A US Attorney prosecuting anyone on behalf of Chinese business interests isn't a good look politically, though, and that's often a factor.

Except, you know, a UART?

https://ratcloud.llc/

Not having public transportation or high-density housing nearby is a feature and a desirable property.

> I’d first need to load myself up with a car payment and spend 4-5 figures per year

Also a feature: if you can't afford this, perhaps that isn't the community for you?

This is a fairly typical agenda: "I want to spend your money turning your city into something you don't want it to be so some theoretical utopia can be actualized."

No matter how much crying and extolling of virtues you do: nothing is going to make me ride the bus. No matter how many "road diets" you impose, no matter how many lanes you kill by dedicating them to buses: I'm not going to ride your bus system. I'll just take my tax dollars (which far exceed that of typical bus ridership) elsewhere.

I ride the subway everywhere in NYC, but not every city needs to become NYC.

I guarantee this vendor would be delighted to make them to spec at a 1ku volume, max. Rewinding isn't even a meaningful SKU distinction or line retool, it's a configuration parameter.

At 12 motors per product, it's easy to hit MOQ.

This doesn't make the underlying English analysis inaccurate: the prefatory clause does not somehow restrict the rest of the sentence.

> You don't know me. You will never know me.

I'll continue manufacturing firearms, and you'll continue being able to do nothing about it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'

Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.

FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.

"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.