CA's high capacity magazine ban ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

Bloodyhell is right though, guns are so efficient that you don’t need many bullets to kill somebody. The only people who need boxes of ammo are those who hunt, go the range regularly, and all the John Mclane types who think they are going to be a soldier in some imaginary revolution. You don’t need a lot of ammo to kill a few people.

Nearly all mass shootings you can think of were committed with standard capacity magazines. They make it easier to kill lots of people quickly.

[skillzdadirecta]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:58 PM, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm fine with universal background checks, as long as they are free and I can do the check on myself (and have the seller verify I am legit).

 

Most gun crimes can be directly linked to things like poverty, the war on drugs, and mental health issues.  I'd rather address those issue to be honest.  

As has been said many times, other countries have the same issues we have. What they DON'T have is the access to guns or the "Cowboy" gun culture. So they don't have the same gun violence. But you know all this already. And to your earlier point, the point of the high magazine ban wasn't to "reduce gun crime" as you said earlier. It was to minimize the amount of damage one person can do on these shooting sprees and it was a compromise at that with the gun lobby. Even THAT is a non starter in this fucked up country.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I've literally never understood the point of high capacity magazines. No one needs one.

[skillzdadirecta]

On 8/15/2020 at 3:42 PM, BloodyHell said:

Ahhh, yes. Thats the kind of intelligent comment that will resonate with pro-gun people....

Have you HEARD some of the arguments THEY use? I think he was being facetious. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I've literally never understood the point of high capacity magazines. No one needs one.

Mass shooters need them. And literally the military. It’s one of the more bizarre things that gun people clamor for.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Mass shooters need them. And literally the military. It’s one of the more bizarre things that gun people clamor for.

Well, yeah, that was my point. There's no legitimate reason for a civilian to own one.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Mass shooters need them. And literally the military. It’s one of the more bizarre things that gun people clamor for.

Like I said, this SHOULD have been an easy one for the gun lobby to give up... it isn't because they think if they give up one thing, even if it's reasonable, it will lead to an outright ban and confiscation of weapons. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

32 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Nearly all mass shootings you can think of were committed with standard capacity magazines. They make it easier to kill lots of people quickly.

 

It seems like all the worst ones went above and beyond standard and had those drum feeders. Like that New Zealand guy.

[mclumber1]

26 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

As has been said many times, other countries have the same issues we have. What they DON'T have is the access to guns or the "Cowboy" gun culture. So they don't have the same gun violence. But you know all this already. 

 

Latin America.  They don't have legal access to guns.  

 

Quote

And to your earlier point, the point of the high magazine ban wasn't to "reduce gun crime" as you said earlier. It was to minimize the amount of damage one person can do on these shooting sprees and it was a compromise at that with the gun lobby. Even THAT is a non starter in this fucked up country.

 

The compromise was to grandfather in all existing magazines owned by Californians.  A few years later, the state reneged on that compromise and instituted a complete ban and confiscation scheme.

 

It's no more a compromise than giving in to a pro-lifer state government with a 16 week abortion ban, only to have it reduced to 7 weeks a few years later.  What did the pro-choice group get out of this "compromise"?

 

Compromise is this:  I give up something in exchange for getting something, and vice versa.  Compromise would have been instituting a magazine ban in exchange for getting rid of the handgun safety roster, or getting rid of the 10 day waiting period, or instituting a shall-issue concealed carry permit system.  

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Latin America.  They don't have legal access to guns.  

 

You can't be this stupid, America's gun problem is the worlds gun problem, they even end up in the UK.

[Guest]

@mclumber1is not stupid, he’s just not being honest about his position and how he arrived there. The basis for his POV isn’t any data, it’s his love for his hobby. And that’s fine, own that. Say you love your hobby no matter what it’s affects are on others, positive or negative. But the facade of it as a reasoned position is insulting to everybody else.

[skillzdadirecta]

39 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Latin America.  They don't have legal access to guns. No but they have EASY access to guns because of their proximity to US. We export a TON of illegal guins to Latin America. Cartel members are frequent customers of "gun shows"

 

 

The compromise was to grandfather in all existing magazines owned by Californians.  A few years later, the state reneged on that compromise and instituted a complete ban and confiscation scheme. So?

 

It's no more a compromise than giving in to a pro-lifer state government with a 16 week abortion ban, only to have it reduced to 7 weeks a few years later.  What did the pro-choice group get out of this "compromise"? Wut?

 

Compromise is this:  I give up something in exchange for getting something, and vice versa.  Compromise would have been instituting a magazine ban in exchange for getting rid of the handgun safety roster, or getting rid of the 10 day waiting period, or instituting a shall-issue concealed carry permit system.  Americans have already compromised enough with the gun lobby... with all of the lives that have been lost so a couple of weekend warriors can have easy access to automatic rifles in order to live out their Rambo fantasies.

 

 

 

[mclumber1]

17 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

 

1.  Latin America's access to guns is the same as Canada's access to guns.  Canada's gun violence rate is a fraction of both America's and Latin America's,  yet has more liberal (IE looser) gun control laws compared to Latin America.   

 

2. WUT?  If Arkansas tried to pass an abortion restriction, you would be absolutely right that the restriction they are putting in place today is a step towards a total ban.  Every single liberal on this board recognizes these conniving laws for what they are, and speak out of them. 

 

3.  Again, you all are attacking the wrong problem here.  If you want to have the most impact on gun violence, you need to work on the issues that cause gun violence.  Banning certain firearms or attempting to will just cause a swing in voter sympathy an election cycle from now - just like what happened with the 94 election.  

 

32 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

@mclumber1is not stupid, he’s just not being honest about his position and how he arrived there. The basis for his POV isn’t any data, it’s his love for his hobby. And that’s fine, own that. Say you love your hobby no matter what it’s affects are on others, positive or negative. But the facade of it as a reasoned position is insulting to everybody else.

 

Hobby?  Sure.  But it's also a constitutional right.  However I will say my constitutional rights end where yours begins.  People who use weapons to threaten or hurt/kill others illegally should face the harshest penalties.  Also, I object to your take that I ignore the data.  I have a different view of the data.   For instance, you may view gun suicides as gun violence, but I view them as simply suicide.  

[mclumber1]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

You can't be this stupid, America's gun problem is the worlds gun problem, they even end up in the UK.

 

Some end up in the UK. Most of the guns that are seized in the UK are from Eastern Europe however. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Imagine thinking that US political intervention in central and south America has no effect on gun violence in the region. When was the last time we armed, trained, and funded Canadian separatist or anti-communist/pro-american Capitalism groups? And I don't need to remind you of our operations vis a vi the drug war in the region, too.

 

It's fundamentally stupid to compare Canada and anything south of the Rio grande. To say nothing of our economic exploitation of the global south and the effects of that on their poverty, which has been acknowledged in this thread to contribute to crime, including gun related crime

[skillzdadirecta]

3 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

1.  Latin America's access to guns is the same as Canada's access to guns.  Canada's gun violence rate is a fraction of both America's and Latin America's,  yet has more liberal (IE looser) gun control laws compared to Latin America.   

 

2. WUT?  If Arkansas tried to pass an abortion restriction, you would be absolutely right that the restriction they are putting in place today is a step towards a total ban.  Every single liberal on this board recognizes these conniving laws for what they are, and speak out of them. 

 

3.  Again, you all are attacking the wrong problem here.  If you want to have the most impact on gun violence, you need to work on the issues that cause gun violence.  Banning certain firearms or attempting to will just cause a swing in voter sympathy an election cycle from now - just like what happened with the 94 election.  

 

 

Hobby?  Sure.  But it's also a constitutional right.  However I will say my constitutional rights end where yours begins.  People who use weapons to threaten or hurt/kill others illegally should face the harshest penalties.  Also, I object to your take that I ignore the data.  I have a different view of the data.   For instance, you may view gun suicides as gun violence, but I view them as simply suicide.  

I've given up on hoping anything will change with America's gun addiction. When a bunch of dead first graders didn't move the needle I knew it was a fool's errand then. Maybe a generation from now but not now. Guns are too integral to too many modern American's identities. No amount of evidence will change that. 

[Jason]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Mass shooters need them. And literally the military. It’s one of the more bizarre things that gun people clamor for.

 

Good guy with a gun wet drrams. 

[skillzdadirecta]

34 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Good guy with a gun wet drrams. 

The Punisher needs them too... and Max Payne. Oh! and John Wick... scratch that, John doesn't miss. He don't need extra bullets.

[Jason]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

The Punisher needs them too... and Max Payne. Oh! and John Wick... scratch that, John doesn't miss. He don't need extra bullets.

 

Imagine if that one awesome scene in The Matrix had been limited to pussy ass libcuck baby mags 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Imagine if that one awesome scene in The Matrix had been limited to pussy ass libcuck baby mags 

 Neo didn't reload he just threw the guns away as he emptied the clips. That's what REAL MEN do. Have so many gunz you don't even NEED to reload... just toss them bitches away.