California ban on high-capacity gun magazines (win for the people)

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is any of what was said a infringement on your rights?
Please do explain

If the government can tell me how many bullets I can have in my firearm, then the government can tell you how many posts you may post in a day.

Infringement is infringement.

Post made by people is no where near what a chambered round is now is it.
Get over yourself man.

He was making a point about govt interference in minutiae and details as to keep us unable to protect ourselves, care for ourselves, or express ourselves.
Just tax the heck out of ammo, internet use, car mileage, and HVAC usage. Shazam, nobody can use these things.

Good Lord, try harder man.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: watchitburn

And I can support people owning whatever gun they want, and still mock it for being a looped-holed thing not envisioned in the days of muskets and cannons.

Said the person who is totally clueless about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

If you were clued in, you would know that the framers actually intended that private Citizens be able to lawfully buy, possess and bear any arms that were used by the Militia - meaning, in todays nomenclature, the Military.

This is why we can, still even today, lawfully purchase and own fully automatic weapons. They have of course pushed through unConstitutional laws restricting dramatically how and where they can be used, but I'm sure you're fine with that.

It really is applying something in a 250 year old context of what constitutes "arms". I can and will have fun with that. It can be consistent to take both sides here.

Muskets and cannon were top of the line technology at the time the constitution was written. Notice that they didn’t write “anything invented after todays date isn’t covered by this amendment”.
Shall not be infringed & bear arms have no qualifiers.
They are open ended because the framers wanted the population to be able to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, in the year 1800 as well as 2000 or 2300.
Can’t even protect yourself from the local gang if you can only own a .22 or birdshot.

a reply to: seagull

Oh I know. That's just the most common utilitarian purpose along with self defense.

And fair enough. Intent of the right to bear is intent of the right. Tyranny of government was explicitly specified.

************

But I think I can play Devil's advocate for one more post. This is a rhetorical position for the sake of 2nd amendment debate, not an exact personal opinion.

All is true until you commit a crime or get a 5150 psychiatric hold and can no longer have a full 2nd amendment.

They kinda seem like initially granted rights that operate as privilege. Not contesting the rights, just pointing out that ANY felony conviction and ANY psychiatric hold rescinds them.

You can be made a "Hunter Biden", unfit for gun ownership.

And if Hunter "Corrupt Billy Carter" Biden can lose it for party behavior then...

What if said tyrannical government decides having "extreme right wing views surrounding the 2nd Amendment" is a threat, but not a crime. Now everyone caught posting their gun collections to say, "come and take it, liberal tyrants!" is automatically subject to a possible 5150 threat assessment.

And then they say, "Well you are fine, but the fact we had to do this counts as a psychiatric hold, which rescinds your privileges for 5 years minimum."

What is the point when they've become tyrants and the 2nd amendment says you can shoot them instead? When they come to put you in a hold?

Right = privilege?

Some more authoritarian views of the constitution hold just that. In the extreme sense, "You should feel lucky to live a country that allows you such freedoms to begin with. Just because the ethos is built on 'inalienable rights' doesn't mean what applies wasn't allowed to be inalienable on contingency of upstanding behavior".

The idea being how many "inalienable" rights go right out the window for criminality and suspicion of criminality? How tyrannical can the 'suspicion of criminality' get and still be constitutional?

Patriot act made it a lot easier too.

Sorta had to dig for that one.

Communists love an unarmed population because they are so much easier to subdue and brutalize. These high capacity magazines are not there for deer hunting, they are there for when the enemy (foreign OR domestic) comes kicking in doors. I pray that people in this country wake up to what we are all facing. This is not a simulation or a joke, these people are deadly serious about the enslavement and eradication of anyone who does not comply. I have to imagine that with what is going on in Europe right now and what went on in Australia with the Covid tyranny, people outside of the US have to understand now WHY we have fought tooth and nail to maintain our 2nd amendment rights.

"But the government has jets and tanks....do you really think you can fight them with just rifles?"

I don't know.....ask the North Vietnamese or the Afghans.

a reply to: stevieray

I think you would be surprised. I'm sure you would also be extremely confused about the fact I say "mate" often via here and in person.
Sometimes you may meet people that use different verbiage than you would find to be normal.
Look mate if that bothers ya then not my fault but yours bro.

Had me in the first half.
Also, I think I'm starting to like you.

Anyway, some are saying, "We need em to fight the guvment!"
To which I say, "I've spent a lot of time in Waco over the years. Hey, you guys should Google 'Guns stockpile Waco' and let me know how that turned out."

To people thinking they need assault rifles with high capacity mags to "fight tyranny":
If it comes to physically fighting the deep state: You aren't gonna beat tanks, drones, fighter jets, APCs, gas, soldiers in kevlar with bulletproof riot gear, tasers, Sat surveillance, directed radio frequency weapons, and antigravity craft with transmat and particle beams. You don't NEED it for hunting either. Frankly, if you can't hit it with a bolt action or a bow, then you don't deserve the meat.

To the ones happy about this: Meanwhile, another 7 quadrillion school shootings will happen next week, committed with those rifles with high capacity mags by kids who got their hands on them easily because they were legal so there were more in circulation.
Oh but you want your big cool guns that go pew pew real fast with a lot of bullets, because you saw them in movies when you were a kid, and you're too much of a child to admit that's really why you want them.

But at least we have priorities, right?
This is straight up evil. Condoning this is evil.
This is directly killing kids.
This is so not okay.
We should all be sad because this is a step backwards and really shows how soulless this country is.
At this point I'm inclined to say civilians should only be able to buy .556, 7.62, and .223 in blanks,
and I used to be an ardent 2A supporter, but stuff like this... I might end up being against pistols at this rate.



a reply to: Degradation33

a reply to: TheValeyard

They should make killing people with a firearm a crime.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Pft, as if

Next you're going to suggest they make heroin, meth, coc aine, and fentanyl illegal

That's a good one DB!

**ks sake. That old chestnut?
We keep pumping more of these legal guns into the market to be eventually sold second hand when we already have a school shooting epidemic, and you don't see how that could be a bad idea?

Your logic is like, "Well, it might be impossible to put the fire out, idk, so keep pouring gas on it!"


a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: TheValeyard

To cover your school shooting epidemic rhetoric, we could always place armed security at schools. As has been brought up a million times to no avail.

That would not only cut, significantly, down on school shootings but all other issues that would require police intervention. IE: hostile parents, large fights, obductions, and other crime committed on school grounds.

Not saying it would completely cut out all of those things, but the decrease in those crimes would be more noticeable than to disarm the law abiding citizens that aren't committing those crimes.

It's much harder to illegally manufacture a full gun.
You can make a lot of it yourself, but you still have to buy the reciever.

Plants can be grown. Meth can be made if one has a recipe.


NOW FENTANYL: There's a great example that YOU gave yourself!
Why do we have a Fentanyl epidemic? Because originally it was doled out legally via legal prescriptions, then sold to addicts. Then people learned how to make it. It is often smuggled in from Mexico NOW, but only after the legal route had created a subculture of addicts, who then sought their fix. If Fentanyl in general had its FDA approval revoked and was made illegal across the board, then anyone in possession of it could be charged, and less people stateside would risk trafficking it. I am not saying the problem would go away by any means, but it would get better rather than worse.

Again, adding more gas to wildfires is generally a bad idea.

a reply to: PorkChop96

a reply to: PorkChop96

Is there not a police officer already at most schools already?
Everytime I drive by a school a unit is always present.
And also the most unfortunate incident in Texas had one individual not take action which could've prevented numerous deaths. So explain how to correct that and you may have a point.

Oh I think we should ALSO do that. Frankly, I don't see why anyone has a problem with it.
I have a kid, and I'd feel a million times better if there was an armed officer there to send one into the back of an active shooter's head. No argument there.

a reply to: PorkChop96

a reply to: TheValeyard

You can make the whole thing, doesn't have to be what you would consider to be a firearm to be used as one. some black iron pipe and you're good to go.

Regardless, drugs are not the topic of this thread. My comment was satirical towards DB and nothing more.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

Some schools have them, yes, but not all have a trained security/police presence.

But most of the schools that have had a "mass shooting" had no armed security present, or if they did it was one with very low level training.

All of the schools, K-12, in my area has an armed and marked police officer at the front door and there has never been an event like that in my area. That I am aware of.

Even just the presence of a marked police car, in most case, would more than likely detour any shooter that would want to try that building.


You also get the benefit of having a police presence that bonds with the kids at the school and makes those connections to where if a kid has problems they can, and mostly do, go to the cop and talk to them about it if need be.

Not saying to disarm law abiding citizens. Just saying, not THOSE guns, and not those high capacity mags.
You don't NEED those for anything, and they're killing kids.
You can still have bolt actions and hammer actions, and shotguns, and smaller mag semi auto pistols for open carry or concealed, and bows, and your antique Blunderbuss, and your bolt action .50 cal. There are plenty of other guns you could go plinking with that AREN'T preferred for use in mass shootings because of how easy it is to mow lots of people down with them.

You can still have the other ones. It's not all or nothing. Get it?

a reply to: PorkChop96

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: stevieray

I think you would be surprised. I'm sure you would also be extremely confused about the fact I say "mate" often via here and in person.
Sometimes you may meet people that use different verbiage than you would find to be normal.
Look mate if that bothers ya then not my fault but yours bro.

He was talking about the ways the govt controls us.

You claimed he was comparing loaded guns to internet posts.

You literally couldn’t have been more wrong.

You can admit to being wrong, we all do now and then.

A black iron pipe rifle probably isn't gonna send 40 rounds down range in under a minute.
It's probably gonna fire one round before you unscrew the pipe fitting to reload, because making the upper and lower reciever with a CNC machine is too prohibitive for almost everyone.

You are being willing daft. Surely you know that. You don't have to be so extreme about this.
My position is one of compromise. I even agreed we should have armed guards at the schools.
I think you're determined to die on this hill so I'll quit arguing.
I said all I needed to say on it I guess.

a reply to: PorkChop96

originally posted by: TheValeyard
Not saying to disarm law abiding citizens. Just saying, not THOSE guns, and not those high capacity mags.
You don't NEED those for anything, and they're killing kids.
You can still have bolt actions and hammer actions, and shotguns, and smaller mag semi auto pistols for open carry or concealed, and bows, and your antique Blunderbuss, and your bolt action .50 cal. There are plenty of other guns you could go plinking with that AREN'T preferred for use in mass shootings because of how easy it is to mow lots of people down with them.

You can still have the other ones. It's not all or nothing. Get it?

a reply to: PorkChop96

The all or nothing thing comes in the form of you telling everybody else what to do. That’s the root problem. And you can’t even imagine not getting your way somehow.
And the law abiding citizens don’t do mass shootings, and these shootings are minuscule, rare, in every possible way of measuring. But we know you’re not interested in truth or accuracy.
Only interested in “you do what I say !!!”

originally posted by: TheValeyard
**ks sake. That old chestnut?
We keep pumping more of these legal guns into the market to be eventually sold second hand when we already have a school shooting epidemic, and you don't see how that could be a bad idea?

Your logic is like, "Well, it might be impossible to put the fire out, idk, so keep pouring gas on it!"


a reply to: DBCowboy

And you would cut off every penis to avoid men raping women.