California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.
Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.
A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.
narcissists
thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.
i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.
i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other’s boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren’t rooted in rationality or care for others.
whenever i visit other countries, i’m refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it’s one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it’s exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?
One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.
Is the magazine size restrictions the only difference between the gun laws of America and Canada?
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
Do you know why it’s hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked “What can we change to stop this from happening?”, do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
“I don’t know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted”.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
If you actually cared as much as you act like you do, you would educate yourself about these “little trinkets”.
Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn’t going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that’s just not going to happen without civil war.
it’s very hard to respect the anti-gun crowd? because they focus on banning things that don’t matter?
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don’t buy rifles, abusive fucks don’t keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
it’s impossible to have any respect for the pro-dead-children crowd. you cretins deserve so much worse.
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don’t buy rifles, abusive fucks don’t keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
They want due process to have their personal property taken from them? Man. That’s just crazy!
Removed by mod
Oh come on. Literally nobody is pro firearms for domestic abusers, let’s get off that straw man.
The justice system in this country is, and always has been, built on the premise that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This isn’t merely important for guns. It’s important for every aspect of criminal justice.
If someone has a nuclear warhead in their personal possession, I want the government to take it from them as well.
Nobody needs a gun, and if you do to feel safe you must accept you live in a shithole country.
mass murder after mass murder after mass murder and you’re just fine with things how they are.
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
What particular laws have been “completely ineffective”? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?
We get it, gun owners get salty because they’re not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is “tantrum” from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.
But that’s too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don’t think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren’t as important as other people’s lives.
And oh look, they’re way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who’d have fucking known?
No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.
I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
In addition to this, there is no limitation on the magazine size for rimfire longuns in Canada.
[source] With some exceptions, there is no limit to the magazine capacity for:
- semi-automatic, rim-fire long guns
- other long guns that are not semi-automatics
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I agree with all of this. I think almost all of Canada’s gun control laws are sensible. We have sensible laws about transport, storage, safety training, and other things. Magazine size and banning weapons that look scary is not effective though.
Gun deaths in Canada isn’t exactly in a good place, it’s just way better than the US.
Gun deaths in Canada isn’t exactly in a good place, it’s just way better than the US.
It’s also mostly a problem caused by guns smuggled in from the US, where it’s far too easy for people with bad intentions to get guns.
Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.
And then if we criticize them, they’ll tell us to mind our own business, as if it’s a harmless hobby that doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Yeah, I know, I’m being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You’ll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Lmao are you really shifting blame from the Canadian criminal to the American gun? You really believe the criminal wouldn’t have committed the crime without a gun? Like above nothing short of a total ban will impact crime, and that’s not going to happen for a few reasons. We are all frustrated from crazies killing people but the solution isn’t in the guns, we need to treat the person.
Also you seem a bit brain washed thinking gun owners just want to kill black people. Maybe you should think hard about that line and who gains from you believing that.
No u
Our system works as intended. Sorry you don’t like our Freedums!
You have zero freedom.
I do pretty much whatever the fuck I want every day in the USA. I love the freedom I have here, but it’s a lot better when you’re not poor. I’ve had it both ways and the freedom definitely scales with dollar count.
For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.
States rights!
Wait, no not like that.
Well yes, the state has no right to infringe upon your rights, like say slavery.* Fought a whole war about that actually.
*Unless of course you wind up in the prison system, then they can infringe upon your rights, but that is also a problem.
Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …
Actually, I support all those rights, and the right to bear arms. Looks like it’s you who’s lackin’.
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Republicans who definitely don’t support those rights
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
We shouldn’t have laws because criminals won’t follow them
This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.
deleted by creator
It’s an extremely weak argument for this very reason
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.
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.
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?
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.
Man you gun nonces are weird.
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
A gun owner with a lot of opinions about Mexico. That about tracks.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
Shocking! Another dumb ineffective gun law that was clearly never going to stand is shot down.
Really good use of political capital and money.
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.
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.
True, but if we keep trying, we will eventually get a judge that decides the case based on feelings instead of that outdated paper.
I can’t tell if this is a joke or not, and that makes me sad
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn’t the fillers be obvious just by looking at it? It’s not like magazines are bigger than they need to be.
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.
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.
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.
Does crime only occur one-on-one in a other countries?
Probably not, but I’ve also never met anyone who justified owning a gun by having fantasies of shooting up people.
“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”
I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.
I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.
Under this logic, why do we have exemptions for police? Why does almost every single police department issue handguns with a capacity of 15 or more?
The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?
I don’t agree with the premise that the government can be better armed than me in peacetime. Disarm the cops.
It only makes sense for cops to have an exemption if we first accept the premise that standard capacity magazines have utility for personal protection, and not just to shoot into crowds.
The police response to BLM riots is the perfect example of why I think it’s important for the populace to be just as well armed as the government.
Attackers do not always run away when presented with lethal force. Sometimes many direct hits are required to stop the threat. Many, many shots can end up in non-critical locations. It’s not like an attacker is allowing you to line up nicely.
PCP. Angel dust will turn someone into a borderline unkillable god. Unless you drive all 10 of those shots into their chest instantly there’s a good chance you’re fucked.
Edit: Crazy how the dude above me is positive for saying the same thing I am.
How am I going to go fishing now?!
grenades
Probably easier to get those in CA that a gun right now.
Even if this ban stays, it will only effect law abiding citizens.
Makes it so less magazines are put on the black market. Just like a total gun ban would dry up the black market. In US and Mexico.
How’d that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.
How many people offered you rocket launchers? Hand grenades? Land mines? High explosives?
None because you can 3D print those.
Please please please print yourself an RPG.
(Not me obv but you get the point)
And you clearly didn’t get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.
People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.
I mean… if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.
Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.
However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.
I guess they meant “total” as in total ban country wide.
Guess why Mexico has a huge problem with guns. Because they are smuggled from the USA.
Are the two Ds at the end for a double dose?
UPGRAYEDD, spelled thusly, always gets his money.
not only this, but lets be honest here, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the lethality of firearms. Even if an active shooter abides it; most people who’ve spent a modicum of time practicing can drop and replace a magazine inside of a second or two.
Also, as Upgrayedd noted… you can drive a couple hours to arizona to get them. Or, just make your own mags. it’s not hard.
I’m all for effective gun control laws… but this ain’t it.
And that’s why you’re against all abortion bans right?
I am against all abortion bans but I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
Where do you think all black market guns come from?
Trees?
This is a discussion about magazines, not guns.
Limited to five in Canada. Way less gun deaths here. I’m fine with it.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
Presented to the founding father’s in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.
The founding father’s not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
Great, but if you need a gun to feel safe in your own country, it is a shithole.
Ad hominem attacks. Ah yes I care what you think.
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”.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
Nice to not need one, until you do.
You taking about guns, or anecdotal arguments?
Yes.
When seconds matter be prepared to wait for up to 51 minutes or longer.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I guarantee you that that is utter bullshit. And no one you’ve ever known has ever needed one either.
Dude its never been about need idk why y’all focus on that insert skull emoji since my app doesn’t support it
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.
