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
Separate names with a comma.
