Must be a cultural thing.
Wrong, those are not exclusion. Thats an ambiguous defenition for a reason. You operate the gun not the bullet. The steering wheel, etc.
Dunno why its doing that oneline crap
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...
...Quite the speculation, but ok.
You do realize they arnt talking street level enforcement right? More like a trickle down effects on stats agenda. The proper incentives build...
Somehow you misunderstood me. It was a compliment, everything fits on why that regulation doesnt work. What some fail to understand is that its...
Why do people claim its a stupid analogy then here you go on to make the perfect example?
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...
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...
Then it seems my examples fit the description of arms. Im missing what excludes them.
And once again, im not a lawyer!
Steering wheel is in my hands....Im operating it. Why is that excluded.
Obviously it is if somehow "Anything i take in my hands" doesnt fit the description of the tools i mentioned earlier.
Its too legalize for me. But lets see anything i can take in my hands...sounds like all my examples
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...
My evidence is its not excluded.
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...
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.
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...
I'm going by the standard definition, personal property you can weaponize arms. Sword, knives, drones, 2x4, 3D printed guns, Humvees, fetanyl...
Uh-huh now show me where in the constitution it excludes cars from arms.
My car is my arms, so the 2nd.
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...
Money sink isnt justification to violate the constitution is it?
Separate names with a comma.