Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

stsquad, 8 months ago

I have no doubt you are well trained and safety conscious. Despite living in a none right to bear arms country I’ve also had some training on safe handling of firearms through cadets. I think we agree that safety training for handling firearms is a good thing.

However this obviously isn’t a mandatory requirement in the states as evidenced by the number of children who have been killed because firearms have not been securely stored. The US does seem unwilling to have any regulation to improve firearm safety lest it be seen as an infringement on a universal “right”.

thewut, 8 months ago

deleted_by_author

Spaceballstheusername, 8 months ago

I think you broke your fingers mate while typing that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Steak, 8 months ago

Limited to five in Canada. Way less gun deaths here. I’m fine with it.

shalafi, 8 months ago

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?

blind3rdeye, 8 months ago

It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.

So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.

You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?

From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.

Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough to upset people.

So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.

Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?

You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?

Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren’t in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we’re left with a road to bans via incrementalism.

I would imagine after Roe v. Wade’s pivot, you’d understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn’t sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.

From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.

It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they’re unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.

Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.

jsylvis, 8 months ago

This hill worth dying on to lose elections to the GOP?

It has been for quite a few elections now - it would cost blue team nothing to pivot and yet they refuse to do so.

uglyduckling81, 8 months ago

It’s a short sighted argument to say baddies don’t follow the rules so your only restricting honest people.

In Australia assault rifles and automatics are just outright banned. You need a licence to own any type of gun, which takes 6 months waiting for background checks to be done. Guns must be kept in Safes etc.

So whilst a baddie might want to get an assault rifle and go on a kill rampage he can’t. There just aren’t any around. You can’t break in to a house and steal one.

Can organised crime get them? Sure. But that’s not what this is trying to stop. It’s preventing the impulsive bat shit crazy person going on a rampage.

It absolutely helps, as proven by Australias lack of mass shootings.

People who want to go hunting still can.

Mdotaut801, 8 months ago

So many “proud gun owner here.” So lame. People and their guns are so fucking paranoid and pathetic. Sold my handgun a lloooooooooong time ago when I realized that I have NEVER been in a position to need one.

atticus88th, 8 months ago

You are so cool. There are a lot of people who have absolutely no business ever owning a gun and the less in hands of uneducated, untrained and ignorant individuals the better.

Amends1782, 8 months ago

Dude its never been about need idk why y’all focus on that insert skull emoji since my app doesn’t support it

FartsWithAnAccent, 8 months ago

Nice to not need one, until you do.

Pratai, 8 months ago

You taking about guns, or anecdotal arguments?

FartsWithAnAccent, 8 months ago

Yes.

Clarke311, 8 months ago

When seconds matter be prepared to wait for up to 51 minutes or longer.

npr.org/…/why-data-from-15-cities-show-police-res….

Pratai, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

51 years old. I, nor anyone I know has ever been in a situation where a gun would have changed the outcome for the better. And while I know this is anecdotal as well, it’s a clear indicator to me that they’re unnecessary in day-to-day living.

Clarke311, 8 months ago

Bit rich of you to ask for facts and then give an antidotal argument when you don’t like my facts. But if you want antidotal evidence yes I have had to use a firearm in self-defense so because of that antidotal experience I would say that we should respect the rights of the citizenry to own firearms.

Pratai, 8 months ago

I guarantee you that that is utter bullshit. And no one you’ve ever known has ever needed one either.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

I’ve personally been stalked by, and unexpectedly face-to-face with, a mountain lion while out hunting with my dad.

You can pointlessly quibble about need, but the fact remains that my .357 was the only effective thing between it and I. I was lucky it didn’t want a two-for.

Feel free to continue making such faulty assumptions - it highlights the extent to which you lack the empathy to try and understand other points of view and the imagination to contemplate things outside what you’ve considered.

Pratai, 8 months ago

Bullshit. And even if it were true, hunting isn’t even what’s being questioned here, and you know it. You’ve manufactured what you think is the perfect argument to support guns, but it falls flat.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

I’ve related an actual experience from my life. Frankly, I don’t care if you believe me or not - that you cannot even fathom such a possibility speaks volumes.

Clarke311, 8 months ago

If you’re 51 you’re the most immature 51-year-old I’ve ever had them misfortune to meet. Reading over your comments over the last day or two I would have to say it’s much more likely that you’re about 24. The entirety of your nuance prose and wit boil down to "Fuck you I’m right and your small and stupid because I said so. ". Is it any wonder you’re so popular in this thread and have so many supporters diving in with you.

Pratai, 8 months ago

It’s “you’re.”

And you’re one to talk. The fact that you seem to determine validity from the invalid based on worthless internet points clearly shows your maturity level.

But since we’re there, let’s look at total comment scores shall we? Our accounts are the same age….

How do you faire?

Clarke311, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

Anyways, no I was not reading your comment score I was reading the comments that you were writing and I was analyzing the grammar and syntax that you were using to try to place your age.

But if you want to go down that route firstly my account is less than a month old and yours is over 2 months old. But age does not mean much what matters is quality.

you have a score of 9959 and you have made 1196 comments this means on average each comet you make is worth 8.3 points.

I have 982 points and I’ve made 89 comments so each of mine is worth 11 points. So by your own chosen criteria yes I am better than you.

If you factor in the number of posts it looks even worse for you… Do you concede?

Pratai, 8 months ago

Your account is 2 months old with 316 comment score kiddo. Compare it again.

Clarke311, 8 months ago

I don’t know what you’re reading from.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/522ea652-26fc-4a35-b407-bb03007b809e.png

Pratai, 8 months ago

https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/510832d3-fdb9-4454-8f12-868af3c72979.png

Cryophilia, 8 months ago

I haven’t been in a position to need a gun for about 15 years, since I moved out of the poor areas I grew up in. I don’t own any guns and have no intention of buying one.

But I support the rights of gun owners. The 2nd amendment is very clear. Just because I don’t want one, doesn’t mean I can demand other people give theirs up. Or shame them for wanting the government to respect their rights.

oatscoop, 8 months ago

Weird. I’m semi-closeted and get to listen to various people (including coworkers) talk about how they want to murder “fags”. I’ve had people threaten me with violence because they thought I was coming on to them. I’m sitting here watching politicians argue for criminalizing the existence of people like me while armed gangs of uniformed young men march around calling for the death of “degenerates”.

You’re right: I’m probably just paranoid and there’s nothing to worry about.

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

I didn’t believe you at first then scrolled down a bit and saw them. Australia banned guns, it was the right thing to do, people who need guns still have them. But not bloody assault rifles. These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.

No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.

Have you considered it may be you with the obsession, given your fixation on firearms to the complete neglect of the underlying issues of violence?

No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot

Not to interrupt what’s clearly a rational take in rant form, but logically, one should address the killing rather than quibbling about the implement used.

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

A gun is more dangerous than a knife, killing people is illegal but it doesn’t stop the school shootings in the land of the free. Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife

shalafi, 8 months ago

No idea why so many people think gun are easy to obtain. Who told you that? What’s your real-life experience?

I ran with some seriously sketchy people in my youth, hardly ever even saw a gun, let alone one for sale. I’ve bought 40+ guns and only one did not require a background check and a wait. (Good friend had a new baby, hard up for rent, did it as a favor.)

I have school age children, so I can hardly downplay school shootings, but they’re far more rare than the media leads us to believe. Hear about the 4 kids that got smeared off the side of the road in $YourCity yesterday? One thing is national news, the other is not.

Yep, it’s harder to kill people with a knife. Also takes a lot more guts to go “wet” vs. pulling a trigger. No arguments. But if I’m defending myself, or another, I’m not interested in less lethal options.

imgur.com/a/pR7CuLA

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife

Ah, I see - there are zero differences between the United States and the Aussieland beyond the set of legislative differences regarding firearms and the prevalence of ownership of those firearms.

It’s weird that you double-down on only caring these things happen by firearms, apparently encouraging such by knife.

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

So guns aren’t part of the problem?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Are firearms what drive people to violent extremes e.g. committing murder, mass or otherwise?

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

No but they make it easy. How many mass shootings have occurred in Australia since the gun restrictions?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Are mass shootings the only form of homicide?

It’s as if you keep reinforcing that you only care that violence is committed with firearms.

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

It’s as if you don’t care about violence and moreso about protecting your firearms. What is your solution?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

It’s as if you don’t care about violence and moreso about protecting your firearms. What is your solution?

Interestingly enough, one of us - and not you - actually cares about addressing the underlying issues.

My solutions are myriad. Violence is a complex problem.

Scoped to mass shootings, it’s already fairly well laid-out here.

Regarding general violence, there’s much to indicate the actions needed to resolve the high-profile-yet-miniscule-count mass shootings would overlap with general violence and homicide. From there, extend to adding the necessary social safety nets to protect an individual from being exposed to and pressured into such dire extremes.

You know… actually improve lives rather than clutch pearls that those poor souls used firearms in their violence.

shalafi, 8 months ago

Australia banned guns

people who need guns still have them

LOL, in the same sentence even. Pick one.

And are you the arbiter of my needs? Lay eyes on any apex predators this weekend? I did. Camp on a lonely riverbank far from any sort of civil authority? I did. Bet conservatives have plenty to say about what you do or don’t need. Want them to choose for you?

I’m a liberal and have an AR-15 “assault rifle”. If it comes to defending my life, or the life of another, you wish for me to have second best? Are you proposing I bring a “knife” (lesser weapon) to a gunfight? You are aware that conservatives, who have been quite vocal about killing political adversaries, are well armed? Who do you wish to disarm? Citizens that obey the law? Because those are the only folks you’re going to restrict.

Plenty of other reasons to own an AR-15, but we may be headed towards a time when an American Gestapo is real. Will you be able to fight back when they come knocking? If it’s death or concentration camp, I choose fight.

And speaking of my AR, know why I got it? Fellow libs sold it to me! They shit themselves screaming BAN! after Uvalde, figured I’d better get mine in case they got their way. Hell, I had ~30 guns before that, and no interest in an AR. Good job?

While we’re at it, if libs would stop screaming for bans of ridiculous things like magazines, maybe they would win every election in a landslide. I suppose your morals are more important than winning. And that’s a conservative take if I ever heard one.

This man is talking about you:

imgur.com/a/pR7CuLA

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

It was your choice to camp there and potentially interrupt nature by shooting apex predators. Don’t bring up the safety argument if you’re going to do that

shalafi, 8 months ago

I’ve also had a black bear cruise in my dog door, presumably, according to the regional Fish & Wildlife guy, to eat my pet mini pig. Guess I have no business living on the edge of town?

Also, had to shoot a wild boar that was tearing into my property and terrifying my pet. How, pray tell, would you have dealt with that situation? And keep in mind, the civil authorities all told me, “Not our problem, we don’t handle wild pigs, all on you.”

So where exactly am I perfectly safe? In the white-bread suburbia where you live with your parents?

And if nothing else, gun laws always have been wildly racist in their origins and enforcement. Bet you’re A-OK with all that! (Or more probably, don’t know or care.)

unionagainstdhmo, 8 months ago

In the white-bread suburbia where you live with your parents?

You must be real proud of yourself with that one. I live in a rural area on a large property with wild animals, it is possible to hire people to deal with the threat posed by wild animals, forgoing the risk of having firearms in your house

Clarke311, 8 months ago

And what tools do those people who deal with the threat use to deal with the threat?

havokdj, 8 months ago

Buddy, you said you are a liberal.

Thank god you’re one of the actually sane ones, but you should know better than anyone that you are not going to argue a liberal down. Liberals tend to be the most set in their political beliefs.

You will not get anywhere with this argument, take my advice and leave. Take my advice, this happens to me all the time.

broadacre_farmer, 8 months ago

Oh look, another confidently incorrect Australian putting their piece into a gun debate.

Australia banned guns,

Australia definitely has not banned civilian firearm ownership.

it was the right thing to do

Very debatable. Letting the government have the monopoly on lethal tools is giving a lot of trust to the people a fairly significant portion of the population consider corrupt.

people who need guns still have them.

Considering you think civilians can’t have firearms I’d be surprised you even know what people can own in your own country

But not bloody assault rifles.

Americans can’t even own (new) assault rifles. AR15’s are not assault rifles, and civilians do own them in Australia too, ask me how I know.

These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.

They definitely do not have a single purpose, anyone who blindly says this has no idea how huge shooting sports are. In most western countries it’s literally the biggest sport participation wise by a huge margin.

No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law.

Don’t need to do that these days, submachine guns are super easy to manufacture at home, rifles and pistols are just around the corner. You’d probably be surprised how many illegal firearms are already out there, the ADF has lost a lot of stuff over the years too.

It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot

You can say that about so many more things than firearms, the end use is what always matters though. I’d be able to argue the opposite when shooting sports are the safest sport to participate in, in Australia anyway.

foggianism, 8 months ago

Gotta justify that gun lobby money

dipshit, 8 months ago

How am I going to go fishing now?!

psmgx, 8 months ago

grenades

atticus88th, 8 months ago

Probably easier to get those in CA that a gun right now.

stewie3128, 8 months ago

Be right back, heading down to the store for a bit…

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

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.

Blinx615, 8 months ago

only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

We shouldn’t have laws because criminals won’t follow them

yawn, 8 months ago

It’s an extremely weak argument for this very reason

the_stormcrow, 8 months ago

This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.

frezik, 8 months ago

I can turn my AR-15 into a short barrelled rifle (which is only legal after a very lengthy and intrusive federal process) by simply screwing a new barrel on. If you don’t care about the law, the barrier to doing it is tiny. That’s what we mean when we say it only affects people operating in good faith with the law. It’s so easy to bypass that it’s questionable if we should bother.

Blinx615, 8 months ago

Do we have data that shows these laws have no impact? I would anticipate a lack of marketing and whatnot to have at least some benefit. Not all criminals necessarily know wtf they’re doing with a gun.

jsylvis, 8 months ago

I believe you have the burden backward - it’s on the state to show such a restriction is likely to have an impact so as to justify its existence.

ZzyzxRoad, 8 months ago

only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.

Franzia, 8 months ago

It isn’t. Right now it’s very difficult to tell the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal gun owner. In the ‘defense’ scenario, they are literally pitted against one another.

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

More or less accurate.

background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.

Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

Guns should be registered.

Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.

Agree, in general, about handling the black market sales to Mexico. However, that should be the job of the Mexican border patrol; they should be the ones controlling what’s coming in, rather than the US controlling what’s going out (except in the case of ITAR items). And yeah, we should get serious about prosecuting straw purchasers, since right now that’s usually not even a slap on the wrist.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.

Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?

Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.

Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.

You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they’re not. Your suggestion only works if they are.

Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn’t regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.

I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

Nope not ERPO, opposite of that. The person that is in fear of their life with proof showing merit, can bypass the waiting period. Using proof of restraining order submission (using copies and receipt) and police report all attainable same day.

I get what you mean by the leaks. Brainstorming is better and trying to implement an action is better than being “all in or nothing” and nothing being done. Some ideas could be good with others being not so great.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Nope not ERPO, opposite of that. The person that is in fear of their life with proof showing merit, can bypass the waiting period. Using proof of restraining order submission (using copies and receipt) and police report all attainable same day.

So a continuation of the pattern of when minutes count, help is only hours away commonly highlighted of law enforcement and related bureaucracy?

Brainstorming is better and trying to implement an action is better than being “all in or nothing” and nothing being done. Some ideas could be good with others being not so great.

I disagree. Implementing actions by hope alone is not likely to be ineffective and, even considering the possibility of the incredibly rare sunset provision, would unavoidably be infringements without sufficient justification.

We’ve already done much to understand these problems outside the scope of partisan posturing. The current issue is neither party is willing to change their position even the slightest.

Consider, for example, the items highlighted by the previous article. Blue team has addressed zero of the items aside from the last-ditch firearm measures. There’s so much potential for improvement here it’s hard to fathom. Some of these measures are unavoidably infringements; they’re at least supported by data and analysis.

Blue team has the unique opportunity to completely turn firearms messaging against Red team, should they actually care about these issues. They can come to the table asking for these measures which actually address underlying issues and, rather than quibbling about pushback and giving up, offer compromise - that they’re so absolutely confident in these measures, they’re willing to admit there’s no point to the NFA provisions restricting suppressors/SBRs/SBSs and no data justifying it; these measures are so effective in actually solving root issues they’re willing to allow more firearms - deregulating select fire, with some sort of equitable shall-issue process. But, the restrictions come with sunset provisions - if the comprehensive solution doesn’t meaningfully impact things, the restrictions, the added safety nets, etc. all go away.

Blue team suddenly becomes the only party in a decade actually promoting firearm enthusiast interests, turning that voting bloc neutral/blue. They absolutely will want these and will pressure and select representatives accordingly. Blue team also manages to pass the first significant gun control reform, social safety net expansion, community resource expansion, etc. in decades in a massive win with their supporters. Red team has nothing to lose as the sunset provision provides ample safety net for rolling things back. Everyone gets most of what they actually want and we manage to actually improve lives.

Naturally, this also entirely defangs a potent inflammatory wedge issue both parties depend on while reducing the desperation they depend on, so it’ll never happen.

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

Heh. Pretty much nailed it.

The only real problem is that so much of gun violence comes down to societal problems that are not quickly solved, and both sides have an interest in not solving. For instance, cramming a lot of poor people into a small geographic area (e.g., inner cities) results in violence. To fix the underlying problem, you’d need to eliminate poverty and economic inequality. “But that’s communism!” is what one side is going to say, even though it would have a marked effect on the reduction of violence and crime across the board.

To be fair though, even in areas where Blue Team has an absolute supermajority, they still don’t address the underlying issues. So I don’t think that it’s reasonable to say that Team Blue wants to help people, and Team Red doesn’t; Team Blue says they do, and then don’t, while Team Red doesn’t care, and does nothing.

Violence isn’t a simple problem. Taking the tools of violence doesn’t solve the underlying issues that cause violence.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really.

Sure, but it’s not really about need and there’s nothing meaningfully different about them.

Guns should be registered.

You’re going to see much resistance to the notion of the state owning a registry of every individual owning a firearm and what they own. Allow for the concept of a paper trail of transfers especially where private-party transfers are legal, allow those to request NICS checks, and you’ll probably be set.

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.

Alternatively, we could address the root of the problem: Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels - there are policy changes we could enact to defang drug cartels while also helping enable addicts to seek the support they need.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

Which is why I said need, not really. I am not saying to banned them either. We don’t need a lot of things in life, but doesn’t mean we don’t want them. Which also goes back to country folks having different needs compared to city folks. I get that there’s going to be a lot of resistance against it, there will always be resistance in everything.

Yes I believe that manufacturers have a responsibility especially when they are making narco like firearms to cater to that kind of life. (Talking about all those gold, diamond, and graphic firearms.) (No I’m not talking about the laser ingrave grips LARPS want to get.)

From reading your article, wouldn’t the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations? Wouldn’t that dammed one of the toxic rivers and help bring attention too other rivers?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

From reading your article, wouldn’t the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations?

The entire premise to the ghost gun fearmongering is the lack of traceability - “serial numbers” aren’t part of it.

I somehow suspect a cartel manufacturing firearms isn’t going to bother registering it before trafficking it to Mexico. So, no - it would be entirely ineffective.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores. If they are being manufactured illegal (ghost guns) that would be a different game plan. I am focusing more on the legal way to buy firearms and move them to Mexico. Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores.

That would be the entire point to the existing straw purchase legislation - which would be a better place to start, if such avenues are demonstrably the actual problem.

Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.

Addressing symptoms will never be as effective as addressing root issues, you’ll just feel better about negligible impact. That’s the problem.

gamer, 8 months ago

A gun owner with a lot of opinions about Mexico. That about tracks.

Franzia, 8 months ago

Did you read that carefully? The comment says the US should not allow the lawful trafficking of American registered guns into Mexico. I don’t think the second amendment protects Mexican cartels, tbh.

DaBabyAteMaDingo, 8 months ago

Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them. AND we should have special firing ranges for these types of guns. Obviously this is not a realistic goal I’m *in this current system but I just want a MP5 :'(

What would you say to something like this?

Apollo, 8 months ago

Man you gun nonces are weird.

DaBabyAteMaDingo, 8 months ago

100% agree. I’ve always said the cringiest thing about me is my love of guns. It truly is fashion accessories for men like purses lol

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.

Let’s consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don’t know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it’s much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.

However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them.

I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I’ve been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

I’m all for it. Serial# attachment and register it to the person that will own it. Again if that attachment is found in the black market or with someone that is not suppose to have it, red flag and background check the original owner. We are more reactionary than preventives which is counterproductive when it comes to safety.

You bought a firearm? Show that you can handle it and clear it responsively. Don’t know how to handle one? Go take a day at a firing range and familiarize yourself and get certified. This will also remove any doubt of “mishandling” discharge.

Colorcodedresistor, 8 months ago

deleted_by_author

Franzia, 8 months ago

Oh shit they just stuff the mags with rubber? Lmao.

I like hearing from actual gun owners and users on laws like this. Sometimes there is an ignorant perception that these laws will work in a certain way.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Could you clarify your position? It’s hard to tell if this is rant, sarcasm, or satire.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

Got the same from the comment. Engagement is what is needed in this issue.

Colorcodedresistor, 8 months ago

deleted_by_author

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Lol, fair enough.

not_that_guy05, 8 months ago

People need to Understand How Easy.a Shotgun with a 3rnd Limit, has just a rubber stopper. It can be unscrewed an removed as easy as taking in and out lead in a mechanical penicl. Now my shotgun has 7rnd tube cap in under 5mins.10rnd mags? they are 30rnd mags with rubber stoppers in them. yes…they make little shorty stacks. but to be legal. the rubber stopper is added. Why would a firearm manufacturer Create and Design a new mag when it can Legally add a simple fix.

Which is why I am saying that this law should be removed and makes no sense at all.

gun laws are absolute jokes. They Need to be Much more stringent, and i am a CCW owner. I own 3 I.D.s to carry. Im more a legal citizen than half of you cucks.

Don’t know if you are offended or if you are talking about people complaining about getting checked, but if it’s the first. As a gun owner and a CCW, you leaving your firearms unsecured and unattended while kids are around, yes it makes you a cuck.

thats what youre doing with gun laws. making those who want them Legal and those who dont care are showing you the laws dont matter. a piece of paper and threat to do legsl action when someones got a gun in your face is not deterence.

What?

ShittyRedditWasBetter, 8 months ago

Shocking! Another dumb ineffective gun law that was clearly never going to stand is shot down.

Really good use of political capital and money.

PopcornTin, 8 months ago

True, but if we keep trying, we will eventually get a judge that decides the case based on feelings instead of that outdated paper.

atkion, 8 months ago

I can’t tell if this is a joke or not, and that makes me sad

grayman, 8 months ago

It will take a left leaning supreme court, but that’s exactly what will happen. If a future scotus decides to override Bruen and Heller, we’re back to square one.

shalafi, 8 months ago

Tell us how a capacity ban makes us safer and should be upheld by the courts. Caveat: I’m a liberal and a gun owner who is well versed in firearms. I doubt you’ll like my rebuttals, but I always hope to learn something new by these discussions.

ChairmanMeow, 8 months ago

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.

shalafi, 8 months ago

I find that neither side of the spectrum has any notion of political capital. They simply say, “I’m right and that’s all that counts!”

Great example, the GOP is in the “find out” stage of “fucking around” with abortion.

pineapplelover, 8 months ago

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.

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

and psychiatric tests

I can’t see any way that this could possibly go wrong, not ever. /s

Let’s look at this on multiple fronts.

First, who is going to pay for that? Are you going to require people to pay for the ability to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What other rights would you say that people should need to pay for in order to be able to use them?

Second, what criteria would you use to determine if someone is “fit”? A criminal background check is objective; wither you’ve been convicted of a crime or you haven’t. A psychiatric test is about an indeterminate future, an even that hasn’t happened yet. How are you going to guarantee that only people who will create a crime are being prevented from having rights, and not any other people?

Third, how do you distinguish between a protected political opinion (“the bourgeoisie need to be violently overthrown through force of arms by the proletariat”) and beliefs that have no rational basis in protected political speech (“pedophile Jews are killing people with space lasers, therefore I need to murder everyone at Lollapalooza”)? Given that involuntary commitment is already a disqualifying factor for owning a firearm, how is your proposal meaningfully different unless you are arguing that many people should not be permitted to exercise their protected rights because they might act in a criminal way at some indeterminate point in the future?

pineapplelover, 8 months ago

Dude I’m just saying basic stuff like people shouldn’t carry handheld people killers if they’re clinically insane or beats their spouse each night

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

if they’re clinically insane

That’s already covered on form 4473; if you have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective, you are not able to own a firearm legally. States are legally obligated to report this information.

or beats their spouse each night

This is also already covered on form 4473; if you have been convicted of any domestic violence offense–misdemeanor or felony–or you are the subject of a protective order, you are not eligible to legally own a firearm. States are legally obligated to report this information.

So what are you asking for, since both of the things you say you really want are already covered by existing laws?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

We’ve already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it’s a multi-faceted, systemic approach.

So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.

roze_sha, 8 months ago

Summarised by Chat GPT:

The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

The main findings of their research are:

• Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
• Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
• Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
• Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.

The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:

• The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
• The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like “monster” or “lone wolf” that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
• The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
• The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.

KillAllPoorPeople, 8 months ago

Ah, yes. Both sides.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

chiliedogg, 8 months ago

Mass shooters are the reason cited for most gun laws though. Detachable magazines, full-auto, short-barreled weapons, etc.

The issue is one party hates social programs but loves guns, and the other party hates guns specifically because the other one loves them.

I don’t understand the Democrats" hatred of firearms. All their attempts to go after them are ineffective at preventing gun violence.

Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.

As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.

On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.

Blue team isn’t going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.

captain_aggravated, 8 months ago

Democrats don’t hate firearms. They’re ambivalent or even slightly favorable to firearms. They hate men, especially white men.

Gather up some actual American leftists, interrupt their busy day of adding stripes to the rainbow flag, and ask them the following questions and note their answers:

• What do you think of Andrew Tate?
• Why do you think so many young white men are drawn to Andrew Tate?
• What messaging do you have for young white men?
• Why should young white men be on board with your cause?
• What does your cause have to offer young white men?

The answers I would expect from them/have heard from them:

• He’s a degenerate scumbag who should be in prison.
• Because all white men are just as evil as he is.
• Go die in a war.
• They shouldn’t; the left isn’t for them.
• Nothing; white men already have everything and deserve nothing.

To the left, white men are boogeymen. “Historical oppressors.” Present-day Republicans. The patriarchy. And they apply this hatred to ALL white males including the unborn. “I’d have an abortion if I found out the fetus was male.”

The actual problems that cause mass shooters are childhood trauma, isolation, lack of social safety nets. The right hates social safety nets because the yacht owning class has told them to for so long. The left loves social safety nets…except for white men.

Addressing the needs of white men, giving them actual help and care, devoting resources to them to allow them to lead healthy productive lives, overcome and escape trauma…unthinkable in either party. So the right says “that’s what you get for sending your kids to school instead of church” and the left says “What about making the magazine release harder to push?”

chiliedogg, 8 months ago

I’m a single, white, male firearm owner. I don’t feel hated by the left at all.

Recognizing that white men have been privileged and addressing the institutional issues that have given white men an unfair leg up for centuries isn’t an assault on white men.

mrnotoriousman, 7 months ago

Yikes dude get off Rumble and turn off Tucker Carlson. I'm a white man on the left ambivalent to guns but want more restrictions. And your whole post is all fantasy to feed a victim complex, it's seriously embarrassing.

Are you a Tate fan since you brought him up multiple times? Dude is a piece of filth scumbag.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Ah, yes. Both sides.

Let’s not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.

It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.

I’m not sure if you’d actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?

Wakmrow, 8 months ago

No thank you. You’re asking the US government to do that? Practically, this would get sourced to your local police department and weaponized against minorities.

ZzyzxRoad, 8 months ago

Well that sounds like it would be a drastic change from the status quo /s

And anyway, CA just passed a bill to do exactly that (psychiatric commitment solely through the criminal justice system) but for any crime. It’s supposed to address homelessness (?) but that kind of power will get fucked up and out of control really fast. It’s like they got it backwards. God forbid they address the people with the literal murder weapons. No. Let’s go punish the people without rent bills and mortgages. That makes perfect sense.

lunaticneko, 8 months ago

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.

ChewTiger, 8 months ago

Wouldn’t the fillers be obvious just by looking at it? It’s not like magazines are bigger than they need to be.

Death_Equity, 8 months ago

If we are talking about a pistol, like a Glock, the magazine needs to be a certain length and can’t be shorter.

Something like an AR15 or AK pattern rifles can be shorter so as to only allow 10 rounds.

Pistols are used for the large majority of multiple casualty shootings.

PopcornTin, 8 months ago

And many handguns have come with 15-18 rounds magazines, the standard for decades. It’s ludicrous to ban the standard size, with hundreds of millions out there. Even if everyone obeyed this law, three criminals breaking into your house have 30 rounds to get you, and you have 10 rounds to try to take them out. Yup, problem solved.

nevemsenki, 8 months ago

three criminals breaking into your house have 30 rounds to get you, and you have 10 rounds to try to take them out

This argument is such a weird US-only take.

PopcornTin, 8 months ago

Does crime only occur one-on-one in a other countries?

nevemsenki, 8 months ago

Probably not, but I’ve also never met anyone who justified owning a gun by having fantasies of shooting up people.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

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?

CileTheSane, 8 months ago

At the time the 2nd amendment was written they had muskets. Give them muskets.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago

The 2nd Amendment specifically says “the right to bear arms”, not “the right to bear muskets”.

stsquad, 8 months ago

It also says it’s so you can have well regulated militias but the wording is vague about the link between the two.

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

In the context of the constitution, “regulated” means “trained”. So rather than meaning a militia that is heavily regulated by the state, they’re talking about trained people. Moreover, it was understood that the people that were being called up were armed with their personal weapons–not supplied by the gov’t–and that they were going to be shooting on their own time.

The frames of the constitution intended the people to have access to military arms, to be training themselves in their use, and to be ready to use them at a moment’s notice.

They opposed a standing military and police force for all the reasons that we’ve seen over the last (almost) 250 years.

stsquad, 8 months ago

So does the training include keeping weapons safely and not waving them around in provocation? Are there mental health standards to meet? Or does it just mean someone knows where the trigger is?

HelixDab2, 8 months ago

keeping weapons safely

Interestingly enough, that was a legal obligation in the colonies; powder could not be stored in the house because it was an explosive risk. Currently, some states have safe storage requirements, but they’re legally unenforceable.

waving them around in provocation

That’s called brandishing, and it’s a crime by itself in most states.

Most training starts with safety, and progresses through basic marksmanship. I learned most of that from my father, grandfather, scoutmaster, and the RSO at Boy Scout Camp, and it’s been further reinforced by every RSO at every range and competition I’ve been too.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

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.

mctoasterson, 8 months ago

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.

bradorsomething, 8 months ago

okay, those are fine too.

willis936, 8 months ago

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?

ChonkyOwlbear, 8 months ago

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.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

The ruling in question highlights magazines are effectively arms and magazine sizes cannot be arbitrarily restricted, even when integral.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago

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.”.

rahmad, 8 months ago

But this already isn’t true. Even if I could afford it, I can’t buy an F16, anthrax or a nuclear warhead. So, isn’t this just about where the line is being drawn? The line itself both already exists and doesn’t seem to be contested.

trafficnab, 8 months ago

You very much can buy an F16 assuming you can find one for sale, a civilian owned company already bought 29 of them from Israel (Same goes for fully functional tanks as long as you fill out the proper paperwork)

rahmad, 8 months ago

Technically true, but it needs to be non militarized, can’t purchase the missile mounts (or the missiles etc.). My point stands.

LifeInMultipleChoice, 8 months ago

The jet isn’t the weapon. It’s the missles I agree.

Want people to change their mind, tell them Bill Gates/Elon Musk and such are starting a nuclear program. They’ll want to ban it, they are arms after all.

“Musk is adding AI controlled weapons to Starlink” Immediate call for reform haha

Kalcifer, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle – to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it’s very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it’s private ownership would violate the NAP, as it’s very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.

It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. One needs to have a precise definition for “bear”, and “Arms”. Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot “bear” a nuclear warhead. Perhaps “Arms” are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.

renownedballoonthief, 8 months ago

The problem is that you’re arguing that from a position of valuing keeping your toys that go pew pew real loud and real fast over valuing the general public safe, though.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago

Don’t forget that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn’t for recreational enjoyment, or self defence, but it was, instead, to ensure the security of the state by being a sort of counter-pressure against authoritarian behaviour. Aside from that, however, I feel that this quote by Thomas Jefferson is appropriate:

I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.

Honytawk, 8 months ago

Yes, and flintlocks are arms as well.

So give them access to those, and none other. So their 2nd amendment isn’t infringed and the real deadly guns aren’t being sold on the black market anymore.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

Show me where the Second Amendment states that it only applies to weapons available at its ratification. By that logic, the First Amendment only applies to forms of speech and communication that existed in 1791.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

3 round mag is a perfectly functional firearm. I own one. Works great.

Nobody’s infringing. When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.

Applied slightly differently - When they wrote the amendment, civilians had complete parity with military - should be the same today.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Fine. Want to own guns? Say hello to boot camp. Some of those Gravy Seals and Tacticool LARPERs are gonna have a hard time.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

I believe you misunderstand, perhaps intentionally. Civilians had complete parity - not army recruits.

Cryophilia, 8 months ago

As stupid as what you wrote is, funny enough you’re on the right track.

I think a gun safety course taught in middle school with a refresher in high school will effectively end the gun debate and save thousands of lives.

Now you’re not cool because you have a gun. Everyone has shot a gun.

Now you don’t accidentally shoot your friend in the head because your found daddy’s gun and started playing with it.

Now you’re not deathly afraid of the thought of guns because you’ve shot one and realized it’s just a tool like a car or chainsaw.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

The Second Amendment doesn't say that it only applies to guns with 3-round magazines or muskets. It applies to all arms.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

A piece of plastic is not an arm.

Doesn’t matter if it’s a 30 round magazine or a bump stock.

This idea that somehow the second amendment is unlimited is unprecedented and insane.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

They are, though.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

Who wrote that, Benitez?

He’s making shit up and he knows it.

I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Who wrote that, Benitez?

He’s making shit up and he knows it.

That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

This wouldn’t be denial, would it?

I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

That said, you’re certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

Really. He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism. He’s legislating from the bench.

You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

And you might want to link it. I just guessed.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

Is that what he did? Reclassify?

I’m increasingly confident you haven’t actually read any of it and are just talking out of your ass.

He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

Ah, so you are just straight-up full of shit. Fair enough. Way to own it. You don’t see that often.

I was pretty sure I’d referenced the ruling in this comment chain, but on the off chance I haven’t, here’s the relevant part. Also, here’s where it was already provided.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

Where’s the link to the actual court filing?

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

On the off chance you’ll actually read this one, it’s pretty easy to find, but in case you need a direct link…

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

I mean... perhaps you aren't a native English speaker? The text of the law is literally unlimited. Any weapon restriction is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That’s what conservatism used to look like. What you’re parroting is NRA propaganda. It’s unprecedented and it’s insane.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

I’d argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere “NRA propaganda” is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

I’m not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.

edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

You… do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?

But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just “defense of the state”. Had you bothered to read to the following page, you’d have seen that - but I suppose that’s not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?

I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

Irony.

It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.

It’s simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to or affect you at all.

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn't matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can't change your mind without amending the document, just like you can't arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you've signed it.

2. Same thing. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution

3. The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.

Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment

Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

You need to read more.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

v.

Just because you say something … doesn’t make it so.

Nice.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

Had me fooled.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

"the people" refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't mention national defense.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

It's not illegal because I say it is, it's illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.

You need to read more.

Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

You’ll note they’re entirely unable to do so. I give it ~1 day until they try an I’ve got a degree therefore I’m right ploy on you, too.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

We'll see. I've got a degree of my own, so that won't be much of a pwn though.

ScornForSega, 8 months ago

doesn’t mention national defense.

WTF do you think “necessary to the security of a free State” means?

It’s really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:

" That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

That's not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.

National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Ah yes, because the authors could have foreseen personal arsenals, rampant use of guns in crimes, etc. Bullshit argument, that.

It applied to the arms that existed at the time. Funny how 2A’ers are simultaneously originalists (they meant guns for everyone!) and then shun the framework in which the original 2A was written - single fire rifles for protection on the frontier, protecting a growing nation without a large standing military, and to put food on the table.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

The Second Amendment is a legal document. The only legal way to change it's meaning (that the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed) is to amend it to limit the definition of "arms". As written, the Second Amendment covers all weapons, and at the time of its ratification that included modern naval warships and artillery pieces.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

When you can’t win the framing of the argument, go for technically correct. IOW, I do care what they thought, it says I get to have a fuckton of guns and a battleship. Must be disappointing to not be able to own a personal and navy for some.

You’re not gonna bend me. The 2A has been bastardized and fucked over as a political football and twisted to allow people to have personal arsenals. Guns were a tool. Fuckers have turned them into statements and fashion accessories.

BaldProphet, 8 months ago

As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I'll be marginally more open to compromise.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

I’m not opposed to owning firearms at all. Disarm the government? Guess you want anarchy, and/or mob justice.

The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away. Once they’ve taken everything else they can, they’ll come for the guns too. You’ll finally be right, but you’ll be dead. Fat lot of good that’ll do. Damn fool idea to be so myopic that guns are gonna defeat the government - and for that matter, what a shit world it’s gonna be if people are ever actually put in a position where they have to do so. They just skip to the end where they win in the imaginary battle. But what did they win? The right to be an ostracized and impoverished pocket surrounded by an enemy. Yay?

“Against the government” has to be one of the worst arguments ever.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away.

I wonder if you’re aware the extent to which this is deliciously ironic.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

It’s not ironic when they’re doing just that. Just keep elevating authoritarians and see what you get.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Once more with the delicious irony.

I’m interested in your thoughts on how I’ve elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I’ve voted for… or to be talking out your ass once more.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Generally if you support firearm ownership without stating nuance or conditions, it’s a high likelihood where you stand politically supports authoritarians, either willfully or via inaction.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I’m an authoritarian.

With leaps like that, you could do gymnastics.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Huh. You make up “alternate facts” to suit your argument. You’re one of ‘em all right.

Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Interestingly enough, only one of us has referenced relevant materials on the matter - you wouldn’t be projecting regarding your bullshit, would you?

Certainly not.

You may have had some ground to stand on there if you’d actually meaningfully engaged in the discussion and made an argument, perhaps provided actual criticism of addressed that made, but all you’ve managed to do is provide childish no, u!, insult, and deflection.

Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.

Fortunately, my hobby involves no harm to others and involves no items with agency or agenda of their own; it’s quite impossible for my hobbies to be the cause of anyone’s suffering.

I would say the county suffers from quite the violence epidemic, though, and unlike you, I actually argue for addressing it rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

No, it’s not really interesting. Speaking with 2A militants is a waste of time. I’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely), pointed out their lack of responsibility, and mulish obstinacy when it comes to firearms. Know how it ends? “ It’s a right…” so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away. You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

Speaking with 2A militants is a waste of time.

Only because you’re so unbelievably entrenched in your opinion about the validity of a thing you seek to support it using whatever you can muster and, when that fails, you fall back on hyperbole, emotional appeal, defeatism, and insult rather than consider that you may be putting your conclusion before any support.

I’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely)

I seem to have missed those - were they in the form of hyperbolic bullshit? You have provided quite a bit of that.

ETA: Feel free to highlight where you’ve done so.

so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away.

I see you’re working on your projection.

You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.

I’d argue I care about the issues at hand far more given my arguments for actually addressing those issues rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.

But hey, don’t let that get in the way of your narrative. You seem to be concocting quite the substitute for reality.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

You’re not gonna bend me.

That is generally the case when one is operating on sheer, blind faith rather than an understanding of the subject.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some. Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so. Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some.

You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?

Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.

It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.

Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person

Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they’re partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.

I’d argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Keep repeating yourself. Doesn’t make it make any more sense the second time around. You don’t speak for my motives or understanding.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

Unfortunately, your other statements speak to it quite effectively.

RememberTheApollo_, 8 months ago

Lol, I love empty vaguebook answers.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

That would explain why they’re all you provide.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago

The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one’s rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.

ChonkyOwlbear, 8 months ago

Every constitutional right has limits. There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer. What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds.

Asserting a negative - bold strategy. I’d be interested in seeing your support for such a position.

I frequently legally use standard capacity magazines at the shooting range, though, so you may have a hard time here.

More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies.

Is this one of those Works Cited: Crack Pipe moments?

What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.

Ah - so you only care about mass shootings, the vast minority of firearm violence let alone homicide.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

Every constitutional right has limits.

Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states “Shall not be infringed”. That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of “Arms”, and “bear”.

There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.

Don’t forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:

[…] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]

ChonkyOwlbear, 8 months ago

It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government. The 2nd when written was never intended to apply to the federal government. Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms. It is a term specifically that refers to fighting for a state, not self defense or any generalized use of weapons. In short, the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent states from disarming militias in order to preserve the ability to assemble a national military. It has nothing to do with one person defending themselves against another.

Kalcifer, 8 months ago

It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government.

You raise a good point about the 14th Amendment. I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation as it would violates the 2nd Amendment, which, in turn, violates the 14th Amendment.

Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms.

While I do agree that paying attention to the exact terminology used is crucial to the Amendment’s interpretation, from what I can see, the definition that you stated is not without contention.

ChonkyOwlbear, 7 months ago

I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation

I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.

the definition that you stated is not without contention

The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.

Kalcifer, 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.

What is your rationale behind that statement?

The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.

Err, no it isn’t. There is a difference between subjective disagreement, and denialism.

ChonkyOwlbear, 7 months ago

There is a difference between subjective disagreement, and denialism.

SO close to self realization.

Kalcifer, 7 months ago

Shall I assume that your snide remark indicates that you have no rationale?

ChonkyOwlbear, 7 months ago

LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/…/AJPH.2019.305311

sudo22, 8 months ago

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.

ShoeboxKiller, 8 months ago

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”.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

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.

ShoeboxKiller, 8 months ago

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.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

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.

ShoeboxKiller, 8 months ago

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.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

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.

ShoeboxKiller, 8 months ago

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.

jeremy_sylvis, 8 months ago

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.

And yet, one you hold as without education or background experience appears to be more qualified to discuss this subject - let alone engage in constructive discourse - than you. That’s got to chap.

It’s ironic you say these things, unable to actually make any pointed criticisms of points raised and unable to defend your own bland, unsupported assertions. It’s delicious you seek to deflect and commit the fallacy of attacking a presumed lack of education.

But hey - at least you’ve got that hypothetical appeal to authority to fall back on. Cling tightly to that as you continue to shitpost from an imagined ivory tower.

Honytawk, 8 months ago

Great, but if you need a gun to feel safe in your own country, it is a shithole.

sudo22, 8 months ago

Ad hominem attacks. Ah yes I care what you think.

CaptainAniki, 8 months ago

That’s not an Ad Hominem attack. Me calling you a festering shiteating moron is an ad hominem attack.

bobman, 8 months ago

Nice, now do Illinois.

JokeDeity, 8 months ago

Cool. Why are conservatives so determined to see as much murder as possible? Where does their endless bloodlust come from?

bobman, 8 months ago

Try to see things from their perspective.

If they got suckered into buying a gun, they’re not going to admit to themselves or anyone else that it was a bad purchase.

Vytle, 8 months ago

This is the land of the free. There shouldnt be an “unless…”. If you have a problem with freedom maybe you should find a different country instead of complaining that you have too many rights.

JokeDeity, 8 months ago

Jump.

SirEDCaLot, 8 months ago

I’m a liberal gun owner.

Neither gun owners nor conservatives have bloodlust. What we do have is disdain for laws that don’t actually help the problem but just punish gun owners.

Take this 10 round magazine law. You know what is the difference between a 10-round mag and a larger one? A little rivet pin that stops you from putting in an 11th cartridge. Anyone with a cordless drill can remove the rivet and turn their 10-round mag into a bigger one. Anyone with a 3d printer can make a larger magazine. A magazine is just a box with a spring and some plastic bits. Making it longer is not rocket science.

The threat of ‘drilling this rivet is a felony’ does not stop someone who wants to commit mass murder. This law does not stop murderers or save lives. It just makes life harder for gun owners, as the pinned magazine is much harder to clean.

I’ll also remind you that the guy who shot up VA tech had a .22 pistol (pretty much the least powerful gun you can buy) and a backpack full of 10-round magazines. He complied with the law and it didn’t slow him down.

So stop accusing people of having bloodlust, and ask why they don’t support the law that seems obvious to you. You might learn something.

JokeDeity, 8 months ago

Tl;dr you’re a conservative cosplaying liberal.

AngrilyEatingMuffins, 8 months ago

You seriously think every lefty gun owner is a Republican pretending? Pathetic. Motherfucker there are Nazis EVERYWHERE and the cops can’t be trusted worth a shit and most of them are Nazis and you dumb fucks are going to pretend like there’s no possible reason for a leftist to want a gun. Get fucked. You’re gonna when the Nazis pop off, that much is for certain.

nBodyProblem, 8 months ago

This is the issue with politics in the US in general here.

I’m also a liberal gun owner. If you categorize people with a strict “with us or against us” mentality, where they are expected to agree with every one of your opinions, you cease to have useful discourse and become a part of the problem.

K1nsey6, 8 months ago

Your opposition to guns is damaging to the marginalized communities you probably claim to support.

Potatos_are_not_friends, 8 months ago

It’s things like this which makes it difficult to take people like you seriously.

• Liberalgunowners exist.
• Armed black, gay, trans folk help keep the peace during BLM.
• many of these weird gun laws do very little to actually stop gun violence, but instead expand the divide between the rich vs disenfranchised. .

averyfalken, 8 months ago

Not to mention at minimum some of the gun laws in our past have been put into effect due to racism including those pushed by Reagan due to the black panthers.

K1nsey6, 8 months ago

Leftists have guns too, and I know a lot of democrats that have them as well. Magazine laws do nothing to protect people or prevent harm, anyone skilled enough can drop an empty magazine and reinsert a full one in the blink of an eye.