keep and bear arms must be consistent with the text and history of the 2nd Amendment for it to not violate same.
I will ask you to make this demonstration with regard to a regulation limiting the amount of firearms / ammunition which may be purchased or possessed; you will fail to do so.
Thus, your argument, negated.