California ban on high capacity magazines declared unconstitutional

[onlinebiker]

Lol.

Yeah. Posting pictures really proves stuff....


Mainly, it proves who doesn' t know a real gun from a kids toy........

[Aegon]

There was an interesting 2nd amendment ruling today.


In short, a federal district court in California declared the state's ban on magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds unconstitutional today.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uplo...intiffs-MS

finally sanity being forced onto californians!

---

Do the courts honestly think that the armies of King George III are going to descend on Washington any moment now (the specific and sole reason any right to bear arms was granted in the constitution, and then only as part of a state run, trained and funded militia)?  Or is it simply the NRA is waving enough roubles around to make them throw any semblance of legal justice out the window?

Either way it's not a good look for the US body of judges in their ability to interpret and rule on law.

if we had a failure of infrastructure, or better yet remember the northeastern power grid going out abut 10 yers back and all the medical and food being sent in from 2/3 of the rest of the country for 3 weeks? what if that failure was 2/3 out and 1/3 up and running? where would the food to feed 2/3of the country come from? remember 24 hours and all the pershibles are garbage. one week and everything in the distrbution centers if not distributed is now also garbage, with no way to resupply.

Now remember it took 3 weeks to rebuild that part of the grid what if it took 3 months to rebuild 2/3 of the grid? how many weeks into no power, no food at the store no clean water no prescriptions or even basic medical services gas or cars, would it take before the "bad guys" to form gangs and start raiding people?

Rather what are you going to do when they come to your house demand yu open up you house and b-hole, and your families b-holes?what if there were only a dozen or so armed with clubs knives and garden tools?

Me I could load up my high capacity assault shot gun hand it to my wife and I could take my Ar 15 open my door and blast all of them with out having to reload, then I could come to your house while you where being drilled in the can and save you too without having to again reload having killed 2 dozen men!

You guys have no idea how fragile our societal infrastructure is. everything is based n a promise and confidence n the government to be there and do it's job. however once that get tested hard and the guard can't be everywhere in full force, then that infrastructure comes down hard! Not to say it will not go back up, but again it could be day weeks months or years before it was like before.

how will you survive without a gun when I have one and want what you have with no one to stop me but you? Again what if i had a dozen looser friends who like sloppy seconds what will you do beside take it or roll over and die?

Again the bad guys are already here and the only thing keeping them at bay is this fragile idea of society, but when that is tested over a period of days or weeks and proves to be gone... The right to bear arms is what keep the bad guys in check and preserves this government!

What hellish nightmare are you living? Your lens seem to be unnecessarily violent and pessimistic. What you've written is sick fantasy, rather than logical or solution oriented

I dont see any persuasive arguments for a right to bear arms. I dont think the amendment has aged well and I'd honestly have no problem with its removal and allowing states to decide what to do about it. California can ban everything and Texas can give every baby a free AR 15, then we'll be able to see what works , eh?

---

You may think that it you pass a bunch of laws to get rid of guns, you're going to make the world all safe - nobody will die - gentle rains will fall, the sun will shine, the crops will flourish - and all the children will be happy, well fed, smart and good looking.

Sorry sunshine - this world doesn't work that way. At least not with the nasty bastards that inhabit the upper part of the food chain.

If history shows us anything -- and the way it keeps repeating itself (in new and interesting ways) - we can be assured that NO civilization lasts peacefully forever. You can bury your head in the sand and believe that the world is going to take care of you - and everything is going to be peachy. Reality? You stuck there with your head in the sand and your ass in the air makes a perfect opportunity for the world to slam you one in the ass.

You can call gun owners paranoid - but the fact is - being unarmed, and insisting on everyone being unarmed is simply a coward's admission to defeat. Will the gun owner prevail in all situations? Nope. But - he won't lose in every one either. The guy without a gun? When things get real ugly - he's going to wish he had one. Or he'll just curl up in a corner and wait for the end.

The gun owner is at least prepared to TRY.

I can't find any pro 2nd Amendment arguments that aren't born of paranoia and an implication that society will implode and only gun wielders will survive.

That's an ok argument philosophically, MAYBE, but not a very good one for a constitutional amendment.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gun owners can make a 2nd amendment argument, a 4th amendment argument, a 5th amendment argument, a 9th amendment argument, or a 10th amendment argument.


Even without the 2nd, california would have a hell of a hard time banning everything..and even with the second, handing out ar's to babies in texas wouldn't stand.  

Any law that flat out violates some right or whose enforcement would invariably violate a right is a shit law.  It's not impossible to craft gun legislation that doesn't violate our rights..we have tons of it, and there's room for more.  If we can't craft reasonable and effective gun regs within the remit of our rights, we're just being lazy, and we may as well hang it up.

I will never understand any plan to address this issue that hinges on doing something both highly improbable and very short sighted when neither is a requirement.

[Aegon]

Is it not the height of laziness to act as if rights written hundreds of years ago are as permanent as the cycle of life? Government already bans people from possessing or doing plenty of things, and as far as I can tell there isnt a good argument for protecting the right to own guns specifically.

But obviously I'm being idealistic, as we're long past the point of amending that amendment

[onlinebiker]

Is it not the height of laziness to act as if rights written hundreds of years ago are as permanent as the cycle of life? Government already bans people from possessing or doing plenty of things, and as far as I can tell there isnt a good argument for protecting the right to own guns specifically.

But obviously I'm being idealistic, as we're long past the point of amending that amendment

If you can make ALL the guns go away - and not just the ones owned by law abiding individuals. - including all governments - you would probably find widespread support - myself included.

But you can' t. Not now, probably not ever.

[Aegon]

Is it not the height of laziness to act as if rights written hundreds of years ago are as permanent as the cycle of life? Government already bans people from possessing or doing plenty of things, and as far as I can tell there isnt a good argument for protecting the right to own guns specifically.

But obviously I'm being idealistic, as we're long past the point of amending that amendment

If you can make ALL the guns go away - and not just the ones owned by law abiding individuals. - including all governments - you would probably find widespread support - myself included.

But you can' t. Not now, probably not ever.

Because we cant ever completely ban them and stop every single person from getting one we should have a RIGHT to them? That doesnt make sense to me. Think of all the things that applies to. That's so comically backwards

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it not the height of laziness to act as if rights written hundreds of years ago are as permanent as the cycle of life? Government already bans people from possessing or doing plenty of things, and as far as I can tell there isnt a good argument for protecting the right to own guns specifically.

Yes, there are plenty of things we're not allowed to own, but getting rid of the second wouldn't actually make guns one of them by default, or remove any legal challenge a gun owner can mount.

But obviously I'm being idealistic, as we're long past the point of amending that amendment

Maybe, but doing so isn't the magic bullet people think it is.  Idealistically, and in actuality...you have all the rights listed, and one of those is all the rights not listed.  

There is no conceivable way for the government to blanket ban gun ownership that wouldn't find itself immediately challenged.  We'd have to get rid of five amendments to do what most people think getting rid of the second would accomplish. All the while, there's no real reason to get rid of the second in the first place. Our rights aren't a suicide pact. The 2nd amendment doesn't make it illegal to write reasonable restrictions. The fed has them, every state has them, cities have them.

Personally, I think that any plan that accomplishes the goal while preserving our rights, rather than diminishing our rights, would be the better of two plans. Isn't that the whole point of this, to be as free from government restriction as is possible, to limit what the government can and can't do to within an inch of what it needs to function?

Any space the government doesn't need is my space, your space..our space. The government works for us, we don't exist at it's pleasure. It has to balance my right..yes, right..to own a gun, or any other thing, with it;s responsibility to protect the rights of both me and everyone else. It can do that, even in this instance, without diminishing the sole purpose of it's own existence.

[Amarok]

Yeah. Posting pictures really proves stuff....


Mainly, it proves who doesn' t know a real gun from a kids toy........

I'm well aware that specific gun was an airsoft that's aside the point as that toy happened to belong to convicted murderer Nikolas Cruz who spammed his Instagram account with pictures of all his real guns . So yeah this so doesn't prove my point that mass shooters are pro gun .....








You are really bad at this whole debating thing ....

[onlinebiker]

Because we cant ever completely ban them and stop every single person from getting one we should have a RIGHT to them? That doesnt make sense to me. Think of all the things that applies to. That's so comically backwards

Everyone CAN'T legally get a gun.

Problem children - psychos and felons can' t - legally. They can get them black market of course - where laws don' t apply.

---

Because we cant ever completely ban them and stop every single person from getting one we should have a RIGHT to them? That doesnt make sense to me. Think of all the things that applies to. That's so comically backwards

Everyone CAN'T legally get a gun.

Problem children - psychos and felons can' t - legally. They can get them black market of course - where laws don' t apply.

---

Because we cant ever completely ban them and stop every single person from getting one we should have a RIGHT to them? That doesnt make sense to me. Think of all the things that applies to. That's so comically backwards

Everyone CAN'T legally get a gun.

Problem children - psychos and felons can' t - legally. They can get them black market of course - where laws don' t apply.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't bring guns into the Gateway Arch. They inspected my cane for edged weapons. So the 2nd is already infringed, bluster notwithstanding.