California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.
Good to see common sense prevail. Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t brown, black, female, queer, progressive, poor or school children).
Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.
Skill issue. Line them up so you kill multiple targets with 1 round, and learn how to reload faster.
my man doesn’t affix a bayonet and it shows
Killing them is not the problem, dropping them before they and their pack successfully charge you is the bigger problem
Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy. And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.
The issue isn’t with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it’s with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren’t stern or thorough enough.
If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you’ll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.
It’s important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.
Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven’t added to the conversation?
Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I’m in the regulated land of Oz so you don’t need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I’m familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.
Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn’t really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.
The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That’s a person v person shooting.
Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?
Personally I don’t agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it’s a legally legitimate option.
The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It’s a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.
The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).
People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm ‘rights’. But that’s too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that’s a bit smaller than what it once was.
Removed by mod
The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect
I find this a weak argument. Cigarettes and ICE cars were equally if not more so pervasive, and through legislation we have seen change occur to the use rates of both of those, albeit much slower in the case of the former.
You are right in that effective gun regulation in the US will be a monumental task, but not impossible. It’s just the best time to have started was yesterday.
Cigarettes are consumable. And ICE cars are naturally being phased out for EV examples, not being banned with no alternative.
The examples are non sequitur.
I referred to them as examples of societal mainstays that have been/are being phased out generationally. But true, it’s near impossible to find a good comparison.
Removed by mod
The discussion is about the pointlessness of the magazine restrictions. I’m aware of ballistics and the ease of different systems to shoot, but since it’s not about that, it wasn’t mentioned.
And in regards to the final point, yes. That is literally what is being said.
Removed by mod
Trans and gay people would be a whole hell of a lot safer if the people who wanted to kill them were unarmed.
Unfortunately, you will literally never be able to guarantee that.
Plenty of other countries manage to do it.
Removed by mod
I’m gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren’t exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we’re still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I’m so glad I’m not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?
And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!
I know there’s something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.
Again, I’m sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don’t think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.
Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.
A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.
narcissists
thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.
i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.
i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other’s boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren’t rooted in rationality or care for others.
whenever i visit other countries, i’m refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it’s one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it’s exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?
One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.
Is the magazine size restrictions the only difference between the gun laws of America and Canada?
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
it’s very hard to respect the anti-gun crowd? because they focus on banning things that don’t matter?
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don’t buy rifles, abusive fucks don’t keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
it’s impossible to have any respect for the pro-dead-children crowd. you cretins deserve so much worse.
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don’t buy rifles, abusive fucks don’t keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
They want due process to have their personal property taken from them? Man. That’s just crazy!
mass murder after mass murder after mass murder and you’re just fine with things how they are.
mass murder after mass murder
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
If someone has a nuclear warhead in their personal possession, I want the government to take it from them as well.
Nobody needs a gun, and if you do to feel safe you must accept you live in a shithole country.
Removed by mod
Oh come on. Literally nobody is pro firearms for domestic abusers, let’s get off that straw man.
The justice system in this country is, and always has been, built on the premise that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This isn’t merely important for guns. It’s important for every aspect of criminal justice.
Do you know why it’s hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked “What can we change to stop this from happening?”, do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
“I don’t know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted”.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
If you actually cared as much as you act like you do, you would educate yourself about these “little trinkets”.
Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn’t going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that’s just not going to happen without civil war.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect… though I tend to agree it won’t happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
What particular laws have been “completely ineffective”? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?
We get it, gun owners get salty because they’re not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is “tantrum” from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.
But that’s too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don’t think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren’t as important as other people’s lives.
And oh look, they’re way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who’d have fucking known?
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.
I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
Our system works as intended. Sorry you don’t like our Freedums!
You have zero freedom.
I do pretty much whatever the fuck I want every day in the USA. I love the freedom I have here, but it’s a lot better when you’re not poor. I’ve had it both ways and the freedom definitely scales with dollar count.
For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.
In addition to this, there is no limitation on the magazine size for rimfire longuns in Canada.
[source] With some exceptions, there is no limit to the magazine capacity for:
- semi-automatic, rim-fire long guns
- other long guns that are not semi-automatics
It’s less a culture issue and more a safety nets issue - one we need to do much to improve upon.
deleted by creator
Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’d love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I’ve yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I’ve yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I’ve yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there’s no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
“Common sense” is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things… but you might be surprised as to what they are.
I agree with all of this. I think almost all of Canada’s gun control laws are sensible. We have sensible laws about transport, storage, safety training, and other things. Magazine size and banning weapons that look scary is not effective though.
Gun deaths in Canada isn’t exactly in a good place, it’s just way better than the US.
Gun deaths in Canada isn’t exactly in a good place, it’s just way better than the US.
It’s also mostly a problem caused by guns smuggled in from the US, where it’s far too easy for people with bad intentions to get guns.
Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.
And then if we criticize them, they’ll tell us to mind our own business, as if it’s a harmless hobby that doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Yeah, I know, I’m being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You’ll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Hold up. Canada’s failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren’t you supposed to be the country doing better?
Also, what’s this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
When either party is willing to actually address underlying issues, feel free to revisit that high horse.
Lmao are you really shifting blame from the Canadian criminal to the American gun? You really believe the criminal wouldn’t have committed the crime without a gun? Like above nothing short of a total ban will impact crime, and that’s not going to happen for a few reasons. We are all frustrated from crazies killing people but the solution isn’t in the guns, we need to treat the person.
Also you seem a bit brain washed thinking gun owners just want to kill black people. Maybe you should think hard about that line and who gains from you believing that.
No u
States rights!
Wait, no not like that.
Correct, given it’s a constitutional right.
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
deleted by creator
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
The militia was renamed to the national guard in 1903.
Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.
Removed by mod
Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.
Was it? Duke’s analysis of the history seems to disagree with you and your baseless claim. Interestingly enough, this is in-line with the opinion in this exact recent ruling.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.
That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?
Removed by mod
Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.
Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.
For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.
You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of settled law that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.
As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.
To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.
But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.
Fortunately, this entire notion was already addressed by the Judge issuing the ruling, a thing I’m sure you’ve read.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.
You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we’re supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote history despite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.
That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I’ve come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.
Then there is also the other issue that the other drafted forms of the amendment don’t even include that clause, indicating more clearly the main point, that they didn’t want the government to be able to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, after the episode they just had with the British government trying to limit arms to prevent an armed resistance in favor of colonial independence - said conflict having been kicked off specifically by an attempt to seize arms.
You can think one way or the other about how the state should treat guns, but people have this inclination to try to rewrite history about what it says and why. It’s pretty clear if you take the blinders off, regardless of what you think about the issue.
Clearly meant in your opinion.
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant "well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
Removed by mod
Lol, tell me you don’t understand the constitution without saying you’re a fucking idiot. Oh wait.
No it isn’t.
Looks like the feds disagree with you.
Removed by mod
Magazines are considered arms, within the meaning of the Second Amendment, therefore protected especially from arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
Removed by mod
It’s ironic that your best argument is to suggest one read history - with mindless disparaging insult - in response to actual history and analysis, with citations.
Narrative, indeed.
Doesn’t the 2 amendment talk about the right to bear arms, and doesn’t say we can’t restrict weapons?
As long as you are allowed to have a flintlock pistol, your constitution is not violated. So we can ban every other gun in existence.
Not really - It doesn’t read the right to bear flintlock pistols. It reads the right to bear arms.
Even if this ban stays, it will only effect law abiding citizens.
Makes it so less magazines are put on the black market. Just like a total gun ban would dry up the black market. In US and Mexico.
3D printers: exist
Nobody gives a fuck what criminals and terrorists could hypothetically use, they care about what they are using, which in nearly 80% of mass shootings is a legal firearm.
“Mass shooting” refers to any shooting where 3 or more people are injured, and it usually happens in areas with high unemployment. Kinda sounds like a class issue to me.
Cool well fix the class issue and then you can have your guns back.
You have it backwards - fix the class issues and you’ll have nothing to bitch about regarding firearms.
That is, unless you just hate firearms.
Nah. You think it’s the problem, you can prove it’s the solution.
It’s relevant to the question of what would happen in the event of a gun ban.
At this stage, anyone with sufficient desire to do so can manufacture an effective and reliable firearm using readily available tools at home, using no purpose built firearm components. Magazines are dead simple in comparison.
No it’s not, it’s a bullshit excuse to do nothing.
Overwhelmingly, criminals, abusers and domestic terrorists are using legally purchased firearms to kill innocent people. Of the minority remaining that are using illegal firearms, they were stolen from somewhere and those people should be held accountable.
Those are the people “gun grabbers” are trying to disarm and those are the people the pro-gun community is protecting, while somehow thinking they’re the good guys.
“Oh but what about 3D printed guns and bombs and cars? They’ll just use them instead” doesn’t matter. They’re not using 3D printed guns any more than they’re using giant clown hammers.
And do you know what we’ll do if they start? We’ll address it.
Much like we have addressed it, since it doesn’t take 25 years to do when there isn’t a well funded death cult blocking us every step of the way.
No it’s not, it’s a bullshit excuse to do nothing.
If your goal is to feel good about Doing Something then you are right. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce violence without curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens, you are dead wrong. The only effective way to go about this is to logically look at what the effect of a law would be.
Overwhelmingly, criminals, abusers and domestic terrorists are using legally purchased firearms to kill innocent people. Of the minority remaining that are using illegal firearms, they were stolen from somewhere and those people should be held accountable.
First of all, you are mistaken here. Guns used by criminal groups are most often straw purchases, which are very much illegal.
More importantly, looking at the problematic people and just banning whatever they have in their hands has a long history of failing to make any meaningful impact on crime.
As an example, let’s examine the long list of weapons banned in CA after the legislature associated them with “gang activity”. Martial arts tools like nunchucks, which have no practical use outside training, were banned, despite the fact that it should have been patently obvious that banning nunchucks would do zero to stop actual criminal activity.
Another example is prohibition. People saw the “immoral element” consuming alcohol and saw alcohol prohibition as a panacea. It’s well known that prohibition had wide sweeping negative effects at this point.
You have to predict the holistic effects of the law, long term, to see if it will have a positive impact.
“Oh but what about 3D printed guns and bombs and cars? They’ll just use them instead” doesn’t matter. They’re not using 3D printed guns any more than they’re using giant clown hammers.
… it kinda does
It’s not just a “what if” question, either. Even prior to the advent of readily available 3d printing, criminals in Brazil and elsewhere had developed a network of facilities manufacturing black market open bolt sub machine guns based on the Luty designs. Restricting legal guns had little long term benefit in Brazil at stopping crime with firearms.
It has only gotten easier to make them at home as time goes on. No manufacturing facilities needed.
If your goal is to feel good about Doing Something then you are right. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce violence without curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens, you are dead wrong. The only effective way to go about this is to logically look at what the effect of a law would be.
Okay, so if it’s not a bullshit excuse to do nothing, what has the pro-gun community done to address the issue of gun violence over the last 25 years?
Oh look, they’ve done nothing. In fact, they’ve done worse than nothing because they’ve actually made it easier to enable criminals, abusive partners and domestic terrorists to arm themselves on a whim.
But despite this, they continue to insist they they and they alone have the answers and what a susprise, the answer is once again “don’t change anything”.
First of all, you are mistaken here. Guns used by criminal groups are most often straw purchases, which are very much illegal.
Okay, so you’re openly admitting that the current laws are a failure, but you’re also staunchly opposed to anyone fixing them. If your goal was to arm criminals and people who hit their wives, how would your actions differ from what you’re already doing?
You’re not going to allow straw purchases to be stopped, despite them being borderline non-existent in comparable countries. You’re not going to allow the gun show loop holes to be closed, despite them being openly acknowledged ways of buying guns without a background check. You’re definitely not going to support mandatory safe storage to punish dildos who leave handguns in gloveboxes, because those dildos are your friends.
More importantly, looking at the problematic people and just banning whatever they have in their hands has a long history of failing to make any meaningful impact on crime.
Yet more bullshit. “Oh look at this stupid ban or this thing law that didn’t work”. If those laws done work, go out and buy an RPG. Get a box of grenades without the appropriate license. Hell, pick yourself up a truck full of ANFO, I’ll cover the cost.
But you can’t, because it turns out banning precision engineered weaponry is actually easy as fuck.
You have to predict the holistic effects of the law, long term, to see if it will have a positive impact.
Is that your excuse for 25 years of the “good guys with guns” accomplishing absolutely nothing except lining the pockets of Republicans and lobby groups? You’re still looking at the holistic, long term effects of the laws that just happen to be the most personally convient to you.
Restricting legal guns had little long term benefit in Brazil at stopping crime with firearms.
And should we use the same dogshit, pro-gun logic for all laws? It’s illegal to fuck kids, but people fuck kids anyway, so by pro-gun logic it should be legal to fuck kids after a 2 day waiting period.
It’s illegal to drive while intoxicated, but that’s probably super inconvenient for some people so by pro-gun logic it should be allowed as long as their on their way to or from a gun show.
It’s illegal to kill people, but… Oh nevermind, judging by the murder fantasies on most pro-gun platforms, they’d be throbbing at the idea of those laws getting changed.
It has only gotten easier to make them at home as time goes on. No manufacturing facilities needed
Oh well you’ll be all set without your guns then. If any authoritarian dictatorships come along, all the pro-gun people who promised to protect us from it (but wouldn’t even wear masks in a pandemic) can just grab a $200 PLA printer from AliExpress and print themselves off a machine gun.
Right after they finish enthusiastically voting for them and losing 130lbs of course.
Yeah, and if a police see someone with a gun, especially 3d printed, they know they are criminals without having to check the serial number.
I mean… if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.
Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.
However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.
I guess they meant “total” as in total ban country wide.
Guess why Mexico has a huge problem with guns. Because they are smuggled from the USA.
Are the two Ds at the end for a double dose?
UPGRAYEDD, spelled thusly, always gets his money.
How’d that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.
How many people offered you rocket launchers? Hand grenades? Land mines? High explosives?
None because you can 3D print those.
Please please please print yourself an RPG.
(Not me obv but you get the point)
And you clearly didn’t get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.
People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.
not only this, but lets be honest here, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the lethality of firearms. Even if an active shooter abides it; most people who’ve spent a modicum of time practicing can drop and replace a magazine inside of a second or two.
Also, as Upgrayedd noted… you can drive a couple hours to arizona to get them. Or, just make your own mags. it’s not hard.
I’m all for effective gun control laws… but this ain’t it.
And where do the criminals get their guns from?
The ATF.
Straw purchases are the main way, like 85% or more…so illegally…
Damn, sounds like gun laws don’t work then. Better change them to increase background checks and waiting periods.
Yeah and what are you wanting to regulate 3d printers and 80% lowers while your at it? gonna regulate sheet metal to prevent people from making guns?
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings. But sure, I will absolutely advocate laws regarding the illegal manufacturing of firearms are enforced. I’ll also laugh when people blow their hands off.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
It’s almost like “but 3D printers!” is just as bullshit as everything else that comes out of pro-gun groups mouths. 25 years of insisting it was doors or video games or rap music.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
It once more seems you only care that suffering involved a firearm rather than actually caring about people and their suffering.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Thoughts and prayers for whatever point you thought you had.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.
But whatever “social support and safety nets” you find are still going to be paired with vastly better gun laws that try and balance social risk rather than protect profits.
You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.
3d printers and illegal markets
Every gun on the illegal markets was once a legal gun.
Work cited: crack pipe. You cant legally buy a glock switch, and there are plenty of exanples of glocks with switches on them (which usually come from china), and seeing as the ATF considers the switch themselves to be a machine gun, these are guns that were never legal, and yet theres an ungodly number of them on the streets
Abolish the ATF.
We’re not talking about guns, we’re talking about mags. Which are trivial to make.
And that’s why you’re against all abortion bans right?
I am against all abortion bans but I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
It was an attempted dunk based on the assumptive chain that you defended a stricken-down firearms restriction therefore are clearly conservative, therefore clearly push abortion bans.
It’s if it’s impossible to them that anyone outside the NRA can like firearms.
I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
No worries at all, and agreed. It’s part of why this is so incredibly frustrating - the sheer entrenched nature of this partisan-aligned wedge issue precludes any form of meaningful progress.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
Correct, and entirely agreed. This is the nature of the flaw with most such restrictions - unless there’s compelling evidence the tools used for a given crime were sourced by legal owners, further restricting legal owners does absolutely no good.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
I would wholly-support a MAGA-ectomy.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms? I have serious concerns regarding the state of your mental health if you actually entertain the notion that people should be able to sexually abuse minors.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms?
Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.
The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.
The NRA has been a trvesty for the firearms community. Also fuck em and fuck Reagan for banning open carry cause of the black panthers. Bunch of fucking cowardly welps.
Where do you think all black market guns come from?
Trees?
This is a discussion about magazines, not guns.
Law should be struck down.
- magazines are easy to return to 30/30 from a 10/30
- only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
- background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.
- Guns should be registered.
As a gun owner I in my opinion think that we should have sensible laws for firearms. Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really. Are semi auto rifles a great tool for people in the country side? Sure I understand they have different dangers compare to city folks. For people that saw they should charge high taxes to own guns. Look at Mexico it ain’t helping no one and makes it that the wealthy folks can afford firearms.
Oh and if we do register firearms and your gun is found in the black market without you notifying that your firearm was stolen that should be a red flag. It’s an easy market to sell firearms when you buy from lax law states and they end up in Mexico.
Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.
Last last thing, if you have kids and own a firearm and don’t secure it, a big fuck you. Putting kids in danger, you fuckin cucks.
“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”
I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.
I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.
I’ve seen video of a small lady with a handgun chasing out four home intruders while taking wild, panicked shots. Yes, these guys ran, but not everyone will. Two and a half shots per intruder doesn’t sound like a fun time.
Removed by mod
Interestingly enough, the lady doesn’t seem to have died in her sleep - that a firearm did, indeed, stop that invasion. Weird, that.
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
Removed by mod
Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?
Removed by mod
Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.
I see you didn’t respond to what was stated. As a reminder:
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by… actually showing support for your position.
I’ll consider your criticism regarding math when you’ve polished up those reading skills.
Yes, it is a great argument, if you like anecdotal fallacies.
Which is perfectly fitting in response to an absurd, reductionist generalization.
You seem to be rather one-sided in your application of criticism.
Under this logic, why do we have exemptions for police? Why does almost every single police department issue handguns with a capacity of 15 or more?
The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?
I don’t agree with the premise that the government can be better armed than me in peacetime. Disarm the cops.
It only makes sense for cops to have an exemption if we first accept the premise that standard capacity magazines have utility for personal protection, and not just to shoot into crowds.
The police response to BLM riots is the perfect example of why I think it’s important for the populace to be just as well armed as the government.
Lots of great comments and debate here. Love it. But let me address mag bans specifically. They’re a silly feel-good measure, at best.
If you tell me a capacity ban will save lives, I have to ask, have you ever swapped a magazine, of any sort? Hell, I’m actually more on target with my 10-round AR mags. Give’s me 4 seconds to breathe, reset myself. The standard 30-round mag is physically and mentally wearing.
If for no other reason, the idea is childish thinking. Who believes the bad guys, the people they wish to restrict, will just shrug their shoulders and say, “OK.”?
Besides, many LEOs, even sheriffs, have said they won’t enforce such a ban. Well… probably not on white people. (Oh look, another racist gun law. Who knew?)
And even if one still thinks they’re a great idea, how will you stop me from getting one from another state? It’s a box with a spring in it, they’re stupid cheap and plentiful. LOL, in the runup to the Oregan ban there were 100 people posting pics of their full crates in my liberal gun owners’ group.
And perhaps worst of all, this annoys single-issue voters that would otherwise vote Democrat and gives ammo (heh) to conservatives. “SEE! They coming for your guns!” This hill worth dying on to lose elections to the GOP?
Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”
What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.
Use a bow, like a real man.
We do during bow season, and then we hunt with rifles during rifle season. It’s the best way to get more deer meat in the freezer.
Oh fuck off. No one gives a flying fuck about your bloodlust beyond other psychos.
Ah, I see hunting for food is now bloodlust. Completely rational take.
It literally is when we live in this day and age. If you aren’t living in a tribe somewhere, the bottom line is, you do this because you want to end something’s life.
It literally is when we live in this day and age.
I’ll be sure to inform my hunting friends we’re all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
Removed by mod
Yikes. Are you sure the bloodlust isn’t your own issue?
I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.
Thanks!
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
I’m not sure anyone - anyone - would argue police are “good guys”. If anything, they’re an active demonstration that those in power cannot be the only ones with firearms given the extent to which they maliciously misuse that power.
But sure - use the incompetence and cowardice of a given police department as some absurd emotional appeal.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
Waa waa waa…grow up.
Yikes, the projection.
Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly.
Oh? I’m not sure how you interpreted their highlight of the sheer commonality of those legally carrying with no issue as either of these things.
It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others.
I’m not sure how you feel threatened by the mere existence of inanimate objects. Even extrapolating to the action - that of homicide - I’m not sure how you’d feel threatened by such a thing, especially so disproportionately to its lack of prevalence related to the other ways you can be killed and their statistical likelihood.
I’m also not sure how you interpret the right to bear arms - repeatedly highlighted for self-defense purposes in judgements and judge opinions - as somehow an inalienable right to kill others. Unless I’m missing something, that kill others part tends to result in the offender spending quite some time in prison.
It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
You may wish to take your own advice - you seem unable to think beyond your own preconceived and irrational views on a thing, even aside from your demonstrated inability to consider how your criticisms and suggestions might apply to yourself rather hypocritically.
None, because I don’t live in a shithole where you need guns in order to feel safe in your own home.
deleted by creator
Better than the “profiteering off of the death of kids” community.
If some of them die when working with explosives, I can only see it as a win.
You seem like a pleasant individual, wishing death on those you disagree with views on Constitutional rights.
FYI the powder used in manufacturing ammo is not explosive. Smokeless powder simply burns fast, and it’s generally safe and relatively easy to construct your own ammo at home. I have a couple of reloading presses at home, have made hundreds of cartridges of high quality ammo for cheaper than you can buy it. The cartridges that I produce with novice to intermediate level experience on the press are actually higher quality than factory ammo, unless you spend extra for the Match Grade stuff.
Ah yes, let’s just arbitrarily throw out the Bill of Rights and make it so that only rich people can access tools with which to protect themselves.
There’s no right to magazine sizes. They have a right to guns. Give ‘em a bolt action with a 3+1 magazine. Still have a gun, right?
There’s no right to magazine sizes. They have a right to guns.
The 2nd Amendment specifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. I would argue that to be able to functionally “bear arms”, one must be able to be in possession of the means to operate those arms.
Give ‘em a bolt action with a 3+1 magazine. Still have a gun, right?
The 2nd Amendment does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear bolt-action rifles, shall not be infringed”. Instead, it states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”.
But this already isn’t true. Even if I could afford it, I can’t buy an F16, anthrax or a nuclear warhead. So, isn’t this just about where the line is being drawn? The line itself both already exists and doesn’t seem to be contested.
You very much can buy an F16 assuming you can find one for sale, a civilian owned company already bought 29 of them from Israel (Same goes for fully functional tanks as long as you fill out the proper paperwork)
Technically true, but it needs to be non militarized, can’t purchase the missile mounts (or the missiles etc.). My point stands.
The jet isn’t the weapon. It’s the missles I agree.
Want people to change their mind, tell them Bill Gates/Elon Musk and such are starting a nuclear program. They’ll want to ban it, they are arms after all.
“Musk is adding AI controlled weapons to Starlink” Immediate call for reform haha
I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle – to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it’s very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it’s private ownership would violate the NAP, as it’s very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.
It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. One needs to have a precise definition for “bear”, and “Arms”. Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot “bear” a nuclear warhead. Perhaps “Arms” are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.
3 round mag is a perfectly functional firearm. I own one. Works great.
Nobody’s infringing. When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say that it only applies to guns with 3-round magazines or muskets. It applies to all arms.
Ah yes, because the authors could have foreseen personal arsenals, rampant use of guns in crimes, etc. Bullshit argument, that.
It applied to the arms that existed at the time. Funny how 2A’ers are simultaneously originalists (they meant guns for everyone!) and then shun the framework in which the original 2A was written - single fire rifles for protection on the frontier, protecting a growing nation without a large standing military, and to put food on the table.
The Second Amendment is a legal document. The only legal way to change it’s meaning (that the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed) is to amend it to limit the definition of “arms”. As written, the Second Amendment covers all weapons, and at the time of its ratification that included modern naval warships and artillery pieces.
When you can’t win the framing of the argument, go for technically correct. IOW, I do care what they thought, it says I get to have a fuckton of guns and a battleship. Must be disappointing to not be able to own a personal and navy for some.
You’re not gonna bend me. The 2A has been bastardized and fucked over as a political football and twisted to allow people to have personal arsenals. Guns were a tool. Fuckers have turned them into statements and fashion accessories.
As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I’ll be marginally more open to compromise.
You’re not gonna bend me.
That is generally the case when one is operating on sheer, blind faith rather than an understanding of the subject.
A piece of plastic is not an arm.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a 30 round magazine or a bump stock.
This idea that somehow the second amendment is unlimited is unprecedented and insane.
I mean… perhaps you aren’t a native English speaker? The text of the law is literally unlimited. Any weapon restriction is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?
From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.
Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That’s what conservatism used to look like. What you’re parroting is NRA propaganda. It’s unprecedented and it’s insane.
Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?
Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to or affect you at all.
From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.
-
That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can’t change your mind without amending the document, just like you can’t arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you’ve signed it.
-
Same thing. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution
-
The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.
Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
-
I’d argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere “NRA propaganda” is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.
Who wrote that, Benitez?
He’s making shit up and he knows it.
I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?
Who wrote that, Benitez?
He’s making shit up and he knows it.
That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.
This wouldn’t be denial, would it?
I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?
You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.
That said, you’re certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.
When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.
Applied slightly differently - When they wrote the amendment, civilians had complete parity with military - should be the same today.
Fine. Want to own guns? Say hello to boot camp. Some of those Gravy Seals and Tacticool LARPERs are gonna have a hard time.
I believe you misunderstand, perhaps intentionally. Civilians had complete parity - not army recruits.
Removed by mod
The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one’s rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.
Yes, and flintlocks are arms as well.
So give them access to those, and none other. So their 2nd amendment isn’t infringed and the real deadly guns aren’t being sold on the black market anymore.
Show me where the Second Amendment states that it only applies to weapons available at its ratification. By that logic, the First Amendment only applies to forms of speech and communication that existed in 1791.
Every constitutional right has limits. There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer. What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.
There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds.
Asserting a negative - bold strategy. I’d be interested in seeing your support for such a position.
I frequently legally use standard capacity magazines at the shooting range, though, so you may have a hard time here.
More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies.
Is this one of those Works Cited: Crack Pipe moments?
What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.
Ah - so you only care about mass shootings, the vast minority of firearm violence let alone homicide.
Every constitutional right has limits.
Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states “Shall not be infringed”. That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of “Arms”, and “bear”.
There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.
Don’t forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:
[…] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]
At the time the 2nd amendment was written they had muskets. Give them muskets.
This is false. The Chambers gun, the Girandoni air rifle, and other “high capacity” repeating arms existed and were known to the framers of the Constitution.
okay, those are fine too.
You realize “repeating arm” is essentially an AR-15? If you think the second amendment covers repeating arms like the AR-15 then what is your argument?
Cartridges didn’t exist at the time of writing the 2nd. None of those guns used them and the authors of the 2nd had no idea such a thing would be developed. Rifling in firearms was a niche modification that required hand etching of the barrel and not commonly used nor available until the mid 19th century. The founding fathers had no conception of the reliability, accuracy, or speed of modern firearms.
The 2nd Amendment specifically says “the right to bear arms”, not “the right to bear muskets”.
It also says it’s so you can have well regulated militias but the wording is vague about the link between the two.
Removed by mod
So does the training include keeping weapons safely and not waving them around in provocation? Are there mental health standards to meet? Or does it just mean someone knows where the trigger is?
Removed by mod
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify any limitation on which arms it covers. Any weapon of any kind technically cannot be restricted because of the 2nd Amendment.
The ruling in question highlights magazines are effectively arms and magazine sizes cannot be arbitrarily restricted, even when integral.
Good.
Are you planning any mass shootings? Because that’s the only thing AR-15s and large magazines are good for.
Lol no they are not. They’re just plastic rifles, they function the same as any other semi-auto rifle. Lol you anti-2a people are hilarious, you’re so ignorant of firearms and even statistics you end up looking like those idiots who want to ban abortion.
A hot take from the “it’s because of video games, rap music and buildings having too many doors” crowd.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Lol you’re really going to go with “FUDD represents all firearm owners”? If I recall correctly tipper gore is the one who got the labels slapped on CDs…
You’re arguing with a liberal gun owner, you absolutely should know about weapons you’re trying to ban, because you clearly don’t understand the difference between a plastic semi auto rifle and one with a wood stock… they’re literally the same thing.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Speaking of red flags, have you gone through your own comment history and tallied up the number of times you’ve talked about sexually abusing children?
It seems you have a common theme on your mind.
Dangerous straws to grasp for gun advocates. I know what their forums look like.
Yes, those forums known as Reddit, Lemmy, etc… you’re showing incredible works cited: crack pipe energy.
You already used that joke and it was shit the first time.
Oh, wow - I’ll have to let my hunting group know our AR-15s chambered in .350 Legend complete with standard magazines just aren’t any good for deer because this rando on the Internet said so.
Maybe it’s different in your state, but hunting rifles and shotguns are limited to 6 rounds between mag and chamber.
It is very much different in my state; my understanding is that such restrictions are only prevalent in states which are already overly-restrictive on such matters.
Iowa’s general restrictions are effectively that the caliber must be between .350 and .500 caliber barring the special population management season which additionally allows .223/5.56x45mm. That’s it.
The hunting season may come with additional restrictions, but they’re generally of the “primitive” aka bow/muzzle-loader, “long-gun”, etc. categories.
So Iowa doesn’t allow 30-30 or 30-06 rifles for deer? That seems crazy as those are some of the most popular rifles. I believe the round limit is more about encouraging people to take better shots and prevent wounding deer/other game with spray and pray styles.
Correct.
The stated concerns are less “spray and pray” and more the potential for over-travel even on a not-hasty shot.
Fun fact, you can carry two rifles.
So now you have two AR-15s with 10 bullets.
This law wouldn’t have stopped anything.
You can also carry 2 cakes. But eating them is an other matter.
Well I think the best legislation is just heavy background checks and checkups on gun owners. Yes, you could introduce laws like this where people can just get around it or actually go deep down the the fundamental issue, which is why these mass shooters are mass shooters. Background checks and psychiatric tests are the way to go. Guns shouldn’t and can’t be illegal, make sure gun owning individuals are sound of mind enough to own them.
We’ve already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it’s a multi-faceted, systemic approach.
So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.
Summarised by Chat GPT:
The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.
The main findings of their research are:
- Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
- Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
- Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
- Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.
The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:
- The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
- The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like “monster” or “lone wolf” that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
- The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
- The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.
Ah, yes. Both sides.
And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.
Mass shooters are the reason cited for most gun laws though. Detachable magazines, full-auto, short-barreled weapons, etc.
The issue is one party hates social programs but loves guns, and the other party hates guns specifically because the other one loves them.
I don’t understand the Democrats" hatred of firearms. All their attempts to go after them are ineffective at preventing gun violence.
Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.
Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.
This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.
As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.
On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.
Blue team isn’t going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.
Democrats don’t hate firearms. They’re ambivalent or even slightly favorable to firearms. They hate men, especially white men.
Gather up some actual American leftists, interrupt their busy day of adding stripes to the rainbow flag, and ask them the following questions and note their answers:
-
What do you think of Andrew Tate?
-
Why do you think so many young white men are drawn to Andrew Tate?
-
What messaging do you have for young white men?
-
Why should young white men be on board with your cause?
-
What does your cause have to offer young white men?
The answers I would expect from them/have heard from them:
-
He’s a degenerate scumbag who should be in prison.
-
Because all white men are just as evil as he is.
-
Go die in a war.
-
They shouldn’t; the left isn’t for them.
-
Nothing; white men already have everything and deserve nothing.
To the left, white men are boogeymen. “Historical oppressors.” Present-day Republicans. The patriarchy. And they apply this hatred to ALL white males including the unborn. “I’d have an abortion if I found out the fetus was male.”
The actual problems that cause mass shooters are childhood trauma, isolation, lack of social safety nets. The right hates social safety nets because the yacht owning class has told them to for so long. The left loves social safety nets…except for white men.
Addressing the needs of white men, giving them actual help and care, devoting resources to them to allow them to lead healthy productive lives, overcome and escape trauma…unthinkable in either party. So the right says “that’s what you get for sending your kids to school instead of church” and the left says “What about making the magazine release harder to push?”
I’m a single, white, male firearm owner. I don’t feel hated by the left at all.
Recognizing that white men have been privileged and addressing the institutional issues that have given white men an unfair leg up for centuries isn’t an assault on white men.
-
Ah, yes. Both sides.
Let’s not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.
It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.
And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.
It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.
I’m not sure if you’d actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?
No thank you. You’re asking the US government to do that? Practically, this would get sourced to your local police department and weaponized against minorities.
Removed by mod
As it should be.
This will likely make its way to the 9th circuit where it will be an easy defense thanks to Bruen.
On another note, this ruling contained delicious smack-downs for the most common and egregious attempts at various other bans. Love to see it.
Hold on tight to that smugness because you’re only ever two weeks away from yet another mass shooting by yet another legal gun owner.
I remember when that would-be school shooter was like, “Damn, I would have proceeded with this school shooting but I have a ammo limit! Nooooooo!”
Do you remember when the Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people and and injured over 400 more (not counting the hundreds more injured while fleeing)?
You should, since it was the most deadly mass shooting in the history of America.
Anyway, he fired over 1000 rounds in the process but even with the record death toll, it still wasn’t enough to make the pro-gun community agree to ban bump stocks, despite them insisting they were just a range toy anyway.
So who needs your hypothetical shooter that’s impossible to measure when we have so many actual dead people just piling up because you repeatedly defend them.
I always love when people highlight an outlier as some sort of justification for sweeping change while also refusing to consider any sweeping change that isn’t the one they want.
Good guys with guns are outliers.
You did? Isn’t this law new?
How am I going to go fishing now?!
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
Presented to the founding father’s in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.
The founding father’s not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Fortunately, we have an abundance of analysis on the subject including that used in the ruling to help clarify.
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
This, too, was covered.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That depends quite a bit on whether or not there were historical analogues, though it’s fair to say that felons and “illegal” drug users e.g. marijuana are trending toward correcting.
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
Fortunately, we have quite a bit of other text including that from Madison on the subject; a specific limited-scope purpose in one instance does not negate his other statements.
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
And in the post-Bruen world, there’s much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.
And in the post-Bruen world, there’s much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
I’ll take a federal judge’s opinion on the matter - one which aligns with what was clearly laid out in Heller - over yours, thanks.
You seem to be intentionally neglecting that SCOTUS vacated that and kicked it back down to be revisited in light of Bruen, resulting in… this exact ruling.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well
Which doesn’t change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Do you truly believe that’s all that was established in Bruen? You seem to be intentionally ignoring the majority of the outcome of that e.g. the things that triggered this to be vacated and reheard - thus this judgement we’re discussing.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
And the federal judges disagree with you.
And the federal judges disagree with you.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
Are you pretending the supreme court is not federal? Is, perhaps, devoid of authority?
You seem to be burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid that the supreme court which vacated it did so in light of a ruling which rendered the 9th circuit’s ruling invalid, specifically due to Benitez’ ruling.
California has appealed, as they always do. The 9th circuit may or may not accept it; it may or may not continue up to the Supreme Court.
Are you under the impression settled law is somehow sacred and fixed? That, say, there has never been any occurrence of settled law being revisited in light of better or changed understanding of an issue? Interesting.
Are you pretending the supreme court’s continued establishment of precedent on an issue is meaningless?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Oh, interesting - you cannot manage to address let alone refute an argument, so you… appeal to the authority of education as proving that your unsupported position is somehow unassailable? If your law degree was somehow issued by an entity other than Bullshit University, I have serious concerns about its worth given your apparent lack of familiarity with things covered by even high school debate.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
Great, but if you need a gun to feel safe in your own country, it is a shithole.
Ad hominem attacks. Ah yes I care what you think.
Removed by mod
The incredible liberal skew to r/Politics has migrated from Reddit and it shows.
So much sheer irrational cope in here it’s amazing.
do you think Lemmy is exclusively populated with Americans? There’s a whole wide world out there you know, where much stricter gun laws are common and accepted across the political spectrum, do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
Yep. I argue with Europeans a lot about guns.
If I had a genie where I can magically wish guns away, I’d do it.
But right now, armed Nazi fucks parade around the city, PROTECTED BY COPS, and they want to pass laws that make it harder for my brown hands to protect myself?
I do believe the timing of the new accounts is an able indicator.
do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
It’s generally more an assessment of the talking point used and coherence of the argument - you seem to be doing some assuming yourself.
Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.
Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
So, in your estimation, does Congress just… not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I’m aware, they’re popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that’s even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.
Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There’s, say, no selection bias at all?
Interesting.
By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.
That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?
The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.
Is that so? I’m interested in seeing your support for such a notion.
If we’re going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn’t seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn’t push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would… suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn’t push a given restrictive position… do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?
We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa’s 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% ‘yay’ rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa’s Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it’s mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.
Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.
Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.
Well then, stay the course. You guys did so well in 2022 after all, and House Republicans are currently showing the country just how serious and competent they are at governance. The midterms weren’t kind to conspiratorial and extremist candidates, so it’s good to see that Republicans are showing everyone just who controls the party these days.
I should really keep Sun Tzu in mind more often.
Well then, stay the course. You guys did so well in 2022 after all, and House Republicans are currently showing the country just how serious and competent they are at governance.
Who is you guys in your eyes? You seem to be making some flawed assumptions here.
I should really keep Sun Tzu in mind more often.
You should also try to make arguments based in reality and not just ignore direct criticisms of your flawed reasoning, but hey, that seems to be expecting a bit much.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
I’m not sure how highlighting a problematic shift in discourse and contained cope or expressing incredulity at the shift is, somehow, an inability to cope with seeing how things are - if anything, it would be quite specifically seeing how things are and beginning discourse about how things are.
But hey - don’t let that get in the way of an attempted dunk.
