News judge overturns CA 10round magazine law.

[Paladin3]

@ivwshane

You have to give him some credit: I wouldn't have thought that a FYGM perspective could be crowbarred into a 2A discussion, but apparently it can.

You act as though if we agree to give up our guns the folks who are motivated to kill will suddenly cease to exist. How would you even enact any substantive gun/magazine ban? The only guns you will ever get will be those of law abiding citizens who turn them in voluntarily. So you are disarming those who aren't the problem.

Every notice how mass shootings always happen in gun-free zones? Apparently killers don't balk at breaking gun laws along the way.

 

[JSt0rm]

You act as though if we agree to give up our guns the folks who are motivated to kill will suddenly cease to exist. How would you even enact any substantive gun/magazine ban? The only guns you will ever get will be those of law abiding citizens who turn them in voluntarily. So you are disarming those who aren't the problem.

Every notice how mass shootings always happen in gun-free zones? Apparently killers don't balk at breaking gun laws along the way.

moregunsistheanswer.txt

 

[Paladin3]

so the real reason you have guns is because you are a fearful little bitch.

Yet I'm sure you have memorized the number (911) to call folks with guns to come a-running should you need help? You assume force is for pussies only, but rely on a group of first responders to apply it on your behalf if necessary. Who's the bitch?

 

[JSt0rm]

Yet I'm sure you have memorized the number (911) to call folks with guns to come a-running should you need help? You assume force is for pussies only, but rely on a group of first responders to apply it on your behalf if necessary. Who's the bitch?

that wont happen. Being fearful and ready to kill anone at your door is peak murica.

 

[Paladin3]

Can't see how the 2A entitles you to large capacity magazines.

In what way does it disallow them? If there are no restrictions stated, you can't just make them up. You can't ban what is already in very common lawful use without some kind of evidence it will actually accomplish your goal of stopping gun crime or mass shootings.

Did you watch the video the OP posted with the judges ruling?

 

[ivwshane]

You act as though if we agree to give up our guns the folks who are motivated to kill will suddenly cease to exist. How would you even enact any substantive gun/magazine ban? The only guns you will ever get will be those of law abiding citizens who turn them in voluntarily. So you are disarming those who aren't the problem.

Every notice how mass shootings always happen in gun-free zones? Apparently killers don't balk at breaking gun laws along the way.

Lol more horrible logic. By that logic there is no point in having any laws. Is that the position you have taken? That only law breakers break the law? I'm guessing you are also one of those people that think gun owners are responsible until they aren't.

As to your claim... You might want to check your feels on that one.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/...do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

 

[Paladin3]

the militia needs to be well regulated.

Again, someone who didn't watch the video posted in the OP. You can't restrict an item that is used lawfully by huge numbers of people in an attempt to stop the criminal actions of an extremely tiny minority of users WITHOUT EVIDENCE IT WILL ACTUALLY STOP THE KILLING. Present your evidence. Like the 1986 assault weapons ban and how effective...oops, yeah, bad example. It didn't reduce crime at all. Just like the 10 round magazine limit hasn't reduced crime in the places it's been passed either.

 

[ivwshane]

Please, stop living in a dream in your head. A federal judge has ruled that a ban to ten round clips in California instead of the nationwide 30 limit is unconstitutional and a violation of Californians 2nd amendment rights. Do you really think he wasn't serious? I am just stating my understanding of why he ruled as he did.

I think your inability to even consider other people's points of view or legal arguments owing to your ideological opposition to guns, has made you, here the one who is incapable of serious thinking.

When is the last time you've looked in a mirror? You can't have a single conversation without diagnosing people when they disagree with you or point out the failure in your logic, seriously, check your posting history.

Your comment was devoid of context, perhaps you should have added some instead of thinking people will automatically know what you are referring to.

Btw I don't have an ideological opposition to guns but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you because then you wouldn't be able to place me in a little box.

 

[Paladin3]

moregunsistheanswer.txt

Nice try, but I never said anything even close to that. Lie much?

We live in a free society where citizens have 2A rights unless they do something to lose them. You aren't allowed to penalize the many for the crimes of the few in a misguided attempt to find an easy answer to a complex problem.

Why don't you tell us exactly how you would go about disarming individuals bent on committing crimes and/or murder? If your answer is "I would disarm the law-abiding and hope that somehow magically stops the criminals" then fuck off.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, someone who didn't watch the video posted in the OP. You can't restrict an item that is used lawfully by huge numbers of people in an attempt to stop the criminal actions of an extremely tiny minority of users WITHOUT EVIDENCE IT WILL ACTUALLY STOP THE KILLING. Present your evidence. Like the 1986 assault weapons ban and how effective...oops, yeah, bad example. It didn't reduce crime at all. Just like the 10 round magazine limit hasn't reduced crime in the places it's been passed either.

Of course you can. Its why people have to have fences around their pools even though accidental drownings is minor, statistically speaking.

 

[ivwshane]

Nice try, but I never said anything even close to that. Lie much?

We live in a free society where citizens have 2A rights unless they do something to lose them. You aren't allowed to penalize the many for the crimes of the few in a misguided attempt to find an easy answer to a complex problem.

Why don't you tell us exactly how you would go about disarming individuals bent on committing crimes and/or murder? If your answer is "I would disarm the law-abiding and hope that somehow magically stops the criminals" then fuck off.

Why does he need to come up with a solution to a problem that will please you? Doesn't it make more sense for you to come up with a solution that will please you?

When you and others like you fail to find a solution I will laugh when others, who don't share your affinity for guns, comes up with a solution that upsets you. Gun owners are their own worst enemies.

 

[Paladin3]

that wont happen. Being fearful and ready to kill anone at your door is peak murica.

If it makes you feel better to believe such then go right ahead. It just shows you didn't come to this debate to make any kind of rational point. Insulting and belittling your opposition is all you have left.

 

[Paladin3]

Why does he need to come up with a solution to a problem that will please you? Doesn't it make more sense for you to come up with a solution that will please you?

When you and others like you fail to find a solution I will laugh when others, who don't share your affinity for guns, comes up with a solution that upsets you. Gun owners are their own worst enemies.

Don't you support banning guns, or at least restricting access to them enough that it's impossible for a would-be killer to get their hands on one? Why is it wrong for me to ask how you expect to enforce such laws if you got them passed?

At the very least you seem to be suggesting that it's the responsibility of gun owners to find a solution to end gun violence to justify not losing our constitutionally guaranteed right to own guns. Like it's our fault crime happens?

 

[ivwshane]

Don't you support banning guns, or at least restricting access to them enough that it's impossible for a would-be killer to get their hands on one? Why is it wrong for me to ask how you expect to enforce such laws if you got them passed?

At the very least you seem to be suggesting that it's the responsibility of gun owners to find a solution to end gun violence to justify not losing our constitutionally guaranteed right to own guns. Like it's our fault crime happens?

I support whatever solution reduces mass shootings.

And just so you are aware, under the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to own a gun, it doesn't guarantee that that right is unlimited.

No one said it was your fault but it is you (in the global sense) that is blocking progress. Either you come up with a solution or others will, that's the reality of the situation and you can either acknowledge it or ignore it.

I won't be affected either way.

 

[JSt0rm]

If it makes you feel better to believe such then go right ahead. It just shows you didn't come to this debate to make any kind of rational point. Insulting and belittling your opposition is all you have left.

i came with real statistics retard. You came with no true scottsmand bullshit

 

[Paladin3]

I support whatever solution reduces mass shootings.

And just so you are aware, under the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to own a gun, it doesn't guarantee that that right is unlimited.

No one said it was your fault but it is you (in the global sense) that is blocking progress. Either you come up with a solution or others will, that's the reality of the situation and you can either acknowledge it or ignore it.

I won't be affected either way.

Who said anything about unlimited rights? I don't need unlimited rights to enjoy gun ownership as is. The judge just ruled that the 10 round mag limit was an infringement on citizen's 2A and self-defense rights. Didn't you watch the video?

If you want to ban weapons and magazines that are currently in common usage legally then you need to justify why and offer at least some evidence that it will fix the problem of gun violence. Just because a right isn't unlimited, doesn't mean you can set arbitrary limits based on what you think will work.

I don't have to justify my 2A rights, you have to justify taking them away.

 

[ivwshane]

Who said anything about unlimited rights? I don't need unlimited rights to enjoy gun ownership as is. The judge just ruled that the 10 round mag limit was an infringement on citizen's 2A and self-defense rights. Didn't you watch the video?

If you want to ban weapons and magazines that are currently in common usage legally then you need to justify why and offer at least some evidence that it will fix the problem of gun violence. Just because a right isn't unlimited, doesn't mean you can set arbitrary limits based on what you think will work.

I don't have to justify my 2A rights, you have to justify taking them away.

Good luck with that!

 

[Paladin3]

i came with real statistics retard. You came with no true scottsmand bullshit

I never questioned your statistics. It's common sense. Like how owning a pair of scissors make me more likely to stab myself with them than if I did not.

How does that make it okay for you to deprive a lawful citizen their 2A and self-defense rights without any evidence that it will do anything to reduce gun crime or mass shootings?

The 1986 assault weapons ban didn't put a dent in crime. The 10-round magazine limit didn't either. The bullet button BS didn't either. The bump-stock ban probably won't either.

So what have you got for me other than a statistic that could be said of practically ANY object? Or just call me names again.

 

[Paladin3]

Good luck with that!

Man, you sound like a person who doesn't understand due process at all. You sound like you believe laws should be passed and rights stripped from law abiding citizens based on feels without having to show any evidence they would address the actual problem.

Luckily, at least one judge doesn't agree.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I never questioned your statistics. It's common sense. Like how owning a pair of scissors make me more likely to stab myself with them than if I did not.

How does that make it okay for you to deprive a lawful citizen their 2A and self-defense rights without any evidence that it will do anything to reduce gun crime or mass shootings?

The 1986 assault weapons ban didn't put a dent in crime. The 10-round magazine limit didn't either. The bullet button BS didn't either. The bump-stock ban probably won't either.

So what have you got for me other than a statistic that could be said of practically ANY object? Or just call me names again.

for starters, if you're going to ban anything, it makes more sense to ban handguns than long guns. handguns being easily concealable and transportable makes them ideal weapons for homicide (which is why most homicides are with handguns). rifles and shotguns arent exactly inconspicuous.

end the war on drugs. focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than criminalization and imprisonment.

stop for-profit prisons. make prisons a place to rehabilitate, not a place to be punished and branded once you are released.

create and/or improve transition programs that help inmates reestablish their lives once they are back in society.

break the cycle of poverty and improve economic mobility.

bring back mental health institutions and destigmatize the need for mental health care. caring for your mind is just as important as caring for your body.

how'd I do?

 

[Moonbeam]

@ivwshane: When is the last time you've looked in a mirror? You can't have a single conversation without diagnosing people when they disagree with you or point out the failure in your logic, seriously, check your posting history.

M: This is hyperbole. I once did have such a conbersation.

i: Your comment was devoid of context, perhaps you should have added some instead of thinking people will automatically know what you are referring to.

M: This would be true if it were nothing but your opinion. My first post in this thread, if I remember correctly was about what the Judge wrote that I remembered.

M: Btw I don't have an ideological opposition to guns but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you because then you wouldn't be able to place me in a little box.

I told you I think your problem is with certainty. I have removed you from such a box upon receiving this disclaimer. I hadn't really put you there mentally and expected your denial but I decided to respond to your saying I lacked seriousness with a similar level of sensitivity.

 

[Paladin3]

for starters, if you're going to ban anything, it makes more sense to ban handguns than long guns. handguns being easily concealable and transportable makes them ideal weapons for homicide (which is why most homicides are with handguns). rifles and shotguns arent exactly inconspicuous.

end the war on drugs. focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than criminalization and imprisonment.

stop for-profit prisons. make prisons a place to rehabilitate, not a place to be punished and branded once you are released.

create and/or improve transition programs that help inmates reestablish their lives once they are back in society.

break the cycle of poverty and improve economic mobility.

bring back mental health institutions and destigmatize the need for mental health care. caring for your mind is just as important as caring for your body.

how'd I do?

Overall: Winner.

While I agree handguns are way more of a problem than long guns because of their easy concealability, I still don't see a practical way to ban or restrict either one. And "assault rifles" are all black and scary and a much better scapegoat than any handgun for those looking for an easy fix to a complex problem.

All your other points are very, very good. It's what a compassionate society would do, as well as common sense. Everyone benefits when marginalized individuals are helped back to law-abiding, self-supporting status.

 

[JSt0rm]

I never questioned your statistics. It's common sense. Like how owning a pair of scissors make me more likely to stab myself with them than if I did not.

How does that make it okay for you to deprive a lawful citizen their 2A and self-defense rights without any evidence that it will do anything to reduce gun crime or mass shootings?

The 1986 assault weapons ban didn't put a dent in crime. The 10-round magazine limit didn't either. The bullet button BS didn't either. The bump-stock ban probably won't either.

So what have you got for me other than a statistic that could be said of practically ANY object? Or just call me names again.

its not real self defense if you are more likely to kill yourself

 

[Paladin3]

its not real self defense if you are more likely to kill yourself

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[JSt0rm]

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

the stats are real.