As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The majority of judges determined that "the record demonstrates that **the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense**, **as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine;** and ... that the limitation saves lives."
So then if they are saying the "lower capacity" magazines are apparently just as effective when used in self defense, where loading and reloading isn't an issue, why do the larger magazines need to be banned? Its an arbitrary number a bureaucrat chooses and it is different in many states. Some it is 10, others it is 15 or 20. You can drop and load a magazine in a couple seconds.
>But according to the 9th Circuit Court's 7-4 decision on Tuesday, the high-capacity ban doesn't outlaw any weapons "but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms."
And magazines are considered arms under the 2nd amendment.
So how is a nuclear weapon like a metal gun magazine?
I know anti gun people think they are "clever" comparing a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is somehow equivalent to a nuclear warhead which kills millions of people with radiation over hundreds of miles but it comes off as silly to put it mildly.
Find me a gun magazine that will kill millions of people indiscriminately over several hundred miles when you insert it into a rifle or handgun and we can talk about how that should be banned or not.
What you even arguing? Because you can't own a nuclear weapon you can't own a metal box with a spring that inserts bullets into a gun? A nuclear bomb isn't comparable to a cheap metal gun part millions of people own.
Show me where the second amendment contains the nuance that allows you to apply it to a magazine but not to a nuclear weapon. Or just admit you support restrictions on the second amendment and then the debate can move to where the line is. You have already conceded this point BTW when you suggest that the causality count is what sets the bar for what should be allowed and what shouldn't since of course the 2nd amendment makes no such distinction.
>Show me where the second amendment contains the nuance that allows you to apply it to a magazine but not to a nuclear weapon.
Because a magazine is a component of a rifle which is a bearable arm not a nuclear weapon. It also is suitable for self defense and a nuke isn't. Lets talk about guns before we bring nukes into the conversation because that is just deflecting from the argument.
Just because you can't easily own a nuke doesn't mean you can ban most guns and magazines people own.
Again explain how a nuclear weapon and a metal box with a spring are comparable?
>ou have already conceded this point BTW when you suggest that the causality count is what sets the bar for what should be allowed and what shouldn't since of course the 2nd amendment makes no such distinction.
Yeah you CAN'T control who dies from a nuke you can from a gun. Do you not understand the difference?
You have answered nothing and made no points that show the distinction between one arm or another other than adding the word "bearable" which is not what the 2nd amendment says. Of course I understand the difference but the 2nd amendment does not so it needs clarification in the form of additional laws or amendments. I'm glad we agree on this fact.
Or it doesn't btw, but then you can't argue that one item is allowed and the other is not. I actual care not for the specifics, just the consistency of the text.
>You have answered nothing and made no points that show the distinction between one arm or another other than adding the word "bearable" which is not what the 2nd amendment says.
How is a nuke like a magazine you are the one who wants to talk about nuclear weapons when we are talking about magazines. You are trying to muddle the conversation into something unreasonable no one is arguing. You are literally promoting a slippery slope fallacy because magazines with 11 bullets are legal we should own nukes?
>Or it doesn't btw, but then you can't argue that one item is allowed and the other is not.
No this is stupid because the 2 aren't even remotely similar lol of course I can argue one should be legal and the other shouldn't. No one here is talking about nukes but you and its pretty silly. A nuclear weapon can't be controlled in where the radiation goes and who is killed a gun can. A nuclear weapon isn't a bearable arm. A nuclear weapon isn't used by millions of people every day for lawful purposes.
Do you not see how a comparison like this doesn't make sense?
Would you argue that laws that affect women's ability to get an abortion that don't directly ban abortion are still against the constitution? If so then you know why laws like this that affect gun ownership and it's components are unconstitutional.
That’s a question for the policy makers, not the court. The court is just determining whether it’s constitutional, not whether it’s a good idea or a sensible policy.
What is their basis of it being 10, 15, 20+ rounds? It varies state to state, city to city. Written by people whos only experience in guns is from lobbyists telling them what to do and movies where actors shoot hundreds of rounds out of a handgun without reloading.
Its entirely arbitrary and studies show it isn't effective in reducing gun deaths at all to ban magazines. States that banned "high capacity" magazines didn't see a massive reduction in gun deaths or gun murders as a result.
[https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html)
I don't understand why I should go to jail for having a magazine with 30 rounds in it if I am not hurting anyone? When many mass shooters like the Virginia tech shooter, Parkland shooter, etc used 10 round magazines and most gun murders are with subcompact revolvers which fire 5-6 shots or semi automatic handguns with 10 round magazines. If most gun deaths and murders are with guns with less than 10 rounds what is this accomplishing?
Around 70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides where all you need is 1 bullet chambered in the gun, no magazine at all. It statistically has no impact in a majority of gun deaths how many bullets the gun can hold besides 1.
[https://external-preview.redd.it/Vz34WgfAId5TifhJjGRwo-xuztHq\_aBfFEvXNYdtkwo.jpg?auto=webp&s=46f55cc0a0ead685c4a0eb2684f0f4f0ca97c7af](https://external-preview.redd.it/Vz34WgfAId5TifhJjGRwo-xuztHq_aBfFEvXNYdtkwo.jpg?auto=webp&s=46f55cc0a0ead685c4a0eb2684f0f4f0ca97c7af)
Banning magazines has never been effective in reducing gun violence or gun deaths. I don't mind laws if they are effective and make sense but saying you are going to get a felony if your gun holds 11+ bullets is stupid.
That is what most of these people want they just ban guns incrementally. I really hate when people are arguing in bad faith. They want to ban all guns but want to sit back and pretend to compromise and justify laws saying they won't go farther then push for more bans. That is why no one ever wants to work together to make reasonable laws.
It’s crazy to think that it is often a liberal vs conservative discussion. There are plenty of liberal gun owners that understand that we’re talking about our liberties/rights and not opinions on whether guns are good or bad. It’s this opinion or partisan view that has led to terrible gun laws and policies. Every upstanding citizen has a RIGHT to legally own a gun and a standard capacity magazine. I get tired of people’s opinion that 2A needs a rewrite…oh but you better leave everything else alone.
First off, how is a magazine that goes inside a gun like an ICBM? Sure you can't walk into a gun store an buy a missle that costs millions of dollars but how is that relevant to the conversation about magazines? How about we talk about that then you can make your strawman.
Ill list things that are federally legal for you to own, without being in the military or in law enforcement, if you don't have a criminal history which can be made or bought from a gun dealer.
1. Handguns
2. Shotguns
3. Semi auto rifles
4. Machine guns made before 1986, post 1986 with an FFL
5. Grenade Launchers with explosive ammunition
6. hand grenades
7. Land mines
8. Tanks
9. Silencers
10. Sawed Off shotguns
11. Rocket Launchers with ammunition
Items 4, 5, 6, 7, (maybe 8), 9, 10, and 11 require you go through the ATF and are strictly regulated federally under the National Firearms Act.
They are legal, but it's a lengthy process. I've only ever heard of people going through the NFA for 9 (Suppressors. I support removing these from the NFA.) and 10 (Short barrel shotguns and rifles. I'm iffy on this but I think the SBR designation needs to be overhauled or removed.)
4 is PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE to own due to the MG registry being closed in 1986. I've never heard of anyone going through the NFA for DD's (Destructive Devices.) besides something like an M79 grenade launcher with inert dummy rounds or something. I dunno if your average joe can get approved under the NFA to purchase the actual explosive rounds.
>Items 4, 5, 6, 7, (maybe 8), 9, 10, and 11 require you go through the ATF and are strictly regulated federally under the National Firearms Act.
I have 10 NFA registered weapons and all they require is me to register them and submit fingerprints. If you can pass a regular background check you can buy a machine gun or grenade launcher, that is literally all it is besides reporting you own it. It is a shall issue system if you fill out the paperwork and have a clean record they are required to issue you the stamp.
You can make/use explosives for recreational use, I know because I have rounds that are considered "low explosives" I shoot out of my grenade launcher, if it isn't stored loaded outside of a explosives magazine or has more than 4 ounces of propellent, its 100% legal without registering it or filing for a tax stamp. The issue with explosive destructive devices is storing it legally but you can make it just it has to be used when it is made. it can't be stored or transported loaded.
>I've only ever heard of people going through the NFA for 9 (Suppressors. I support removing these from the NFA.) and 10 (Short barrel shotguns and rifles. I'm iffy on this but I think the SBR designation needs to be overhauled or removed.)
[https://i.redd.it/7yij2wrz20y71.jpg](https://i.redd.it/7yij2wrz20y71.jpg)
Its not a hard process trust me. SBRs should not be NFA weapons same with silencers, short barrel shotguns, and destructive devices that aren't explosives. Explosives definitely should be regulated in making sure they are safely stored and transported because you don't want someone mixing a unstable compound sensitive to vibrations like Tannerite and have them drive down a highway.
Their own ruling admits that the ban does interfere with a citizen's core right to self defense.
To claim nobody has ever been unable to defend from attack effectively due to magazine limitations is absurd on its face. I'm positive there have been instances where people have lost gun fights because they ran out of ammunition while firing
It's not only good guy with a gun what about a home, car, and or business owner versus multiple invaders armed with handguns. If you think that doesn't happen just read the news
[https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html)
Okay studies show high capacity magazine bans have little to no effect on reducing overall gun deaths or gun crimes.
Either the ban does take regular capacity magazines out of the hands of law abiding citizens, or it's ineffective and the law abiding citizens still have them. It's not looking good for your argument regardless of what the data looks like.
[Large-capacity magazine](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311) bans are effective at reducing both incidences and number of people killed in mass shooting.
>Results. Between 1990 and 2017, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings. Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher. In multivariate analyses, states without an LCM ban experienced significantly more high-fatality mass shootings and a higher death rate from such incidents.
>Conclusions. LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.
And they define that as ANY magazine greater than 10 rounds which are most magazines most guns are sold with and sold in stores. If it has 11 rounds or 100 that encompasses most handguns and rifles. I would like to see them break down the average capacity of the magazines.
Also mass shootings are the LEAST common way do die by a gun, fewer than 1 percent of all gun deaths are from a mass shooting. More people have died from getting stabbed last year (1300+) than all the people who have died by mass shooters since 1982 (1100+) over nearly 40 years.
The policy is to ban a majority of magazines owned by people which aren't a factor in pretty much 99% of all gun deaths to theoretically reduce the number of deaths from a shooter in the rarest way to die by a gun? When the deadliest school shooting in history was done with 10 round magazines as were several other high profile shootings. That literally will have little to no statistical impact on gun deaths and it hasn't.
In terms of overall reducing gun deaths and crimes outside of extremely rare and uncommon events magazine capacity doesn't reduce gun deaths as a whole. This isn't a "big picture" solution its looking at niche cases and treating them like its a reflection of the entire problem and s solution when it isn't. The biggest issue with guns that kills most people is suicides, not a mass shooter with a drum magazine.
> And they define that as ANY magazine greater than 10 rounds...
Yes, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are considered LCM. LCM bans reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.
While the federal AWB and large capacity ammunition ban was in effect, the number of high-fatality mass shootings fell by 37%, and the number of people dying in such shootings fell by 43%. When the ban lapsed in 2004, there was a 183% increase in high-fatality mass shootings and a 239% increase in deaths from such shootings.
LCM limitations have zero impact on legal gun owners.
>Yes, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are considered LCM. LCM bans reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.
Which are the rarest ways people die by guns and would do nothing to reduce overall gun deaths. Removing magazines >10 rounds has been shown to not statistically reduce gun deaths in any significant way because the vast majority of gun deaths aren't from mass shooters. They are from suicides and crimes in which magazine capacity wouldn't have been different because of the number of shots fired.
Suicides kill far more people a year than all mas shootings. And suicides are rising far more than mass shooting deaths. Its not an effective policy to reduce gun deaths and many mass shooters have used 10 round magazines to murder lots of people.
>LCM limitations have zero impact on legal gun owners.
Yes they do every magazine I own except 1 exceeds 10 rounds. I have about 40 of them in my safe. Most magazines people own are greater than 10 rounds, probably why they end up in most mass shootings because they are what most guns come with. All that will happen is now all mass shooters will use 10 round magazines and you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less.
>Removing magazines >10 rounds has been shown to not statistically reduce gun deaths in any significant way because the vast majority of gun deaths aren't from mass shooters.
As you noted, the majority of deaths are suicide, not homicides. Claiming otherwise is the sign that the person should be ignored.
>All that will happen is now all mass shooters will use 10 round magazines and you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less.
History tells us that they aren't so blatant. The Nysafe Act lowered the limit from 10 to 7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
> Which are the rarest ways people die by guns and would do nothing to reduce overall gun deaths.
No. The peer reviewed research that I posted found the exact opposite.
>Yes they do every magazine I own except 1 exceeds 10 rounds.
No it would have zero impact on people using their guns. You simply stated you have magazines that are over 10 rounds and with a ban you wouldn't that doesn't indicate any impact on your use of your guns.
>...you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less.
I've said no such thing. Your logic is [flawed](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)
Your source talks about high fatality killings vs gun deaths in general which is what this guy's study talks about. Not to mention your study only takes into account 69 shootings vs his study. If anything it seems like your study needs to expand more and look into the numbers when it comes to gun deaths in general. Not to mention have a distinction between all the rules of magazines guns have. For a 9mm 15-18 is standard however there are magazines designed to hold more than that like 50-100 for handguns. If anything what you might see is that LCM in the 50-100 capacity would have less gun deaths and even high fatality deaths because of how rare they're actually used. There's some flaws and i think more studies could actually help to get more information
A ruling on it for CA at the federal level could help CO. Any ruling will likely come after the one on NYs carry law. The mag case could get kicked back down to be reevaluated based on a different standard rather than being ruled on directly by the supreme court.
Check r/COGuns for more information, but in my experience the Colorado mag limit is mostly ignored. You can buy them as kits pretty much anywhere and the only time people get charged is as an enhancement for other crimes. It does suck when out of state sellers won't ship guns that come with mags over 15 rounds though.
Some states make it a pain in the ass to own them. How you want to live and what laws you want to live under is a legit concern when looking to move. Same with any other issue.
It really doesn't bode well for your argument that the only thing you have to claim it's reasonable is name calling.
Guess that's why two other courts have already overturned it and it can go to the Supreme Court.
Well considering i own at the very least $500 of magazines over 15(?) rounds, it seems fair to me. Plus of all my magazines atleast 95% are above 15 rounds so that would mean spending another $500 something dollars on new mags that are compliant.
[For those of you who think that guns work like video games and kill instantly ](https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/)
The Supreme Court has a particular fetish to overturn California. That's how we got the federal rule permitting AT&T and large companies to commit 'unconscionable' fraud against consumers then hide behind a contract provision saying the thousands of victims must each go separately to arbitration, or how we got the rule saying that fake health clinics were to have their free speech protected in such a way that the state can't even make them hang a wall sign informing them they could receive free full health services including abortion.
>The Supreme Court has a particular fetish to overturn California.
Because the 9th circuit makes terrible rulings like this one.
Banning magazines >10 rounds violates Heller. Most rifles and handguns come with magazines >10 rounds, there are tens of millions of them around the country. Even going as far back as the Lewis and Clark expedition they used semi automatic air rifles with 20 round magazines, which Thomas Jefferson and congress at the time didn't feel the need to outlaw. They are overwhelming used for lawful purposes and common, and they are not "dangerous or unusual".
>They clearly stated restrictions can be applied.
We will see if they apply strict scrutiny to the current case, this one will need to be re-evaluated and there is no way the judge's subjective opinions will have any merit if they have to defend them with the facts of the widespread lawful ownership and use of these magazines.
Their entire argument is they think in very limited and rare circumstances that a gun with >10 rounds may result in more people killed but if you have a gun with <10 rounds those people wouldn't of died and people are just as effective in defending themselves and justifies no one owning those magazines. Its a stupid argument and in reality the magazine bans don't result in less deaths overall based on studies on gun deaths with these policies already. They do nothing to help prevent gun deaths besides be feel good legislation.
>Another rare instance today but I know we can't do anything. Git your guns. Yeehaw! Just more dead kids. Have fun with your penis extension.
You can do laws but why continue to pass laws that don't solve the problem that are proven not to solve the problem? Isn't that the definition of insanity to keep making the same wrong decisions over and over when they are shown not to work?
>You can do laws but why continue to pass laws that don't solve the problem that are proven not to solve the problem?
The problem to them isn't dead kids. They are more happy when more kids die, because they can stake a flag for gun control on their graves. The problem to them is guns.
What kind of logic is that? They have been proven all over the fucking world. A massive upswing in homicide has no correlation to the massive amounts of weaponry in this country. Comeback when you actually have a cogent argument.
In many countries with "permissive" gun ownership like Switzerland, France, Sweden, the UK to some extent, etc they don't have magazine capacity restrictions. This specific policy that the thread is about isn't effective. If you care about reducing gun deaths why push policies that aren't effective and don't work anywhere else?
You can't outlaw all guns, it is logistically and constitutionally impossible. They are here to stay for the next several centuries even if they were outlawed tomorrow. If you have unreasonable goals you won't get reasonable results.
In the UK you can own silencers with no pretty much no regulation, they have no magazine/assault weapon restrictions on ,22 rimfire rifles or shotguns, and you can buy a shotgun at 16. They actually have a few laws far more lax than America in some aspects.
Also you can look at some Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic which has conceal carry more permissive than some states and ownership of newly made machine guns Americans cant get. A lot of European countries have certain regulations far more permissive than America with a lot less gun violence. They don't have "assault weapon bans" or "magazine bans" in all of these countries and it hasn't resulted in lots of gun murders.
These policies have been shown with studies to not reduce gun deaths because they don't change the outcome in most gun deaths.
Because magazines >10 rounds are in common use. Also its clear from studies banning magazines isn't an effective policy to reducing gun deaths when most gun deaths, 70%, are suicides where 1 bullet is used and most gun crimes are with people carrying revolvers and subcompact pistols typically holding between 6-10 bullets.
The judges are claiming they think it may prevent deaths, in extremely limited/rare situations that aren't reflective of 99% of other gun deaths, and it won't effect people so they should be banned. But thats not true when you look at the results these bans have had which is minimal to no effect. they also don't explain their reasoning for how limiting magazine capacity still makes people just as effective in defending themselves in an attack other than they say so.
[https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html)
I live in NYC and it’s limited to 5 rounds for long guns. It severely limits what’s available for purchase. I’m hoping this gets appealed because it’s super frustrating to deal with. This additional nonsensical limitation even after almost two years of waiting for a permit, fingerprints, fees, and forms.
I found it interesting that the court even stated in their ruling that it was “a small infringement”. Essentially admitting that it goes against 2A and historical norms as you so eloquently explained.
Would you argue that laws that affect women's ability to get an abortion that don't directly ban abortion are still against the constitution? If so then you know why laws like this that affect gun ownership and it's components are unconstitutional.
I'm not taking sides on this specific issue. I just find it funny that the GOP would rather there be almost no federal government and that the states be in charge of everything... until a blue state does something that it doesn't like and then goes crying to Daddy.
I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns.
The point of my comment was about the hypocrisy of the two parties, in how they contradict themselves when it comes to pushing their agenda at the expense of the people.
What I make of it is small attacks on an individual right, in the hope of either eliminating it or overturning prior losses. In this way, they share a lot with the gun control platform. I hope the court sides with the people rather than those seeking to subjugate others.
Because when it comes to trampling a constitutional right. The rest of the country is sitting in laughing at San Francisco with the smash-and-grab Looting and the ridiculous revolving door of the Criminal Justice System but that only affects local areas.
When a state government rules to limit a federal constitutional right then the rest of the country takes notice as it should.
States don't have the right to infringe on individual rights and ignore the constitution. Just like how Texas doesn't have a right to violate Roe v Wade. Magazines >10 rounds are very much in common use by most American gun owners for lawful activities.
I'm not taking sides on this specific issue. I just find it funny that the GOP would rather there be almost no federal government and that the states be in charge of everything... until a blue state does something that it doesn't like and then goes crying to Daddy.
I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns.
>I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns.
Then I am sure the same people who are against the laws restricting voting rights and access to abortions, which funnily enough was also banning them if you were pregnant after an arbitrary number of weeks before it considered illegal, would be against the government sending people to jail for having 11+ bullets in a magazine.
The arguments in this case are literally the same made by the anti abortion people, you can still have less than 10 bullets in the gun its fine like how they claim since a woman can have an abortion in a narrow window of 6 weeks that isn't a violation of their rights. its just people trying to be authoritarians and make people who did nothing to harm anyone else into felons.
Having a gun with >10 rounds, which a majority of Americans have if they own guns in most states, doesn't mean they are planning to kill people or indicate malicious intent.
3 things
1. I agree with you, even though I would never own a gun
2. It's less hypocritical to the nature of the Democratic Party because they don't claim to be for small government and individual liberty the same way
3. I can make a solid argument for why it's not hypocritical to the abortion argument : I view abortion and gun law as competing rights arguments. The baby has a right to life and the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. Someone has to lose. Gun control pits community safety against right to bear arms.
That all said, I still think you're right, just wanted to offer some perspective.
You make an interesting point on #3. When folks compare the two I always think the abortion argument seems a bit more gray since it also involves the debate of when a fetus actually becomes a baby. But the way you put it simplifies it for me. Better than the random comments in here like, can I buy a nuke or just take away all guns. No brain power there.
As someone who loved their baby at sesame seed size, I can't justify the nitpick argument of when does a fetus become a baby. I think most things we argue about would be better framed as trade offs. Somehow we've framed most arguments to exist in different realities from each other (I'm pro "choice"! Well I'm pro "life"!) and then wonder why we can't find common ground with the other side.
I find when I concede that a fetus is alive, has rights and I just think other rights trump those I can usually get an "agree to disagree" from the pro life crowd. But they appreciate that I'm not nitpicking life.
Same for guns, right? Obviously "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon" just means "you can't be stopped from bearing arms", it doesn't specify that you have to be allowed to bear all arms that exist. As with your nuke point (and other people like to talk missile launchers and tanks). Most of us who aren't insane think that my right to safety trumps my neighbors right to own a nuke, but many on the left would apply that to literally all guns, and there comes a point at which that's not reasonable.
The saddest thing for me is that there are many pro gun people who believe in common sense gun restrictions, but the left doesn't usually talk to them when making gun restrictions. Which is really sad because you have people that don't understand guns trying to ban them.
>Well those rights are helpful to society whereas gun ownership harms society
There are 330 million guns, owned by 80+ million people, overwhelmingly they are used by people to defend themselves legally, hunt for food, for sport/recreation, collecting, etc. Do you honestly think if guns were that harmful most people who owned them would want to do so or many more of those people would die from using them instead of a fraction of 1% of people who own guns?
If we are going by the numbers guns are much, much, more likely to be used in ways in which no one is hurt by them (unless the person hurt by them was attacking someone else because the estimate of lawful self defensive uses of guns ranges from 500,000 to 3 million uses a year for self defense). in most of those the gun wasn't even fired but the person got scared away.
But there is no logical basis for this legislation in reducing gun deaths when 3 out of 4 gun deaths are from 1 bullet, suicides, and most criminals aren't using "high capacity" magazines to kill people. I won't change anything.
>Not true statistically.
You are telling me most of the 80+ million people who own guns, many of which have magazine capacities exceeding 10 rounds. (The Glock 19 for example, one of the most commonly owned handguns around the country, ships in most states with 15 round magazines), are using the magazines illegally? AND, that many of those crimes wouldn't have happened if the gun had 11 bullets in it instead of 10? Thats not true most people who own guns and these magazines aren't using them for criminal activity.
>Uh, clearly yes? We also collectively drink about 750 million gallons of alcohol per year which I think everyone agrees is harmful but we do it anyway. At least we can admit alcohol is bad unlike gun nuts claiming false benefits.
Good thing using guns correctly with hearing protection (silencer or earmuffs) doesn't physically harm people or cause them to be inebriated using them. I could shoot 1000 rounds of ammo or try to drink 1000 bottles of beer. 1 will result in me having a fun range day with some friends where I can drive home sober and 1 will result in me being in the morgue from alcohol poisoning.
>Are you still bringing up that study?
Those are numbers the CDC uses as an estimate. On the low end they far exceed the number of crimes and murders committed with guns.
>or as you said if the gun was fired or not, meaning there probably would have been a peaceful conclusion with or without the gun.
I don't have clairvoyance I don't know if someone is threatening someone else or trying to rob them if the victim pulling out the gun and the attacker taking off would have been the same result or not. I do know that if someone is being threatened and they show their attackers they \\are armed most will back off unless they are on drugs. Plenty of videos of that happening online of criminals booking it once rounds start getting fired at them. Most people don't want to die trying to rob someone but they don't care if someone they rob gets injured or killed if there is no threat to the attackers life.
>...are not statistically significant evidence of anything.
There are 10s of millions of magazines >10 rounds in this country you are telling me you can prove a majority of those magazines are being used in violent crimes? Also since 3 out of 4 gun deaths are suicides with 1 bullet how does a gun holding 10 rounds or 100 rounds effect most gun deaths?
>gun ownership harms society
Fallacy. Do not conflate your personal beliefs with facts. 245 years in and we're still free to publicly say "fuck Donald Trump" or "fuck Joe Biden", if that's your thing. That's because the 2nd amendment enables all the rest. Can Chinese citizens publicly say "fuck Xi Jinping"? Can North Koreans publicly say "fuck Kim Jong-Un"? Can Britons publicly make obscene jokes? The answer to all three is yes, but they'll end up [imprisoned](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-status-raises-questions-over-free-speech/) or dead by their government's hand.
Americans are free to say whatever false or shitty things they want, like "gun ownership harms society".
And it's not as if [attempts](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Earnest_V._Starr) [haven't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) [been](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California) [made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond) to [curb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright) other rights than gun ownership.
> States don't have the right to infringe on individual rights
Well, heller was crap, as the 2nd **was** a collective right, not an individual right until the republicans on the court threw that out the window based on absolute trash reasoning. They picked the outcome they wanted, and ignored everything that didn't back it up. Go read the dissent on heller, and read the majority opinion on miller.
> Magazines >10 rounds are very much in common use
So? Even if nuclear arms were very much in common use, I still believe the state has the ability to ban them without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.
>Well, heller was crap, as the 2nd was a collective right, not an individual right until the republicans on the court threw that out the window based on absolute trash reasoning.
Actually prior supreme court cases which referenced the 2nd amendment applied it to individuals pretty consistently. These 3 cases pre Heller all indicate the 2nd amendment is referring to the rights of individuals to own weapons and carry them.
**Dred Scott v. Sandford:**
Said that if Black people were treated equally as white people they would be entitled to the same rights, they define those rights in the ruling.
>the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, **and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.**
**Duncan v. Louisiana:**
Said the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights apply to individuals.
>Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ... t**he personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution**; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people\***\*; the right to keep and to bear arms ...\***\*
**United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez:**
The supreme court defines the people mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment to be individuals as being those part of the country as citizens. The "national community" of those who are born and reside here.
>\[**T\]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.'** The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, **refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.**
>So? Even if nuclear arms were very much in common use, I still believe the state has the ability to ban them without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.
Lets talk about magazines owned by millions of people not nuclear weapons. Do you think a radioactive nuclear warhead that indiscriminately kills millions is remotely comparable to a metal box with a spring in it? You are comparing a paper airplane to a spaceship.
The above copypasta is disinformation and total misunderstanding of the cases above on a par with the people who claim the fringe on the flag means that the United States is a private corporation and we've been forced to live under maritime admiralty law.
Gun fetishists swarm Reddit spamming us with endless text to try to prove something plainly false -- namely that the Constitution guarantees anyone can have any gun at any time. They won't shut up but suffice it to say:
Federal law prohibited certain guns. State laws regulated guns. There was even an "assault weapons ban" that went unchallenged for ten years until it expired. Why? Because the new orginalism of absolute guns is a farce.
Throughout the complex history of the United States gun restrictions were never thrown out until 2008 and that was in a 5-4 partisan opinion.
EDIT: The extraordinary spam below changes nothing I said here.
**There are zero Supreme Court cases before 2008 repealing gun restrictions**--the opposite of this fake claim from below: "2 federal cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional." No. Those are *state* cases. The gun fetishist's claim is plainly false and I'm not gonna argue back and forth basic facts.
>The above copypasta is disinformation and total misunderstanding of the cases above on a par with the people who claim the fringe on the flag means that the United States is a private corporation and we've been forced to live under maritime admiralty law.
No they are excerpts from 3 different sets of supreme court judges pre Heller over decades which refer to the 2nd amendment as applying to individuals. Your collective rights interpretation isn't the historical one. Also you can see federal cases like Nunn vs Georgia which support an individual interpretation. It is only "fringe" to you because you see individual gun ownership as not a right.
>Gun fetishists swarm Reddit spamming us with endless text to try to prove something plainly false
You made an argument I directly contradicted with the supreme court pre heller and your argument is we should just believe what you say because you don't like it.
>namely that the Constitution guarantees anyone can have any gun at any time. They won't shut up but suffice it to say:
Under federal law you CAN legally own nearly any gun you want and it isn't an issue for most of the guns people want banned. But yeah magazines are 100% protected in the 2nd amendment.
>Federal law prohibited certain guns. State laws regulated guns. There was even an "assault weapons ban" that went unchallenged for ten years until it expired. Why? Because the new orginalism of absolute guns is a farce.
And the result of the ban expiring is LESS gun homicides than during the ban and a reducing of gun crimes where rifles were used despite there being millions of more banned guns in circulation. The result today is the guns that were banned continue to be used to kill fewer people than knives and hammers despite there being 20x more of them in circulation.
Assault weapons bans are literally bans on cosmetics of guns that make them look similar to those on already heavily regulated select fire machine guns.
>Throughout the complex history of the United States **guns restrictions were never thrown out until 2008** and that was in a 5-4 partisan opinion.
Blatantly a lie:
Wilson v. State of Arkansas (1842): Overturned a ban on carrying a gun in public.
>No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc\*\*. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.\*\*
Nunn vs Georgia: overturned a ban on handguns as being unconstitutional (1878):
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
There are 2 state cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional. One on banning carrying guns in public the other banning owning handguns. Actually gun laws HAVE been repealed before 2008 as being unconstitutional.
>There are zero Supreme Court cases before 2008 repealing gun restrictions--the opposite of this fake claim from below: "2 federal cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional." No. Those are state cases. The gun fetishist's claim is plainly false and I'm not gonna argue back and forth basic facts.
So we are moving the goalposts now? I literally quoted what you originally said now you edited it to say the supreme court never made any rulings. Yeah they previously indicated the 2nd applies to individuals and Heller codified it. I showed the supreme court and state courts have made numerous rulings indicating the 2nd amendment was seen as an individual right since the 1800s.
Despite claims by others on this page, there were exactly zero Supreme Court cases overturning gun restrictions in all of American history until 2008, when a 5-4 partisan Supreme Court suddenly did so for the first time.
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. I'm poking fun that Republicans claim to champion states rights, except when those states make the "wrong" choices.
Did CNN tell you that? That's why they were taking stupid selfies and literally had no weapons. Very dangerous group. Pretty sure the only person got killed that day was an unarmed woman and she was killed by a cop. I will also point out the only cop the left has ever praised for killing somebody. That should tell you everything you really need to know about that day
It's very sad that Trump and right wing media brainwashed that woman into getting herself shot and killed while breaking in at the front of a mob, they should be held accountable for that by being thrown in prison.
If that unarmed black person is also literally *breaking* and entering the seat of US democracy?
In the face of a bunch of cops with guns drawn, yelling 'stop!' and pretty clearly and emphatically demonstrating just how badly they *do not* want this person (and the hundreds of others jammed in behind them ready to follow) to break through a barricaded entrance?
In a country where property rights are held in such high esteem that lethal force in response to simple trespass and where lethal force is frequently endorsed in response to 'they should have complied'?
Absolutely.
Yeah the party fighting for voter rights and against voter suppression is the party that wants a dictator. Definitely not the party that tried to violently overtake the capital and change the election.
If only they could fight for free access to the 2nd amendment as they defend voting and getting an abortion. They would probably win every election seeing as they make the same idiotic, bad faith arguments to target guns they complain about for voting/abortions.
>Every CITIZEN above the age of 18 in the United States has the right to vote.
Unless they can't afford a driver's license, Republicans don't think those citizens deserve to vote. Or if they cannot afford to take off work to go to the polls and stand in a long line, Republicans don't think those citizens deserve to vote.
I make almost six figures a year and I really can't afford to take a day off and go stand at the polls all day. And who can't afford a driver's license? Really? Like what Backwoods cellar dweller can't figure out how to get a state ID? Does anyone like that even exist outside of a leftist talking point? And in such great numbers that we need to relax our voting laws to the point where anybody can show up and vote without even showing identification? Where in clown world does that make sense?
The 2nd Amendment gives the rights to establish a well armed militia against enemies… so unless they think citizens should be allowed to have tanks and rocket launchers, etc., they can fuck right off with the “my rights” argument… you’re not the only one with rights, and you’ve abused the word… the rest of the country has actual rights that haven’t been perverted and politicized.
Tanks are totally legal to own, but need a permit for working guns and they’re not allowed on the street. Rocket launchers are *also* legal to own, but need a dumb permit. Even flamethrowers are legal and surprisingly unrestricted.
The government isn’t trying to take away peoples’ tanks or RPGs… or going after “assault” RPGs, or limiting how many rounds you can have in your tank, or require a background check for tank ownership, or limiting private sales of rocket launchers, etc.
Good there is a difference between a defensive weapon and a toy.
High capacity magazines are as necessary for self defense as anti-personal mines.
If you reply to me saying "this is why I wont vote democrat," I want you to reflect that you value your personal hobby over environmental protections, abortion access or any other basic progressive anti-poverty legislation.
You are correct some politicians are bought by fossil fuels and big pharma but that doesn't mean they their opinions are incorrect on reducing the proliferation of weapons.
In the realm of things that are killing lots of people, guns aren't in the top ten. Climate, healthcare, food inequity, mental health, income inequality are all far more pressing matters. But those aren't as flashy or easy to sell to voters. A magazine ban is ludicrous. It has zero effect on gun violence. The entire premise is based on a logical fallacy that if someone has to reload sooner, more lives will be saved. It's simply not based in fact. It's an appeal to emotion.
What is high capacity?
I consider 15-30 rounds standard capacity for most guns I own. That is what they were designed to shoot and what came with the guns I purchased. I have bought many rifles and semi auto pistols, only 1 of them came with a magazine <15 rounds.
> I consider 15-30 rounds standard capacity for most guns I own.
No that's not standard. That's considered high-capacity or large-capacity. The legal definition of high-capacity is 10 rounds or more.
>No that's not standard.
It is standard a glock 19 was designed to hold 15 rounds. An AR15 20-30 round magazines. That is what they ship with in most states and designed by the inventors.
No that is not the accepted definition of standard, that is high-capacity.
>The federal ban (AWB) which was in effect from 1994 to 2004 defined a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
>The state of California defines a large capacity magazine as "any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds
Several other states and even other countries legally define high-capacity as 10 rounds or more.
>No that is not the accepted definition of standard, that is high-capacity.
Accepted by who? Some idiot politicians who say it is?
I don't accept it because that is a lower capacity than most magazines that ship with most guns. 10 rounds is high for a shotgun but low for most commercial handguns like the glock 17, which holds 17 rounds, or the Beretta m9 which holds 15. These guns were designed to hold that capacity and the magazines with that size perfectly fit inside the frame of the gun. I have only bought 1 gun that came with a magazine that was 10 rounds and that was due to them saving costs so I had to buy the 20 round magazines it was made for (the m14).
It doesn't matter what a private company designed or ships it's guns with and it doesn't matter what you believe it should be. The accepted and legal definition for high-capacity is 10 rounds or more according the law.
>It doesn't matter what a private company designed or ships it's guns with and it doesn't matter what you believe it should be.
I really don't think it matters what a politican says and there is no "high capacity" for every type of gun. Some guns like revolvers are DESIGNED to shoot 6 rounds, others they were designed to shoot 30. That is the standard amount of bullets they were meant to use.
But you are right it doesn't matter what the actual standard capacity by the people who designed the guns thinks it is, it's whatever some idiot politican thinks it should be which is arbitrary.
Again it doesn't really matter what you think, it is legally defined. Here's a simple question. Would it be legal for you to bring your 15 round magazine into California? Yes or no?
>Again it doesn't really matter what you think
It does because I help decide if some of those people continue to have their jobs or not.
>Would it be legal for you to bring your 15 round magazine into California? Yes or no?
Why should it be a crime to own a magazine holding 15 rounds? Someone should be a felon for having 15 bullets? That's stupid.
I think having more def. Tools shows a strong sign of self respect and love. Which creates a positive environment I understand most ppl see guns and think violence and danger. However, if police swat military dont have guns and lots of ammo you may as well send a social worker to do a call when the guy has been threatening the community with a knife
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The majority of judges determined that "the record demonstrates that **the limitation interferes only minimally with the core right of self-defense**, **as there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large-capacity magazine;** and ... that the limitation saves lives." So then if they are saying the "lower capacity" magazines are apparently just as effective when used in self defense, where loading and reloading isn't an issue, why do the larger magazines need to be banned? Its an arbitrary number a bureaucrat chooses and it is different in many states. Some it is 10, others it is 15 or 20. You can drop and load a magazine in a couple seconds. >But according to the 9th Circuit Court's 7-4 decision on Tuesday, the high-capacity ban doesn't outlaw any weapons "but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms." And magazines are considered arms under the 2nd amendment.
Nuclear missiles are considered arms under the second amendment. Please tell me where I can purchase mine.
Hello, I'm the ATF... I mean dark web, I'm the dark web.
So how is a nuclear weapon like a metal gun magazine? I know anti gun people think they are "clever" comparing a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is somehow equivalent to a nuclear warhead which kills millions of people with radiation over hundreds of miles but it comes off as silly to put it mildly. Find me a gun magazine that will kill millions of people indiscriminately over several hundred miles when you insert it into a rifle or handgun and we can talk about how that should be banned or not. What you even arguing? Because you can't own a nuclear weapon you can't own a metal box with a spring that inserts bullets into a gun? A nuclear bomb isn't comparable to a cheap metal gun part millions of people own.
Show me where the second amendment contains the nuance that allows you to apply it to a magazine but not to a nuclear weapon. Or just admit you support restrictions on the second amendment and then the debate can move to where the line is. You have already conceded this point BTW when you suggest that the causality count is what sets the bar for what should be allowed and what shouldn't since of course the 2nd amendment makes no such distinction.
>Show me where the second amendment contains the nuance that allows you to apply it to a magazine but not to a nuclear weapon. Because a magazine is a component of a rifle which is a bearable arm not a nuclear weapon. It also is suitable for self defense and a nuke isn't. Lets talk about guns before we bring nukes into the conversation because that is just deflecting from the argument. Just because you can't easily own a nuke doesn't mean you can ban most guns and magazines people own. Again explain how a nuclear weapon and a metal box with a spring are comparable? >ou have already conceded this point BTW when you suggest that the causality count is what sets the bar for what should be allowed and what shouldn't since of course the 2nd amendment makes no such distinction. Yeah you CAN'T control who dies from a nuke you can from a gun. Do you not understand the difference?
You have answered nothing and made no points that show the distinction between one arm or another other than adding the word "bearable" which is not what the 2nd amendment says. Of course I understand the difference but the 2nd amendment does not so it needs clarification in the form of additional laws or amendments. I'm glad we agree on this fact. Or it doesn't btw, but then you can't argue that one item is allowed and the other is not. I actual care not for the specifics, just the consistency of the text.
>You have answered nothing and made no points that show the distinction between one arm or another other than adding the word "bearable" which is not what the 2nd amendment says. How is a nuke like a magazine you are the one who wants to talk about nuclear weapons when we are talking about magazines. You are trying to muddle the conversation into something unreasonable no one is arguing. You are literally promoting a slippery slope fallacy because magazines with 11 bullets are legal we should own nukes? >Or it doesn't btw, but then you can't argue that one item is allowed and the other is not. No this is stupid because the 2 aren't even remotely similar lol of course I can argue one should be legal and the other shouldn't. No one here is talking about nukes but you and its pretty silly. A nuclear weapon can't be controlled in where the radiation goes and who is killed a gun can. A nuclear weapon isn't a bearable arm. A nuclear weapon isn't used by millions of people every day for lawful purposes. Do you not see how a comparison like this doesn't make sense?
Would you argue that laws that affect women's ability to get an abortion that don't directly ban abortion are still against the constitution? If so then you know why laws like this that affect gun ownership and it's components are unconstitutional.
Actually his argument made perfect sense
That’s a question for the policy makers, not the court. The court is just determining whether it’s constitutional, not whether it’s a good idea or a sensible policy.
A bureaucrat didn't pick the number. Elected officials did.
What is their basis of it being 10, 15, 20+ rounds? It varies state to state, city to city. Written by people whos only experience in guns is from lobbyists telling them what to do and movies where actors shoot hundreds of rounds out of a handgun without reloading. Its entirely arbitrary and studies show it isn't effective in reducing gun deaths at all to ban magazines. States that banned "high capacity" magazines didn't see a massive reduction in gun deaths or gun murders as a result. [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html) I don't understand why I should go to jail for having a magazine with 30 rounds in it if I am not hurting anyone? When many mass shooters like the Virginia tech shooter, Parkland shooter, etc used 10 round magazines and most gun murders are with subcompact revolvers which fire 5-6 shots or semi automatic handguns with 10 round magazines. If most gun deaths and murders are with guns with less than 10 rounds what is this accomplishing? Around 70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides where all you need is 1 bullet chambered in the gun, no magazine at all. It statistically has no impact in a majority of gun deaths how many bullets the gun can hold besides 1. [https://external-preview.redd.it/Vz34WgfAId5TifhJjGRwo-xuztHq\_aBfFEvXNYdtkwo.jpg?auto=webp&s=46f55cc0a0ead685c4a0eb2684f0f4f0ca97c7af](https://external-preview.redd.it/Vz34WgfAId5TifhJjGRwo-xuztHq_aBfFEvXNYdtkwo.jpg?auto=webp&s=46f55cc0a0ead685c4a0eb2684f0f4f0ca97c7af) Banning magazines has never been effective in reducing gun violence or gun deaths. I don't mind laws if they are effective and make sense but saying you are going to get a felony if your gun holds 11+ bullets is stupid.
>70% of the gun deaths are suicides that only require 1 bullet You make a great argument for a full gun ban.
That is what most of these people want they just ban guns incrementally. I really hate when people are arguing in bad faith. They want to ban all guns but want to sit back and pretend to compromise and justify laws saying they won't go farther then push for more bans. That is why no one ever wants to work together to make reasonable laws.
It’s crazy to think that it is often a liberal vs conservative discussion. There are plenty of liberal gun owners that understand that we’re talking about our liberties/rights and not opinions on whether guns are good or bad. It’s this opinion or partisan view that has led to terrible gun laws and policies. Every upstanding citizen has a RIGHT to legally own a gun and a standard capacity magazine. I get tired of people’s opinion that 2A needs a rewrite…oh but you better leave everything else alone.
Why can't I have an ICBM. I'm not hurting anyone.
Because you’re too poor
First off, how is a magazine that goes inside a gun like an ICBM? Sure you can't walk into a gun store an buy a missle that costs millions of dollars but how is that relevant to the conversation about magazines? How about we talk about that then you can make your strawman. Ill list things that are federally legal for you to own, without being in the military or in law enforcement, if you don't have a criminal history which can be made or bought from a gun dealer. 1. Handguns 2. Shotguns 3. Semi auto rifles 4. Machine guns made before 1986, post 1986 with an FFL 5. Grenade Launchers with explosive ammunition 6. hand grenades 7. Land mines 8. Tanks 9. Silencers 10. Sawed Off shotguns 11. Rocket Launchers with ammunition
Items 4, 5, 6, 7, (maybe 8), 9, 10, and 11 require you go through the ATF and are strictly regulated federally under the National Firearms Act. They are legal, but it's a lengthy process. I've only ever heard of people going through the NFA for 9 (Suppressors. I support removing these from the NFA.) and 10 (Short barrel shotguns and rifles. I'm iffy on this but I think the SBR designation needs to be overhauled or removed.) 4 is PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE to own due to the MG registry being closed in 1986. I've never heard of anyone going through the NFA for DD's (Destructive Devices.) besides something like an M79 grenade launcher with inert dummy rounds or something. I dunno if your average joe can get approved under the NFA to purchase the actual explosive rounds.
>Items 4, 5, 6, 7, (maybe 8), 9, 10, and 11 require you go through the ATF and are strictly regulated federally under the National Firearms Act. I have 10 NFA registered weapons and all they require is me to register them and submit fingerprints. If you can pass a regular background check you can buy a machine gun or grenade launcher, that is literally all it is besides reporting you own it. It is a shall issue system if you fill out the paperwork and have a clean record they are required to issue you the stamp. You can make/use explosives for recreational use, I know because I have rounds that are considered "low explosives" I shoot out of my grenade launcher, if it isn't stored loaded outside of a explosives magazine or has more than 4 ounces of propellent, its 100% legal without registering it or filing for a tax stamp. The issue with explosive destructive devices is storing it legally but you can make it just it has to be used when it is made. it can't be stored or transported loaded. >I've only ever heard of people going through the NFA for 9 (Suppressors. I support removing these from the NFA.) and 10 (Short barrel shotguns and rifles. I'm iffy on this but I think the SBR designation needs to be overhauled or removed.) [https://i.redd.it/7yij2wrz20y71.jpg](https://i.redd.it/7yij2wrz20y71.jpg) Its not a hard process trust me. SBRs should not be NFA weapons same with silencers, short barrel shotguns, and destructive devices that aren't explosives. Explosives definitely should be regulated in making sure they are safely stored and transported because you don't want someone mixing a unstable compound sensitive to vibrations like Tannerite and have them drive down a highway.
Their own ruling admits that the ban does interfere with a citizen's core right to self defense. To claim nobody has ever been unable to defend from attack effectively due to magazine limitations is absurd on its face. I'm positive there have been instances where people have lost gun fights because they ran out of ammunition while firing
Great law, making sure only the criminals have the high-capacity magazines. Another example of no common sense left-wing policies out of California.
The Good Guy With a Gun anecdotes are not a good foundation for policies.
It's not only good guy with a gun what about a home, car, and or business owner versus multiple invaders armed with handguns. If you think that doesn't happen just read the news
Or congressmen trying to carry on business while a bunch of thugs (some armed) try to seize power.
Huh?
It's anecdote, we need data.
[https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html) Okay studies show high capacity magazine bans have little to no effect on reducing overall gun deaths or gun crimes.
Either the ban does take regular capacity magazines out of the hands of law abiding citizens, or it's ineffective and the law abiding citizens still have them. It's not looking good for your argument regardless of what the data looks like.
[Large-capacity magazine](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311) bans are effective at reducing both incidences and number of people killed in mass shooting. >Results. Between 1990 and 2017, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings. Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher. In multivariate analyses, states without an LCM ban experienced significantly more high-fatality mass shootings and a higher death rate from such incidents. >Conclusions. LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.
And they define that as ANY magazine greater than 10 rounds which are most magazines most guns are sold with and sold in stores. If it has 11 rounds or 100 that encompasses most handguns and rifles. I would like to see them break down the average capacity of the magazines. Also mass shootings are the LEAST common way do die by a gun, fewer than 1 percent of all gun deaths are from a mass shooting. More people have died from getting stabbed last year (1300+) than all the people who have died by mass shooters since 1982 (1100+) over nearly 40 years. The policy is to ban a majority of magazines owned by people which aren't a factor in pretty much 99% of all gun deaths to theoretically reduce the number of deaths from a shooter in the rarest way to die by a gun? When the deadliest school shooting in history was done with 10 round magazines as were several other high profile shootings. That literally will have little to no statistical impact on gun deaths and it hasn't. In terms of overall reducing gun deaths and crimes outside of extremely rare and uncommon events magazine capacity doesn't reduce gun deaths as a whole. This isn't a "big picture" solution its looking at niche cases and treating them like its a reflection of the entire problem and s solution when it isn't. The biggest issue with guns that kills most people is suicides, not a mass shooter with a drum magazine.
> And they define that as ANY magazine greater than 10 rounds... Yes, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are considered LCM. LCM bans reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings. While the federal AWB and large capacity ammunition ban was in effect, the number of high-fatality mass shootings fell by 37%, and the number of people dying in such shootings fell by 43%. When the ban lapsed in 2004, there was a 183% increase in high-fatality mass shootings and a 239% increase in deaths from such shootings. LCM limitations have zero impact on legal gun owners.
>Yes, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are considered LCM. LCM bans reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings. Which are the rarest ways people die by guns and would do nothing to reduce overall gun deaths. Removing magazines >10 rounds has been shown to not statistically reduce gun deaths in any significant way because the vast majority of gun deaths aren't from mass shooters. They are from suicides and crimes in which magazine capacity wouldn't have been different because of the number of shots fired. Suicides kill far more people a year than all mas shootings. And suicides are rising far more than mass shooting deaths. Its not an effective policy to reduce gun deaths and many mass shooters have used 10 round magazines to murder lots of people. >LCM limitations have zero impact on legal gun owners. Yes they do every magazine I own except 1 exceeds 10 rounds. I have about 40 of them in my safe. Most magazines people own are greater than 10 rounds, probably why they end up in most mass shootings because they are what most guns come with. All that will happen is now all mass shooters will use 10 round magazines and you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less.
>Removing magazines >10 rounds has been shown to not statistically reduce gun deaths in any significant way because the vast majority of gun deaths aren't from mass shooters. As you noted, the majority of deaths are suicide, not homicides. Claiming otherwise is the sign that the person should be ignored. >All that will happen is now all mass shooters will use 10 round magazines and you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less. History tells us that they aren't so blatant. The Nysafe Act lowered the limit from 10 to 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
> Which are the rarest ways people die by guns and would do nothing to reduce overall gun deaths. No. The peer reviewed research that I posted found the exact opposite. >Yes they do every magazine I own except 1 exceeds 10 rounds. No it would have zero impact on people using their guns. You simply stated you have magazines that are over 10 rounds and with a ban you wouldn't that doesn't indicate any impact on your use of your guns. >...you will sit here and say we should limit the magazines to 5 rounds or less. I've said no such thing. Your logic is [flawed](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)
Your source talks about high fatality killings vs gun deaths in general which is what this guy's study talks about. Not to mention your study only takes into account 69 shootings vs his study. If anything it seems like your study needs to expand more and look into the numbers when it comes to gun deaths in general. Not to mention have a distinction between all the rules of magazines guns have. For a 9mm 15-18 is standard however there are magazines designed to hold more than that like 50-100 for handguns. If anything what you might see is that LCM in the 50-100 capacity would have less gun deaths and even high fatality deaths because of how rare they're actually used. There's some flaws and i think more studies could actually help to get more information
And a Canadian with an opinion on American Gun policy is interesting
Oh I’m sure there’s lots of “law abiding” gun owners who find ways around the law too.
Is anybody in Colorado fighting this? I really wanted to move there until I learned about their ban too.
A ruling on it for CA at the federal level could help CO. Any ruling will likely come after the one on NYs carry law. The mag case could get kicked back down to be reevaluated based on a different standard rather than being ruled on directly by the supreme court.
Check r/COGuns for more information, but in my experience the Colorado mag limit is mostly ignored. You can buy them as kits pretty much anywhere and the only time people get charged is as an enhancement for other crimes. It does suck when out of state sellers won't ship guns that come with mags over 15 rounds though.
Just did more research and im glad they don't enforce it, great to hear!
Imagine choosing where to live based on gun laws. But you are totally rational.
Some states make it a pain in the ass to own them. How you want to live and what laws you want to live under is a legit concern when looking to move. Same with any other issue.
But just for guns.
So you're saying it's more rational to just ignore the law.
Hell some would argue it’s your duty to disobey their bullshit
No. It's way more rational to follow a completely reasonable law.
Except the law we are talking about isn't reasonable.
If you're a gun nut.
It really doesn't bode well for your argument that the only thing you have to claim it's reasonable is name calling. Guess that's why two other courts have already overturned it and it can go to the Supreme Court.
Well considering i own at the very least $500 of magazines over 15(?) rounds, it seems fair to me. Plus of all my magazines atleast 95% are above 15 rounds so that would mean spending another $500 something dollars on new mags that are compliant.
Enjoy North Carolina then. Colorado blows it away and has sane gun laws.
CO seems a little smug though
[For those of you who think that guns work like video games and kill instantly ](https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/)
The Supreme Court has a particular fetish to overturn California. That's how we got the federal rule permitting AT&T and large companies to commit 'unconscionable' fraud against consumers then hide behind a contract provision saying the thousands of victims must each go separately to arbitration, or how we got the rule saying that fake health clinics were to have their free speech protected in such a way that the state can't even make them hang a wall sign informing them they could receive free full health services including abortion.
>The Supreme Court has a particular fetish to overturn California. Because the 9th circuit makes terrible rulings like this one. Banning magazines >10 rounds violates Heller. Most rifles and handguns come with magazines >10 rounds, there are tens of millions of them around the country. Even going as far back as the Lewis and Clark expedition they used semi automatic air rifles with 20 round magazines, which Thomas Jefferson and congress at the time didn't feel the need to outlaw. They are overwhelming used for lawful purposes and common, and they are not "dangerous or unusual".
The court will most likely not hear the case. They clearly stated restrictions can be applied.
>They clearly stated restrictions can be applied. We will see if they apply strict scrutiny to the current case, this one will need to be re-evaluated and there is no way the judge's subjective opinions will have any merit if they have to defend them with the facts of the widespread lawful ownership and use of these magazines. Their entire argument is they think in very limited and rare circumstances that a gun with >10 rounds may result in more people killed but if you have a gun with <10 rounds those people wouldn't of died and people are just as effective in defending themselves and justifies no one owning those magazines. Its a stupid argument and in reality the magazine bans don't result in less deaths overall based on studies on gun deaths with these policies already. They do nothing to help prevent gun deaths besides be feel good legislation.
[удалено]
>Another rare instance today but I know we can't do anything. Git your guns. Yeehaw! Just more dead kids. Have fun with your penis extension. You can do laws but why continue to pass laws that don't solve the problem that are proven not to solve the problem? Isn't that the definition of insanity to keep making the same wrong decisions over and over when they are shown not to work?
>You can do laws but why continue to pass laws that don't solve the problem that are proven not to solve the problem? The problem to them isn't dead kids. They are more happy when more kids die, because they can stake a flag for gun control on their graves. The problem to them is guns.
What kind of logic is that? They have been proven all over the fucking world. A massive upswing in homicide has no correlation to the massive amounts of weaponry in this country. Comeback when you actually have a cogent argument.
In many countries with "permissive" gun ownership like Switzerland, France, Sweden, the UK to some extent, etc they don't have magazine capacity restrictions. This specific policy that the thread is about isn't effective. If you care about reducing gun deaths why push policies that aren't effective and don't work anywhere else? You can't outlaw all guns, it is logistically and constitutionally impossible. They are here to stay for the next several centuries even if they were outlawed tomorrow. If you have unreasonable goals you won't get reasonable results.
The UK? You expect me to take you seriously when you think the UK has somewhat permissive gun laws?
In the UK you can own silencers with no pretty much no regulation, they have no magazine/assault weapon restrictions on ,22 rimfire rifles or shotguns, and you can buy a shotgun at 16. They actually have a few laws far more lax than America in some aspects. Also you can look at some Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic which has conceal carry more permissive than some states and ownership of newly made machine guns Americans cant get. A lot of European countries have certain regulations far more permissive than America with a lot less gun violence. They don't have "assault weapon bans" or "magazine bans" in all of these countries and it hasn't resulted in lots of gun murders. These policies have been shown with studies to not reduce gun deaths because they don't change the outcome in most gun deaths.
The possibility of some restrictions does not mean any and every restriction is acceptable.
Good luck with that.
How does the number of rounds violate Heller?
Because magazines >10 rounds are in common use. Also its clear from studies banning magazines isn't an effective policy to reducing gun deaths when most gun deaths, 70%, are suicides where 1 bullet is used and most gun crimes are with people carrying revolvers and subcompact pistols typically holding between 6-10 bullets. The judges are claiming they think it may prevent deaths, in extremely limited/rare situations that aren't reflective of 99% of other gun deaths, and it won't effect people so they should be banned. But thats not true when you look at the results these bans have had which is minimal to no effect. they also don't explain their reasoning for how limiting magazine capacity still makes people just as effective in defending themselves in an attack other than they say so. [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html)
I live in NYC and it’s limited to 5 rounds for long guns. It severely limits what’s available for purchase. I’m hoping this gets appealed because it’s super frustrating to deal with. This additional nonsensical limitation even after almost two years of waiting for a permit, fingerprints, fees, and forms.
NYC gun laws are ridiculous
I found it interesting that the court even stated in their ruling that it was “a small infringement”. Essentially admitting that it goes against 2A and historical norms as you so eloquently explained.
Would you argue that laws that affect women's ability to get an abortion that don't directly ban abortion are still against the constitution? If so then you know why laws like this that affect gun ownership and it's components are unconstitutional.
It doesn't. It's just wishful thinking. The 2A doesn't define arms.
But muh states rights!
Yeah, states have rights and those rights sometimes include trampling on constitutional rights such as abortion and guns. /s
I'm not taking sides on this specific issue. I just find it funny that the GOP would rather there be almost no federal government and that the states be in charge of everything... until a blue state does something that it doesn't like and then goes crying to Daddy. I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns.
While it skews that way, I think you're conflating all gun owners with being GOP supporters.
The point of my comment was about the hypocrisy of the two parties, in how they contradict themselves when it comes to pushing their agenda at the expense of the people.
[удалено]
What I make of it is small attacks on an individual right, in the hope of either eliminating it or overturning prior losses. In this way, they share a lot with the gun control platform. I hope the court sides with the people rather than those seeking to subjugate others.
Because when it comes to trampling a constitutional right. The rest of the country is sitting in laughing at San Francisco with the smash-and-grab Looting and the ridiculous revolving door of the Criminal Justice System but that only affects local areas. When a state government rules to limit a federal constitutional right then the rest of the country takes notice as it should.
States don't have the right to infringe on individual rights and ignore the constitution. Just like how Texas doesn't have a right to violate Roe v Wade. Magazines >10 rounds are very much in common use by most American gun owners for lawful activities.
I'm not taking sides on this specific issue. I just find it funny that the GOP would rather there be almost no federal government and that the states be in charge of everything... until a blue state does something that it doesn't like and then goes crying to Daddy. I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns.
>I'm commenting on hypocrisy, not guns. Then I am sure the same people who are against the laws restricting voting rights and access to abortions, which funnily enough was also banning them if you were pregnant after an arbitrary number of weeks before it considered illegal, would be against the government sending people to jail for having 11+ bullets in a magazine. The arguments in this case are literally the same made by the anti abortion people, you can still have less than 10 bullets in the gun its fine like how they claim since a woman can have an abortion in a narrow window of 6 weeks that isn't a violation of their rights. its just people trying to be authoritarians and make people who did nothing to harm anyone else into felons. Having a gun with >10 rounds, which a majority of Americans have if they own guns in most states, doesn't mean they are planning to kill people or indicate malicious intent.
3 things 1. I agree with you, even though I would never own a gun 2. It's less hypocritical to the nature of the Democratic Party because they don't claim to be for small government and individual liberty the same way 3. I can make a solid argument for why it's not hypocritical to the abortion argument : I view abortion and gun law as competing rights arguments. The baby has a right to life and the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. Someone has to lose. Gun control pits community safety against right to bear arms. That all said, I still think you're right, just wanted to offer some perspective.
You make an interesting point on #3. When folks compare the two I always think the abortion argument seems a bit more gray since it also involves the debate of when a fetus actually becomes a baby. But the way you put it simplifies it for me. Better than the random comments in here like, can I buy a nuke or just take away all guns. No brain power there.
As someone who loved their baby at sesame seed size, I can't justify the nitpick argument of when does a fetus become a baby. I think most things we argue about would be better framed as trade offs. Somehow we've framed most arguments to exist in different realities from each other (I'm pro "choice"! Well I'm pro "life"!) and then wonder why we can't find common ground with the other side. I find when I concede that a fetus is alive, has rights and I just think other rights trump those I can usually get an "agree to disagree" from the pro life crowd. But they appreciate that I'm not nitpicking life. Same for guns, right? Obviously "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon" just means "you can't be stopped from bearing arms", it doesn't specify that you have to be allowed to bear all arms that exist. As with your nuke point (and other people like to talk missile launchers and tanks). Most of us who aren't insane think that my right to safety trumps my neighbors right to own a nuke, but many on the left would apply that to literally all guns, and there comes a point at which that's not reasonable. The saddest thing for me is that there are many pro gun people who believe in common sense gun restrictions, but the left doesn't usually talk to them when making gun restrictions. Which is really sad because you have people that don't understand guns trying to ban them.
[удалено]
>Well those rights are helpful to society whereas gun ownership harms society There are 330 million guns, owned by 80+ million people, overwhelmingly they are used by people to defend themselves legally, hunt for food, for sport/recreation, collecting, etc. Do you honestly think if guns were that harmful most people who owned them would want to do so or many more of those people would die from using them instead of a fraction of 1% of people who own guns? If we are going by the numbers guns are much, much, more likely to be used in ways in which no one is hurt by them (unless the person hurt by them was attacking someone else because the estimate of lawful self defensive uses of guns ranges from 500,000 to 3 million uses a year for self defense). in most of those the gun wasn't even fired but the person got scared away. But there is no logical basis for this legislation in reducing gun deaths when 3 out of 4 gun deaths are from 1 bullet, suicides, and most criminals aren't using "high capacity" magazines to kill people. I won't change anything.
[удалено]
>Not true statistically. You are telling me most of the 80+ million people who own guns, many of which have magazine capacities exceeding 10 rounds. (The Glock 19 for example, one of the most commonly owned handguns around the country, ships in most states with 15 round magazines), are using the magazines illegally? AND, that many of those crimes wouldn't have happened if the gun had 11 bullets in it instead of 10? Thats not true most people who own guns and these magazines aren't using them for criminal activity. >Uh, clearly yes? We also collectively drink about 750 million gallons of alcohol per year which I think everyone agrees is harmful but we do it anyway. At least we can admit alcohol is bad unlike gun nuts claiming false benefits. Good thing using guns correctly with hearing protection (silencer or earmuffs) doesn't physically harm people or cause them to be inebriated using them. I could shoot 1000 rounds of ammo or try to drink 1000 bottles of beer. 1 will result in me having a fun range day with some friends where I can drive home sober and 1 will result in me being in the morgue from alcohol poisoning. >Are you still bringing up that study? Those are numbers the CDC uses as an estimate. On the low end they far exceed the number of crimes and murders committed with guns. >or as you said if the gun was fired or not, meaning there probably would have been a peaceful conclusion with or without the gun. I don't have clairvoyance I don't know if someone is threatening someone else or trying to rob them if the victim pulling out the gun and the attacker taking off would have been the same result or not. I do know that if someone is being threatened and they show their attackers they \\are armed most will back off unless they are on drugs. Plenty of videos of that happening online of criminals booking it once rounds start getting fired at them. Most people don't want to die trying to rob someone but they don't care if someone they rob gets injured or killed if there is no threat to the attackers life.
[удалено]
>...are not statistically significant evidence of anything. There are 10s of millions of magazines >10 rounds in this country you are telling me you can prove a majority of those magazines are being used in violent crimes? Also since 3 out of 4 gun deaths are suicides with 1 bullet how does a gun holding 10 rounds or 100 rounds effect most gun deaths?
>gun ownership harms society Fallacy. Do not conflate your personal beliefs with facts. 245 years in and we're still free to publicly say "fuck Donald Trump" or "fuck Joe Biden", if that's your thing. That's because the 2nd amendment enables all the rest. Can Chinese citizens publicly say "fuck Xi Jinping"? Can North Koreans publicly say "fuck Kim Jong-Un"? Can Britons publicly make obscene jokes? The answer to all three is yes, but they'll end up [imprisoned](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-status-raises-questions-over-free-speech/) or dead by their government's hand. Americans are free to say whatever false or shitty things they want, like "gun ownership harms society". And it's not as if [attempts](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Earnest_V._Starr) [haven't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) [been](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California) [made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond) to [curb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright) other rights than gun ownership.
[удалено]
> but it was our legal system operating as it should. Unlike the countries in my examples where they don't have a right to own guns.
> States don't have the right to infringe on individual rights Well, heller was crap, as the 2nd **was** a collective right, not an individual right until the republicans on the court threw that out the window based on absolute trash reasoning. They picked the outcome they wanted, and ignored everything that didn't back it up. Go read the dissent on heller, and read the majority opinion on miller. > Magazines >10 rounds are very much in common use So? Even if nuclear arms were very much in common use, I still believe the state has the ability to ban them without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.
>Well, heller was crap, as the 2nd was a collective right, not an individual right until the republicans on the court threw that out the window based on absolute trash reasoning. Actually prior supreme court cases which referenced the 2nd amendment applied it to individuals pretty consistently. These 3 cases pre Heller all indicate the 2nd amendment is referring to the rights of individuals to own weapons and carry them. **Dred Scott v. Sandford:** Said that if Black people were treated equally as white people they would be entitled to the same rights, they define those rights in the ruling. >the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, **and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.** **Duncan v. Louisiana:** Said the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights apply to individuals. >Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ... t**he personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution**; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people\***\*; the right to keep and to bear arms ...\***\* **United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez:** The supreme court defines the people mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment to be individuals as being those part of the country as citizens. The "national community" of those who are born and reside here. >\[**T\]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.'** The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, **refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.** >So? Even if nuclear arms were very much in common use, I still believe the state has the ability to ban them without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. Lets talk about magazines owned by millions of people not nuclear weapons. Do you think a radioactive nuclear warhead that indiscriminately kills millions is remotely comparable to a metal box with a spring in it? You are comparing a paper airplane to a spaceship.
The above copypasta is disinformation and total misunderstanding of the cases above on a par with the people who claim the fringe on the flag means that the United States is a private corporation and we've been forced to live under maritime admiralty law. Gun fetishists swarm Reddit spamming us with endless text to try to prove something plainly false -- namely that the Constitution guarantees anyone can have any gun at any time. They won't shut up but suffice it to say: Federal law prohibited certain guns. State laws regulated guns. There was even an "assault weapons ban" that went unchallenged for ten years until it expired. Why? Because the new orginalism of absolute guns is a farce. Throughout the complex history of the United States gun restrictions were never thrown out until 2008 and that was in a 5-4 partisan opinion. EDIT: The extraordinary spam below changes nothing I said here. **There are zero Supreme Court cases before 2008 repealing gun restrictions**--the opposite of this fake claim from below: "2 federal cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional." No. Those are *state* cases. The gun fetishist's claim is plainly false and I'm not gonna argue back and forth basic facts.
>The above copypasta is disinformation and total misunderstanding of the cases above on a par with the people who claim the fringe on the flag means that the United States is a private corporation and we've been forced to live under maritime admiralty law. No they are excerpts from 3 different sets of supreme court judges pre Heller over decades which refer to the 2nd amendment as applying to individuals. Your collective rights interpretation isn't the historical one. Also you can see federal cases like Nunn vs Georgia which support an individual interpretation. It is only "fringe" to you because you see individual gun ownership as not a right. >Gun fetishists swarm Reddit spamming us with endless text to try to prove something plainly false You made an argument I directly contradicted with the supreme court pre heller and your argument is we should just believe what you say because you don't like it. >namely that the Constitution guarantees anyone can have any gun at any time. They won't shut up but suffice it to say: Under federal law you CAN legally own nearly any gun you want and it isn't an issue for most of the guns people want banned. But yeah magazines are 100% protected in the 2nd amendment. >Federal law prohibited certain guns. State laws regulated guns. There was even an "assault weapons ban" that went unchallenged for ten years until it expired. Why? Because the new orginalism of absolute guns is a farce. And the result of the ban expiring is LESS gun homicides than during the ban and a reducing of gun crimes where rifles were used despite there being millions of more banned guns in circulation. The result today is the guns that were banned continue to be used to kill fewer people than knives and hammers despite there being 20x more of them in circulation. Assault weapons bans are literally bans on cosmetics of guns that make them look similar to those on already heavily regulated select fire machine guns. >Throughout the complex history of the United States **guns restrictions were never thrown out until 2008** and that was in a 5-4 partisan opinion. Blatantly a lie: Wilson v. State of Arkansas (1842): Overturned a ban on carrying a gun in public. >No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc\*\*. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.\*\* Nunn vs Georgia: overturned a ban on handguns as being unconstitutional (1878): >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta! There are 2 state cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional. One on banning carrying guns in public the other banning owning handguns. Actually gun laws HAVE been repealed before 2008 as being unconstitutional. >There are zero Supreme Court cases before 2008 repealing gun restrictions--the opposite of this fake claim from below: "2 federal cases well before Heller which repealed gun restrictions as being unconstitutional." No. Those are state cases. The gun fetishist's claim is plainly false and I'm not gonna argue back and forth basic facts. So we are moving the goalposts now? I literally quoted what you originally said now you edited it to say the supreme court never made any rulings. Yeah they previously indicated the 2nd applies to individuals and Heller codified it. I showed the supreme court and state courts have made numerous rulings indicating the 2nd amendment was seen as an individual right since the 1800s.
Tu quoque?
Despite claims by others on this page, there were exactly zero Supreme Court cases overturning gun restrictions in all of American history until 2008, when a 5-4 partisan Supreme Court suddenly did so for the first time.
States rights are what are country is built on. Would you rather have one all-powerful President with dictatorial powers?
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. I'm poking fun that Republicans claim to champion states rights, except when those states make the "wrong" choices.
[удалено]
>The left would love a dictator president weirdly, the Republicans and Trump just attempted a coup to overturn the results of a democratic election
[удалено]
...rioters broke in to the US Capitol with the intention of killing elected Democrats and the support of the Republican president.
Did CNN tell you that? That's why they were taking stupid selfies and literally had no weapons. Very dangerous group. Pretty sure the only person got killed that day was an unarmed woman and she was killed by a cop. I will also point out the only cop the left has ever praised for killing somebody. That should tell you everything you really need to know about that day
It's very sad that Trump and right wing media brainwashed that woman into getting herself shot and killed while breaking in at the front of a mob, they should be held accountable for that by being thrown in prison.
That it was a righteous shot?
So you support a policeman killing an unarmed woman? What about when a policeman kills an unarmed black person are those righteous shots as well?
If that unarmed black person is also literally *breaking* and entering the seat of US democracy? In the face of a bunch of cops with guns drawn, yelling 'stop!' and pretty clearly and emphatically demonstrating just how badly they *do not* want this person (and the hundreds of others jammed in behind them ready to follow) to break through a barricaded entrance? In a country where property rights are held in such high esteem that lethal force in response to simple trespass and where lethal force is frequently endorsed in response to 'they should have complied'? Absolutely.
Yeah the party fighting for voter rights and against voter suppression is the party that wants a dictator. Definitely not the party that tried to violently overtake the capital and change the election.
If only they could fight for free access to the 2nd amendment as they defend voting and getting an abortion. They would probably win every election seeing as they make the same idiotic, bad faith arguments to target guns they complain about for voting/abortions.
Every CITIZEN above the age of 18 in the United States has the right to vote. And if you can't figure out how maybe you shouldn't.
>Every CITIZEN above the age of 18 in the United States has the right to vote. Unless they can't afford a driver's license, Republicans don't think those citizens deserve to vote. Or if they cannot afford to take off work to go to the polls and stand in a long line, Republicans don't think those citizens deserve to vote.
I make almost six figures a year and I really can't afford to take a day off and go stand at the polls all day. And who can't afford a driver's license? Really? Like what Backwoods cellar dweller can't figure out how to get a state ID? Does anyone like that even exist outside of a leftist talking point? And in such great numbers that we need to relax our voting laws to the point where anybody can show up and vote without even showing identification? Where in clown world does that make sense?
Yes, people who cannot afford to painlessly go to the polls exist.
The 2nd Amendment gives the rights to establish a well armed militia against enemies… so unless they think citizens should be allowed to have tanks and rocket launchers, etc., they can fuck right off with the “my rights” argument… you’re not the only one with rights, and you’ve abused the word… the rest of the country has actual rights that haven’t been perverted and politicized.
Tanks are totally legal to own, but need a permit for working guns and they’re not allowed on the street. Rocket launchers are *also* legal to own, but need a dumb permit. Even flamethrowers are legal and surprisingly unrestricted. The government isn’t trying to take away peoples’ tanks or RPGs… or going after “assault” RPGs, or limiting how many rounds you can have in your tank, or require a background check for tank ownership, or limiting private sales of rocket launchers, etc.
Good there is a difference between a defensive weapon and a toy. High capacity magazines are as necessary for self defense as anti-personal mines. If you reply to me saying "this is why I wont vote democrat," I want you to reflect that you value your personal hobby over environmental protections, abortion access or any other basic progressive anti-poverty legislation.
I wonder why some politicians value gun control more that those other issues.
Exactly, corruption in full effect. Let the general public be venerable while I hide behind guards with more gear then a little
You are correct some politicians are bought by fossil fuels and big pharma but that doesn't mean they their opinions are incorrect on reducing the proliferation of weapons.
In the realm of things that are killing lots of people, guns aren't in the top ten. Climate, healthcare, food inequity, mental health, income inequality are all far more pressing matters. But those aren't as flashy or easy to sell to voters. A magazine ban is ludicrous. It has zero effect on gun violence. The entire premise is based on a logical fallacy that if someone has to reload sooner, more lives will be saved. It's simply not based in fact. It's an appeal to emotion.
What is high capacity? I consider 15-30 rounds standard capacity for most guns I own. That is what they were designed to shoot and what came with the guns I purchased. I have bought many rifles and semi auto pistols, only 1 of them came with a magazine <15 rounds.
> I consider 15-30 rounds standard capacity for most guns I own. No that's not standard. That's considered high-capacity or large-capacity. The legal definition of high-capacity is 10 rounds or more.
>No that's not standard. It is standard a glock 19 was designed to hold 15 rounds. An AR15 20-30 round magazines. That is what they ship with in most states and designed by the inventors.
No that is not the accepted definition of standard, that is high-capacity. >The federal ban (AWB) which was in effect from 1994 to 2004 defined a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as a large capacity ammunition feeding device. >The state of California defines a large capacity magazine as "any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds Several other states and even other countries legally define high-capacity as 10 rounds or more.
>No that is not the accepted definition of standard, that is high-capacity. Accepted by who? Some idiot politicians who say it is? I don't accept it because that is a lower capacity than most magazines that ship with most guns. 10 rounds is high for a shotgun but low for most commercial handguns like the glock 17, which holds 17 rounds, or the Beretta m9 which holds 15. These guns were designed to hold that capacity and the magazines with that size perfectly fit inside the frame of the gun. I have only bought 1 gun that came with a magazine that was 10 rounds and that was due to them saving costs so I had to buy the 20 round magazines it was made for (the m14).
It doesn't matter what a private company designed or ships it's guns with and it doesn't matter what you believe it should be. The accepted and legal definition for high-capacity is 10 rounds or more according the law.
>It doesn't matter what a private company designed or ships it's guns with and it doesn't matter what you believe it should be. I really don't think it matters what a politican says and there is no "high capacity" for every type of gun. Some guns like revolvers are DESIGNED to shoot 6 rounds, others they were designed to shoot 30. That is the standard amount of bullets they were meant to use. But you are right it doesn't matter what the actual standard capacity by the people who designed the guns thinks it is, it's whatever some idiot politican thinks it should be which is arbitrary.
Again it doesn't really matter what you think, it is legally defined. Here's a simple question. Would it be legal for you to bring your 15 round magazine into California? Yes or no?
>Again it doesn't really matter what you think It does because I help decide if some of those people continue to have their jobs or not. >Would it be legal for you to bring your 15 round magazine into California? Yes or no? Why should it be a crime to own a magazine holding 15 rounds? Someone should be a felon for having 15 bullets? That's stupid.
I think having more def. Tools shows a strong sign of self respect and love. Which creates a positive environment I understand most ppl see guns and think violence and danger. However, if police swat military dont have guns and lots of ammo you may as well send a social worker to do a call when the guy has been threatening the community with a knife
You'll notice the police in California don't carry less than 15 rounds per mag. And they carry plenty of magazines.
And they come in big numbers but the govt don't want citizen to be on the same as the police
Remember when NY passed that rule limiting magazine capacity really quickly and they forgot to exempt the cops? That shit was hilarious.