Originally Posted by carve
Do you think a government would come out and say they're violating their own rules? This is a great demonstration of the validity of the slippery slope argument. At what point does it become infringement if not at the first law prohibiting arms. I'm asking your personal opinion.
Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol?
My personal opinion (which matters not), is that saying I cannot buy a new gun would be more restricting than saying you can buy a new gun, but the mag must be smaller. In either case, I cant say I'd agree it violates the 2nd amendment because it talks about "arms", not traditional bullet-firing guns specifically. It's vague, and to me, it is intended to deal with equipment used by militias. The gear they have has drastically changed in ways the founders couldnt have imagined. If the '86 rule is a violation, then you could equally argue that if you can't buy a rocket propelled grenade or drone, that's already a violation too. Talk about slippery slope. It's too easy to interpret in a non-relevant way for today's world, therefore less weight should be placed on it (IMHO; you asked).
The fact the '86 ban was not overturned further reinforces my position that if an arguably bigger offence against the 2nd amd was unable to be stopped then, any legal attacks today on the smaller offence (7-round-rule) are unlikely bear fruit. I suppose time will tell, but if I were a gun owner, I would operate under the assumption that any challenge will probably fail, rather than the assumption that the constitution will save me.
You seem to really be dying here, waiting for someone to ask you about the alcohol prohibition thing. Why dont you just go head and tell us?