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.
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?
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
No u
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.
Our system works as intended. Sorry you don’t like our Freedums!
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).
Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.
I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.
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.
Sure. But they aren’t, and they can’t be legally disarmed. And the cops aren’t on the side of LGBTQ people. So LGBTQ people better get strapped and trained, because no one else is going to be looking out for them.
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.
That is an extremely American comment.
That’s likely because I’m an American, living in the US, and subject to US laws and court rulings. Like the one that you’re commenting on.
Far more trans people are killed by guns
Sounds to me like more trans people need to get strapped, because the cops sure as fuck don’t care about them. I’m guessing that you’ve avoided reading about anarchists and groups like the various John Brown Gun Clubs defending drag queen story hours and groups feeding homeless people?
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Texas or Florida. But I also wouldn’t vote for Illinois, because I’ve known queer people in Chicago that have been the victims of attacks, and I’ve seen just how few fucks the cops give. Here’s the blunt truth: cops aren’t going to save LGBTQ people, because cops are on the side of the people hurting them. The sad truth is that queer people need to be able to protect themselves, and that means having access to lethal force.
Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide.
Yes, absolutely. But magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide. But again - the problem isn’t the gun itself, the problem is that LGBTQ people are treated like shit by a society that largely doesn’t care about them. Removing guns doesn’t remove their misery. Fix the real problem, and the suicides fix themselves. (And yeah, we’ve got social and fiscal conservatives preventing solving the real problems too.)
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.
How many cases of defensive gun use are there annually in the US? The most conservative estimates are around 1.5M. How many lives are saved as a result of defensive gun use? That’s the real question, and there’s no way to answer it, since you can’t possibly know if someone would have definitely, 100% died if they hadn’t had a firearm to protect themselves.
I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise
Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves and not every shot you make is going to be a cool john wick™ shot through their eye, they may take multiple rounds and you may miss one while they’re shooting back at you, yeah that’s exactly when you need standard capacity magazines.
What, do you think this is for people shooting a bunch of unarmed pedestrians in a tight space with poor egress paths? Magazines are quick to reload if you aren’t being actively shot at, it’s trivial for them to “press button, grab other mag from wherever it was staged, slap in, charge round, and go” takes about 2sec if you’re untrained, fraction of a second if you practiced in your room for a month with your gear and these fuckfaces plan their shit for months, they have the time. Look up a couple videos on reloading anything with a detachable magazine, mag bans are meaningless.
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Well, that stat was completely made up by you. Especially with anemic handgun rounds people can take a lot of shots before they flee or go down, depending on caliber, motivation of the attacker, what drugs are in their bloodstream, and the anatomical significance of the shots (or them being on target at all.) There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking. The actual stat is that civilians (unlike police) are unlikely to reload in defensive encounters and so do fire less but it still may need to be more than 6 in many cases. (The reason may surprise you: Civilians, unlike the police, are actually responsible for what their rounds strike. The police don’t have to give a fuck, citizens do.)
I’ve done this dance before. I spend the time looking up a stat I have read before and the person I am talking to denies its validity for whatever reason. Here’s the first source I found.
I know you’re not going to accept it so don’t even bother.
There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking.
Those are called action movies. Not reality. In reality people run if they even see a gun pointed at them. It doesn’t even have to be loaded. The idea that you are going to need to pump 10+ rounds into a psycho monster on angel dust simply aren’t reality and should not be the basis for law. I guarantee that if you got shot with a .22 you would be laying on the ground crying like a baby.
That is indeed an interesting study, guns are even more effective for self defense than I thought. But that still doesn’t remove the possibilty that you encounter someone (or one of those groups of up to 7 mentioned in your study) that is more determined (or numerous) for whatever reason, which would necessitate a larger (standard) capacity magazine. While it may be statistically likely you’ll fire less than 10, if you do need 15 for whatever reason then statistics will be of little importance as your gun runs dry during the defense.
I was going to compile a list of incidents where more than 10 shots were required, but I’ve been really busy for the past few days, if I have time this weekend I’ll try to compile a few and edit this, but you can also do the same by just paying attention to it gouing forward (but I reccomend videos over articles if you can find them, sometimes they shoot more than they need to, articles could skew it my way.) They do happen, even if it isn’t statistically the most likely, and when it comes to life or death it helps to cheat the odds in your favor any way you can, like by carrying a reasonable amount of ammo (too much gets heavy.)
One thing that study also points out is that if people fire more than 2-3 shots,they keep firing until they empty the magazine. The problem with this is it greatly increases the odds of an innocent bystander being hurt or killed. I think we need the balance the outside chance that a civilian needs to use a high number of rounds on a target versus the chance that someone out of fear fires all their ammo and kills a bystander. The latter is unfortunately far more likely than the former from the data I have seen.
I remember a particular story from my city where a homeowner fired at a burglar who then jumped in his car and fled. The homeowner then kept firing at the car as it drove away until he ran dry. Thankfully none of the stray bullets struck a bystander but that is such a huge unnecessary risk. Civilians can panic and keep firing even after the threat has gone. Larger capacity weapons simply make this a greater risk for very little reward IMO.
Imo that balance is “if you hit a bystander you’re getting charged, so make sure to be careful and avoid prison.” Besides that, the chance to hit the bystander exists at any point a shot is fired, having less rounds and making it less effective at saving lives isn’t worth the negligible decrease in liklihood (especially when it doesnct have to be rnd 11 that hits the bystander, rnd 1 or 2 can hit just fine too). Personally I’d rather not give the two intruders with guns better odds, between them they have at least two dudes usually as per your study and the “action team” typically all has arms and at least 22 rnds loaded (10+1), I deserve 15+1 (pistol) or 30+1 (rifle) to balance it a little considering I’m the one defending, not attacking.
Yeah that happens sometimes, but in my area I’d go to prison for it. Even if the shooting was justified, once he flees continuing to fire would be seen as punitive rather than defensive and “that is the role of the court system not the citizen.” In most areas in the US that’s the case actually, but your DA may neglect to file charges on those cases because that is literally up to them (singular, gender neutral). In fact, “Steve” could do that Monday and have no charges filed, but then “Jerry” does the same on Wednesday, and the DA’s Tuesday this week was a shitshow, wife’s been on his ass and such, so Jerry gets charged for the same crime Steve didn’t even see a police station for in the same week. Much better to not go off “this one time I saw on the news a guy didn’t get charged…” and instead actually look up the laws from your area (imperative if you own guns, informative otherwise.) If your state does allow firing at fleeing felons (unadvisable even if legal, for the reasons you mentioned), you’re better served making that practice itself illegal than limiting the number of rounds they are allowed to wing wildly, that number should be “0.”
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves
Thanks to legal gun owners and the deeply flawed systems they won’t let anyone change.
Well idk, I’d rather not deal with 5 dudes with knives without a gun, either, tbh.
Which is easier to outrun, a knife or a bullet?
I mean, if the guy is faster than me that is frankly irrelevant and I’m quickly aging as humans usually do. Or if it’s numerous guy(s), that changes it as well.
And which would you rather have to defend with, a kinfe or a gun?
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?
And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice.
Yes and no. A lot depends on both shot placement and the firearm being used. Centerfire rifles with bullets traveling more than 2200fps (roughly; some estimates say 2800fps) will stop a person much faster than a pistol, since the temporary wound cavity becomes a permanent wound cavity. But that’s going to be true for nearly any centerfire rifle, aside from old cartridges that were designed around black powder (e.g., .45-70); an AR-style rifle isn’t going to be more lethal than any other fast-moving centerfire rifle cartridge, it’s just a fairly lightweight and easy to use rifle compared to grandad’s M-1. Pistol cartridges can stop threats as effectively as rifles, but you require better shot placement, and you generally want to have defensive (e.g. hollowpoint) ammo. (There’s a reason that “failure to stop” AKA Mozambique drills are a good training tool.)
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy
A rifle is, for an able-bodied person, easier to shoot accurately and effectively than a pistol. Part of that is because you have a longer sight radius, and part of it is because you have a shoulder brace (…and a pistol with a shoulder brace is a short barrelled rifle, which is generally illegal without the BATF gittin’ all up in yo shit). It’s pretty easy, relatively speaking, to hit a target at 100y with a rifle, and very difficult with a pistol.
many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws
Eh. Civilian gun ownership is difficult and expensive in many European countries. However, many European countries do have combined violent crime rates (defined as murder, robbery, forcible rape, and battery) significantly lower than the US. Violent crime, in general, is lower in Europe. So it’s not just that gun crimes are less likely, but that you’re also less likely to be sexually assaulted, or get jumped and beaten. There’s almost certainly something different going on in social conditions that make violent crime less likely, and that would make it less likely even if European countries had gun laws that were more relaxed.
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.
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.
Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc.
The overwhelming number of gun deaths that aren’t suicide are ordinary crime. Fixing the economic conditions that lead to crime would probably have the single biggest effect. Cramming tons of poor people into a small geographic area, and then ensuring that they have no realistic way out of poverty sure as shit hasn’t helped.
Extremism creates orgies of violence, but poverty creates the daily grind of violence.
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.
deleted by creator
Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t … female)
Sounds we should get rid of those laws that ban women from owning and operating firearms! /s
If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that’s a right or wrong interpretation, but that’s a somewhat common argument I’ve seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§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.
Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force
So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.
Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn’t able-bodied also wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment.
I’m no legal scholar, I don’t know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we’re stuck with.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
This DM is following the D&D-2A edition RAW.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
It is also the interpretation that has been proven in court to be incorrect. Both lingustic and historical readings demonstrate it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The poster above has no grounds to stand on in arguing that women do not have a right to keep and bear arms.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
States rights!
Wait, no not like that.
Well yes, the state has no right to infringe upon your rights, like say slavery.* Fought a whole war about that actually.
*Unless of course you wind up in the prison system, then they can infringe upon your rights, but that is also a problem.
Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …
Actually, I support all those rights, and the right to bear arms. Looks like it’s you who’s lackin’.
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Republicans who definitely don’t support those rights
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.
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.
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
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
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.
Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
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?
Since you like reading law review articles start here, and I’ve copied some excerpts to save you some trouble.
In [Professor Eugene] Volokh’s argument [for a broad individual right], the operative right in the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the justification of the right is to provide for a militia, “being necessary to the security of a free state.” A facial construction of these clauses would be that a right should be no broader than its justification; thus, individuals have a right to bear arms only to the extent that it is related to a militia or defense of a state. Or, as Volokh sets forth the issue, “[s]ome argue that justification clause should be read as a condition on the operative clause: The right to keep and bear arms is protected only when it contributes to a well-regulated militia or only when the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.” Volokh’s response to the question flows from his review of state constitutional provisions. Although rarely occurring in the federal Constitution, state constitutions often contain justification clauses. Volokh explains that there need be no exact fit between the right and the justification: “one should expect the possibility of a mismatch between justification clause and operative clauses: The means chosen to serve the end will often be somewhat broader or narrower than the end itself. But it’s the means that are being made into law.” In Volokh’s words, the justification clause does not “trump the meaning of the operative clause…” Thus, there may be no law to “deprive people the right to keep and bear arms, even if their keeping and bearing arms in a particular instanne doesn’t further the Amendment’s purposes.” Volokh has made a convincing case that the breadth of a right may exceed its justification. It is less convincing that this premise compels the conclusion he asserts. The questionable aspect of his analysis is the breakdown of the Amendment into operative and justification clauses. It is clear that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is justified by the need for “security of a free state”; but to which clause does the militia belong? Only if the militia belongs to the justification clause may the right of the people be broader than participation in a militia or acting for the preservation of a state. If the militia belongs to the operative clause, Volokh’s conclusion does not follow. Under this reading, the individual right to own guns would be constrained by participation in a militia because the limitation occurs in the operative clause. The broad rights advocates would then be reduced to arguing the logical absurdity that the individual right is broader than itself. Should the reference to the militia be construed as belonging to the justification or the operation of the Second Amendment? It is more likely that it belongs to the operative clause. The militia has no independent justification or reason to exist. Its function is strictly in subservience to larger ends; in this context, it exists to protect the security of the state. It fulfills this function by operating as the tool through which armed individuals come to the aid of the state. The operative right should thus be read as a conjunction of the right to bear clause and the militia clause: the right belongs to individuals in a militia. Under Volokh’s analysis, it is possible that individuals in a militia have rights broader than relate to the security of a state. It is not possible, however, that there is any constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms outside of a militia. To read the Amendment in this manner would require not that the right is broader than the justification but that the right is broader than itself. Thus, Volokh’s argument collapses for failure to identify the militia as belonging to the operative clause of the Amendment.
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.
…
It is also undisputed that the Bill of Rights created no new rights. That there was no right of individual possession of arms for private purposes before this document voids any pretension that such a right existed after the document. The Bill of Rights was meaningful because it guaranteed that Protestants would not be treated unequally compared to Catholics in terms of possession of arms. It also transferred control of weapons law to the Parliament so that the English militia would never again be the tool of royal machinations. But the document also codified the central features of possession of arms in the country: arms were primarily important as tools of collective safety, and they were within reach of the law to regulate. The subsequent history of England shows beyond peradventure that there was no private right to firearms. The American colonies put great emphasis on the militia. This was primarily a function of the strong historic aversion against standing armies. The aversion intensified during British occupation of the colonies. But in again the historical record is devoid of any suggestion of an individual right to bear arms outside a military function. This is shown in the original state constitutions, not one of which unambiguously recognizes such an individual right.
…
The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of “death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide.” The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.
One researcher, commenting on the study, noted that "the justifiable use of firearms for self-protection is a rare occurrence and carries with it much greater associated risks of the death of someone other than the perpetrator. The same approximate result obtains on a nationwide scale. In 1992, there were 308 justifiable firearm homicides in self-defensive compared to 15,377 total firearm homicides. Surely, no public policy can be sustained when the negative consequences occur 50 times more often than the positive consequences.
…
There was never a single mention at the Constitutional convention about an individual right to bear arms.
during the ratification hearings on the Bill of Rights in Congress, a draft of the Second Amendment was originally introduced which set forth an individual right to bear arms (that is, which did not attach a qualifying militia clause to the clause setting forth the right to bear arms). However, this version, which would clearly have set forth an individual right to bear arms was soundly defeated, and anew version, written by Madison, and which qualified the right to bear arms to its use in the service of a militia, was subsequently adopted and incorporated in to the Bill of Rights.
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.
…
The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller stated that “The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” There are two possible interpretation of this language. The first is that the Second Amendment gives every citizen a right to possess a weapon which might conceivable be used for military purposes. The problem with this interpretation is twofold: first, it leads to the remarkable conclusion that citizens have a right to possess such military weapons as machine-guns; bazookas, and perhaps even suitcase-sized nuclear weapons, but no right to carry a weapon such as a Saturday night special, which no branch of the military has ever issued to its troops. (Even the gun lobby has never suggested that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry small handguns such as Saturday night specials). The second problem with this interpretation is that every circuit court since Miller, without exception, has rejected this interpretation of Miler.
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.”
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.
And here’s another article: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=jcl
The comprehensive nature of [digital] archives can give scholars a high degree of certainty that keyword searches accurately reflect common usage since they contain most of the surviving printed material from the colonies and early Republic. The Early American Imprints series contains over 15,500 documents from 1763 to 1791 alone, 273 of which use the phrase “bear arms.”" If we discard the many reprints of the Bill of Rights, all quotations of the text of the Second Amendment in congressional debate, irrele- vant foreign news, reprints of the Declaration of Independence, and all repeated or similar articles, 111 hits remain, of which only two do not use the phrase to connote a military meaning.’ Using the same method of sorting results from the 132 papers published from 1763 to 1791, the Early American Newspapers database returns 115 relevant hits, with all but five using a military construction of “bear arms.” A search of the exact phrase “bear arms” in the Library of Congress da- tabase (which includes Letters of Delegates to Congress,Journals of the Continental Congress, Elliot’s Debates, and the House and Senate Journals of the First Congress) between 1775 and 1791 returns forty-one relevant hits, of which only four do not use the phrase “bear arms” in an ex-plicitly collective or military context. The sources prove that Americans consistently employed “bear arms” in a military sense, both in times of peace and in times of war, showing that the overwhelming use of “bear arms” had a military meaning. [W]hile not every sin- gle source uncovered from these digital archives uses “bear arms” in an explicitly military sense, the handful that do not are merely ambiguous; at most, they tend to show that “bear arms,” on rare occasion, was paired with additional language to mean, idiosyncratically, “carry guns.”
The historical record of usage clearly shows that, before 1791, “bear arms” was used in its idiomatic sense to denote military service and the like, and that usage to denote non-military conduct was rare and idiosyncratic.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
The author of that law review article also rewrote history.
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.
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?
ALL able-bodied men were legally obligated to muster with the local militia when called to do so, and were also obligated to provide their own arms.
Magazine size?
Magazines are considered arms, within the meaning of the Second Amendment, therefore protected especially from arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
Nah they aren’t. Read history instead of trying to rewrite it to fit your anmosexual narrative.
All laws fail scrutiny if they are arbitrary and capricious.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Touchy issue.
I come from a country with no gun rights, at least not for civilians.
A spare magazine is not a restricted article. Anyone can buy or make. If the matter is 10 rounds, well, you can have as many mags as you want.
Or, have a big mag with fillers in it for inspection. When you step outside the police or whatever office, you just take those fillers out.
How am I going to go fishing now?!
“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.
Yeah, well, sometimes your home is invaded and you get killed in your sleep. Shit happens. A gun isn’t going to stop that. You’re way more likely to use it to shoot yourself anyway.
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?
The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of “death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide.” The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.
Can you not do math? This isn’t at all in dispute. Having a gun in your home makes you exponentially more likely to be killed by a gun. You are perhaps tenfold more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?
Very much. Cars also do lots of useful things other than kill, did you know that, or do you have a hard time with depth?
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.
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.
Attackers do not always run away when presented with lethal force. Sometimes many direct hits are required to stop the threat. Many, many shots can end up in non-critical locations. It’s not like an attacker is allowing you to line up nicely.
PCP. Angel dust will turn someone into a borderline unkillable god. Unless you drive all 10 of those shots into their chest instantly there’s a good chance you’re fucked.
Edit: Crazy how the dude above me is positive for saying the same thing I am.
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
10rnd AR-15 .458 SOCOM mags have entered the chat
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.
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.
“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 removed about regarding firearms.
That is, unless you just hate firearms.
Nah. You think it’s the problem, you can prove it’s the solution.
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.
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.
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
We’re not talking about guns, we’re talking about mags. Which are trivial to make.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Limited to five in Canada. Way less gun deaths here. I’m fine with it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.”.
The ruling in question highlights magazines are effectively arms and magazine sizes cannot be arbitrarily restricted, even when integral.
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 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 2nd Amendment specifically says “the right to bear arms”, not “the right to bear muskets”.
