sudo22 @ sudo22 @lemmy.world

Posts

51

Comments

197

Joined

2 yr. ago

In a way I'm rooting for California. The more gun laws they get appealed all the way to SCOTUS, the more national precedent gets set that these laws are illegal in the whole country.

Your comment makes no sense. Government regulations, like most antigun folks want "well regulated" to mean, would mean laws limiting the militia. Well regulated in the 2nd amendment actually means in good working order as my link says.

A well regulated clock keeps accurate time. A well regulated engine produces horse power efficiently and reliably. A well regulated militia has plenty of ammo and supplies and knows how to use them.

SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional a last year.

"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"

Arms are a "right of the people" not the militia. A militia is a result of, not a prerequisite for, the right to bear arms. "well regulated" doesn't mean government regulation it means well armed, supplied, and trained

Well regulated has nothing to do with government regulations. Its means well armed and trained

No worries. I've done that on lemmy more then once lol

Literally read the first half of the first sentence. "California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places"

SCOTUS point blank ruled this unconstitutional in the Bruen decision, specifically pointing out banning carry in most public places is unconstitutional.

FFS even he acknowledges what hes doing is unconstitutional "But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges".

"But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges"

How is this not grounds for some form of punishment? Politicians shouldn't be able to write laws even they acknowledge are illegal, gun law or otherwise?

This title and focus of this article is weird.

"California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places" and then it goes on about the tax.

I feel like the carry ban is a far larger story then the tax. Not just because its blatantly unconstitutional but it directly opposes very recent rulings from the highest court in America

Saved for later. Thank you!

Legit question, what country is a better real world example?

No? I don't want one, and that's mainly because I don't have the land to test it. Its something I want to do one day once I own significant acherage.

I have however, printed fully functional firearms (G19x, FGC-9, AR-15, others). An RPG is well within feasibility of modern desktop printers. Look on YouTube or FossCAD on Reddit if you don't believe me. RPGs, Grenade Launchers, Silencers, full guns, and plenty other improvised weapons are fully printable with plenty of examples online. And perfectly legal for most US citizens to make.

Sure

(Not me obv but you get the point)

Most people don't categorized suicide as violence. But even if you do, I made it clear in my next statements that I was talking about gun murders.

Lumping in 2 issues with 2 separate causes and solutions as evidence that (in this case) a mag capacity ban works, is an oversimplification.

Mag cap bans have nothing to do with suicide and weren't intended to. So bringing it up is just a distraction from the conversion this post is focusing on.

You're over simplifying the issue.

Dog I think you're losing track of the conversion. This post is about mag capacities, a measure trying to tackle gun murder. I started my comment talking about gun murders. I'm still taking about gun murders and related laws. You brought up suicide statistics

Strawman? My friend these are gun laws in California. The state we're talking about.

None because you can 3D print those.

Once again lumping in suicides without clearly stating such, to artificially bolster gun violence. This data includes suicides, which a mag disconnector, chamber indicator, registry, etc won't help with.

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