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]

[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.