Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

That's gonna vary by State. In Florida, where my fat rear end parks itself these days, it's legal to carry while intoxicated, it's even legal to carry while drinking. However, with the one exception of legitimate self-defense, using it is verboten. That applies to even range use, even if that range is a legal one in your own backyard.

Many people might react to that information by recoiling in horror, wondering how any of us Floridians manage to survive with all the drunk, armed rednecks running around, but that hasn't been an issue for us, even since last summer when the requirement to have a permit to legally carry concealed went away. Most things the anti-gun left screams and cries about turn out to be nothingburgers, including the same old 'Fender benders will escalate into shootings from idiotic, untrained civilians who have no business handling firearms'. We heard that a lot last summer when that deadline approached, and in fact, I remember the exact same argument, almost word-for-word, from Janet Reno and many others opposed to civilian carry in roughly 1986, and in both cases, as well as every other one where that misguided fear was used as opposition to increased adherence to the 2A, it's turned out to be bullshit.

 

This really could put an end to reloading if people start treating ammo this way. Guns used to be perfectly normal to make on your own with no license, then came the term ghost gun. It’s perfectly legal to make your own bullets as well, the next term will be ghost bullets.

 

Cite the actual language from the actual case and close your quote.
Again: I shouldn't have to lead you to water here. You're not a horse, you're a man. Find it and drink it.

 

You are stubborn.
Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people, as used in the Bill of Rights, universally communicates an individual right, and thus the Second Amendment protects a right that is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.12 Next, the Court turned to the meaning of to keep and bear arms.13 Arms, the Court asserted, has the same meaning now as it did during the eighteenth century: any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or use in wrath to cast at or strike another, including weapons not specifically designed for military use.14 The Court then turned to the full phrase keep and bear arms. To keep arms, as understood during the founding period, the Court maintained, was a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.15 The Court further explained that bearing arms, during the founding period as well as currently, means to carry weapons for the purpose of confrontation; but even so, the Court added, the phrase does not connote[] participation in a structured military organization.16 Taken together, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantee e individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.17 The Court added that its textual analysis was supported by the Amendment’s historical background, which was relevant to its analysis because, the Court reasoned, the Second Amendment was widely understood to have codified a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms.18

No exclusion for the items I mentioned.

 

Dunno why its doing that oneline crap

 

See there? That wasn't hard at all. It only took 2 days worth of you complaining about being unable to read. You're welcome.


Emphasis mine. You do not wear a car for your defense. You do not take a car into your hands for defense. You do not cast a car at another, and its extant purpose is not to strike things with but as a mode of transportation, just as a 2x4 is not created for use as a weapon but as a piece of construction material.
Including WEAPONS not specifically designed, but a car is not specifically designed as a WEAPON at all.
You do not carry a car on your person in case of confrontation.
It does not meet the definition of 'arms'. That doesn't mean it cannot be used as a weapon, that means its not an 'arm' for purposes of the 2nd amendment.

 

You can clear it out by hitting the little T with an X next to it on the far right after highlighting the ****ed up bit.

 

Wrong, those are not exclusion. Thats an ambiguous defenition for a reason. You operate the gun not the bullet. The steering wheel, etc.

 

Something so absurdly obvious, it should never have to be explained.

 

Must be a cultural thing.

 

More like willful ignorance.

 

Again: Yes, they are. 1) a car is not designed as a weapon, it can merely be put to that use alongside any heavy object or deadly substance. That doesn't make it an 'arm' contemplated by the 2a.
2) you don't carry it about yourself. 3) Bullets and guns are part and parcel. A gun doesn't work without bullets. You could no more restrict ownership of bullets than you could of a gun. Because they are DESIGNED as weapons to be borne (to bear) for confrontation.

You're making an absurd reach for reasons you've already stated: You're mad about bodily autonomy.

 

but but he claims to support the second amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms!!!!

 

Lots of abortion rights extremists adopt gun restrictions as some sort of payback. they think that those who own guns want to ban abortion and thus banning guns or harassing gun owners will teach people not to oppose abortion or gender confusion rights etc

 

Yeah that's what I'm getting.

 

I put your question to BING AI, here is it's response, you tell me if it is accurate.

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, barred the private sale and ownership of machine guns made after May 19, 198612. The law was enacted to revise many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 19682. The decision to ban the sale of these weapons was likely influenced by a desire to control the proliferation of automatic firearms among the general public for safety reasons1.

As for the magazine limit in New York, the state initially passed a law limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. However, it was later stipulated that loading a magazine with more than 7 rounds is illegal, even with a Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit3. This law was likely passed in an effort to further limit the potential damage that could be caused by a firearm in a public setting. However, the law was later amended, suspending the requirement that only magazines that can contain 7 rounds or less can be purchased. Going forward, magazines can be purchased that can contain up to 10 rounds4.​

So, some wacko starts shooting kids in public, and at round 10, has to reload, giving someone an opening to jump him and stop the killer.

Sure, he can carry two guns, but, I think the logic is 'let's not make the lives of kiddy killers too easy'.

If that burdens you, I'm not losing any sleep over it, personally.

 

The enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table.
Your casual disregard for those rights speaks volumes.

 

As long as you have the arms within the constraints set by court rulings, anything above and beyond that is subject to regulation. Another way of saying the same thing is 'anything beyond that is not protected by the second amendment'. Whether 2000 rounds is 'beyond that', I'll leave that for regulators to duke it out over.

Not at all.

No, what you really mean is that regulatory measures should make sense to YOU.

Thing is, we elect those to enact legislation on our behalf, in a democracy. So, if someone elected someone whose regulations you don't like, what can I say? That's democracy. Democracy sucks, yes, but all the others suck even more.

Preventative measures are not based on conspiracies, they are preventative.
We have laws against murder not because of conspiracy theories about murder, but to reduce crime.

Why would anyone want to stockpile weapons? Are they preparing for what? Tyranny? Doomsday? Usually there is some STUPID reason.

Stupid works both ways, I'm afraid.

That which the gov is allowed to regulate does not infringe, so says heller. For example, the second amendment does not grant you the right to own an undetectable firearm. Therefore, the gov made it illegal.

Now, can you imagine why they did this? Do you think the law infringes or is unreasonable? I'd be curious to know your answer for this.

I don't know what 'too much' is. But whatever it is, it could be regulated, if the gov chose to do it. Maybe it's 2000, maybe it is an actual truckload, who the **** knows? I'm not the expert and you're pinning me down on point where the number isn't that important, the number is whatever 'way too much for constraints set by Heller is'. Are there stockpiling laws? You tell me.
If not, there should be. In my view, no one should be allowed to own enough firepower to start a small war. It gives authorities the idea that that is your intent. Why would anyone need that much firepower? You don't need it to comply with the constraints set by Heller.

See above.

I should think it's obvious to any rational person.

Nice dodge, I'll repeat the previous comment which was 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.

If not, comment dismissed. Your above comment is vague, but I think I clarified points above, so see previous comments.

Only a fool would engage sloppy thinking, rant words, vacuous claims.

Be specific.

Abstain from vague generalities, rant language, avoid vacuous, which is to say, empty, claims. .

That's a fair request.

 

Bruen is as much the Law of the Land at this moment as if it were written into the Constitution itself, which in an indirect way, it is! You don't have to like it, nobody, and I do mean nobody, is going to agree with everything the Supreme Court (or Congress, the President, or your State equivalents) does. But pretending it doesn't exist gets you nowhere. Gun control laws are in the process of dropping like dominoes, just as the Founders intended.

 

Reagan signed it. Now tell us who inserted the Hughes Amendment, how they did it, who protested they didn't follow proper procedure, and who passed the act with the poison pill inside to the president's desk in the first place.
Further: Yea, Reagan was a grabber as well.

You can reload in under a second.

I think the logic of I cannot restrict the rights of the law abiding to present a non impediment to criminals is far more sound.

 

Except the 2nd amendment removes from the federal government any right to infringe on the right.
The 14th applies that to the states.
So they have the power to regulate removed, and the balancing tests you want are inapplicable and unconstitutional.


Emphasis mine: You mean like logical fallacies.

 

Since I'm not real knowledge about all this, I put your question to BING AI search, and this was it's reply (sourced/annotated), you tell me if it is accurate:

The Hughes Amendment was proposed by Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.)1. This amendment was added to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 during its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate1. The amendment specifically modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns1.

The procedure for passing the FOPA, including the Hughes Amendment, involved several steps1:​

• The act was introduced in the Senate as S. 49 by James A. McClure (R – ID) on January 3, 19851.
• It was considered by the House Judiciary1.
• The Senate passed the act on July 9, 1985 (79-15 vote)1.
• The House passed the act on April 10, 1986 (292-130 vote), with the Hughes Amendment included1.
• The Senate agreed to the House amendment on May 6, 19861.
• The act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on May 19, 19861.

It’s important to note that the legislative process involves many steps and individuals. While President Reagan did sign the act into law, the Hughes Amendment was added during the House’s consideration of the bill1. As for who protested they didn’t follow proper procedure, that information isn’t specified in the sources I found. However, it’s not uncommon for there to be disagreements and debates about procedural matters during the legislative process. The final passage of the act with the Hughes Amendment could be seen as a compromise or a strategic decision made by those involved in the process. It’s also worth noting that the overall act was generally considered favorable for gun owners2.​

Hmmm, well, Jared Lee Loughner, Gabrielle Gifford's shooter, was attempting to reload his gun, bystanders tackled him and held him until police arrived. So, I dunno...

The key lies in finding effective strategies that minimize restrictions on personal freedoms while enhancing overall safety. It's a challenging but essential endeavor, not everyone will agree where the line is. As with most laws, someone will always bellyache. Welcome to democracy!



.

 

Why not free speech? Why can't regulators duke out how much freedom of religion you have or freedom from unlawful search?

Why don't you like the constitution?

 

Well, as I understand the law and the constitution, while the Second and Fourteenth Amendments do protect the right to bear arms, they do not remove the power of the federal or state governments to regulate firearms within certain constraints. The balancing tests mentioned are part of the judicial review process used by courts to determine whether a law is constitutional, and they are not in themselves unconstitutional. They are a fundamental part of constitutional law and are used to weigh the interests of the individual against the interests of the government. Therefore, you are not entirely accurate, you oversimplify the complex legal and constitutional issues involved in gun control and the right to bear arms.

And what might that be?

 

Yeah you're missing the history friend.

The Hughes amendment to FOPA was added by a pure voice vote just before voting, without an opportunity for anyone to read it and AFTER DISREGARDING A CALL FOR A FORMAL VOTE. This was a violation of House rules.
McClure did not add the amendment. Tell the class who did.

It was on video tape friend and clear as day. You obviously didn't look too hard. Here's your opportunity to try one more time.

Again: Disarming the law abiding because criminals exist is not how rights work. Further: 1 instance of a guy in a crowd does not in any way shape or form make your point.