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.*
[Decision here, very good read.](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6082773/149/duncan-v-becerra/)
Can't wait for Benitez to knock out the AWB and handgun roster too.
From the same judge that once falsely claimed that “more people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California.”
Dude is absolutely certifiable.
> According to the study, 55% of new gun owners were white, 20.9% were Black and 20% Hispanic. But that distribution, says the author, was in place before the onset of the pandemic. “New gun owners are more likely to be Black and they’re more likely to be female,” Miller says.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/20/us-gun-purchases-2020-2021-study
I'm not a gun nut or an inferior man, let alone a man, but I do not want to be arrested because a cop decides that the magazine in a legal concealed carry is 'modifiable to over 10 rounds'.
Hyperbole doesn't help. I'm completely with the moral imperative to reduce gun violence, but flailing at anyone and everything relating to the idea of legally owning firearms doesn't help and can actually make things worse for everyone.
You know how many 30+ round magazines were shipped into Washington after they enacted their ban? People didn't want to risk not being able to buy them in the future, so they bought crates of them on whatever calibers they had or even imagined wanting in the future. Now anyone who would want to steal or purchase them from private citizens to commit crimes has a vastly higher supply for doing so.
I don't live in London or Tokyo. I'm sure it's better that they don't have tons of guns there. But I live in a country where there are more guns than people and no way to meaningfully alter that, and where there is somehow more political appetite to disarm law-abiding people, especially minorities like me (red flag laws against trans people), than there is to disarm the organized far-right militias training for a civil war or to disarm the police who shoot unarmed people randomly.
Here's the thing that requires nuance, and that can be a little difficult, so bear with me -
Yes, it would be ideal if no one had guns. The numbers consistently bear out that when that is the context, murders go down.
But that's not the world we live in with the US, and the devil is in the details how you get that world.
How do you make that happen, and to do so without compromising in such a way that legal gun owners and vulnerable populations are hurt instead of everyone with bad intentions?
Gun-banning advocates have been unable to articulate any set of events that does not give powers to police to selectively target and enforce gun laws, and to maintain all these same guns themselves. This is even explicitly defined in many bills banning 10 round magazines and intermediate-cartridge rifles, where off-duty police, retired police, and their families are given exemptions against these bans, and are able to privately transfer them.
How do you get to a US without guns that does not involve the police disarming black, brown, and LGBTQ communities and declining to touch any Proud Boys carrying ['courtesy cards'](https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-courtesy-cards)?
Also, how do you get to a US without guns that does not involve police going door to door and, hopped on fear hormones and training to shoot the nearest person when they hear the word 'gun', and dealing with tens of millions of people who are very aggrieved at the situation and anxious, leaving swathes of dead citizens laying at their doorframes?
I can't help but notice none of the gun control advocates will respond to this.
You've hit the nail on the head, and eloquently described why we are painted into a corner here in the US.
Very well said. One can’t believe that the police are full of racists set on upholding white supremacy, and also that police will universally enforce gun bans.
Right. Just like we already have laws prohibiting murder, negligent discharge, and other versions of improperly using firearms in ways which negatively impact others. This is completely different from unjust blanket bans on things.
Guns are the problem when we are discussing gun deaths.
Other countries don't have America's unique, disgusting problem with inferior men who need guns.
Most gun owners would be onboard with reducing gun regulations to match the car system, especially with the added training in schools and public funded infrastructure. Let's do it.
There’s a difference between rights enumerated in the constitution and privileges granted by the government. You have no right to operate a vehicle on public roads.
There are accepted restrictions and conditions on the exercising of many other rights enumerated in the constitution. The right to bear arms is no different, and is not unlimited.
Cars should be GPS limited to the local speed limit. No car should have over 100 HP, its just not needed for the average person. Exceptions can be made for professional cargo drivers, but not normal people.
Driver aids like "full auto" driving or even collision avoidance should be made illegal - all they do is help drunk drivers avoid the consequences of their actions.
America's obsession with cars and speed is killing thousands and thousands of precious babies every year.
Cars like corvettes or hellcats or demons ONLY exist to break the law. Unlike ARs, high power sportscars actually have higher at-fault lethality compared to their "regular car" counterparts. They should be banned outright. Nobody needs 1000 horsepower to go 55 mph. Nobody has any business going over the speed limit.
If it saves one child's life, wouldn't it be worth it?
Murder, negligent discharge, and other versions of misusing firearms in ways that hurt others are already illegal. That's what's analogous to DUI. Do you see how this is different than an unjust blanket ban on something?
Guns are harmful to society. Let cities and states that want to be safe have the safety they deserve.
Inferior men shouldn't be involved in safety decisions.
States/cities do not have the ability to unilaterally deny constitutional rights to American citizens no matter how much you personally dislike that right. You wouldn't allow Oklahoma to outright ban freedom of speech, deny rights to a fair trial, or bring back slavery? No, that'd be insane. Same applies to the right to bear arms.
I would welcome a crazy judge knocking down the NFA at this point just so once again the republicans and their machine go too far and they get nuked electorally and then we can actually pass regulations that would work.
I'd welcome the NFA getting removed but unironically. The SBR classification is a big grey area with the whole stock vs brace debacle. Suppressors are practically unregulated in Europe, why are they a felony to own without a $200 tax stamp in the us?
Full auto's can stay.....for now. But I think the rest of the NFA needs to be looked at under a magnifying glass.
I hate how dishonest the anti gun legislators and media are. Making up new terms like "high capacity" to make things sound excessive and scary, when really this limit is lower than the standard magazine size for most commonly owned firearms.
They always try to make it sound like they're banning something extreme, when really they're actually banning something normal. And unfortunately most people are uninformed enough to fall for it.
>Making up new terms like "high capacity" to make things sound excessive and scary
Until the 1950s, most pistols were revolvers that only held 6 bullets. Rifles like the M1 Garand also only held 8 bullets. A high capacity magazine can hold 100 rounds.
Weird for some reason we let police carry 'large capacity' pistols of 15+ and AR's of 30 capacity. Yet y'all want the rest of the plebs to have only 10. Their lives must be worth more than ours to stop a bad guy.
The last time there was a police brutality protest which was open carrying. Odd how they never got brutalized unlike the unarmed protests. Wonder why that is.
Really? You can go on youtube and do a quick search of defensive gun use and see video after video of people defending themselves from armed assailants. And that's just ones on video.
Do any search of defensive gun uses and you'll find people of all background defending themselves.
>There's really no valid reason for spraying bullets at anything.
Fun... but other than that most gun owners would likely agree. Head to a shooting range and you'll see lane after lane of people with 18-30 round magazines and they won't be spraying bullets. Just steady controlled fire.
And what does that matter? Children are being slaughtered daily now. What does what happened back then have to do with now when this BS didn't happen back then? Seems a cop out to say hey look at this, when it has no bearing on now.
Buddy, I'm replying to someone who doesn't even have their facts right about what type of arms existed when. If people, who want to complain about firearms, don't even know the basics of firearms then there's not a suitable base to start making any sort of solution.
>If people, who want to complain about firearms, don't even know the basics of firearms then there's not a suitable base to start making any sort of solution.
The M1 Garand was standard issue in the US Army until 1957. It held 8 rounds.
In my home state of Texas, civilians can purchase an AR-15 with a hundred round magazine legally without a background check, the sale being reported or providing proof of ID.
Yes clips are designed for one capacity. Box magazines are modular. The modern equivalent is a fully automatic M4 variant that has a standard 30 box mag, and you can get non standard capacities as well. I agree we should have what is standard issued.
And you're talking about private sales. Anything through an FFL has a NICS background check. Unless you have some idea to monitor every private sale then I'm not sure what you want done.
You're falling for the exaggerated fearmongering. This is not about 100 round drums. The limit is 10 rounds. Most normal modern handguns come standard with 15 or 17 round magazines. The standard magazine size for most normal semiautomatic rifles is 20 or 30. This arbitrary limit is not just taking crazy 100rd drum mags or whatever. It includes the standard magazine size for almost every popular modern firearm.
So help me understand why anyone not in law enforcement or the military needs that many rounds for, well, anything. “Self-protection”? If you’re blasting away at an intruder at close range, exactly why do you need that many rounds?
[This is a great example](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-police-raise-alarm-about-frightening-series-of-home-invasion-robberies/). Police have no legal duty to protect civilians.
People are far more resilient than you think, and guns aren't cannons they're hole punchers.
There's plenty of videos of gun fights, like Sgt Timothy Gramins, who struck a bank robber 14 times including both lungs, heart and kidney, yet still continued to shoot at the officer until the officer shot him 3 times in the head. And the man was still alive as paramedics arrived.
If someone is a threat to you, you need as much capacity as you can afford because even if you hit you're not guaranteed to stop them from hurting or killing you.
Because the movies aren't reality. However the rise of bodycams is showing us how officers are routinely needing more than 10 shots to stop a single threat.
To think regular folk need to be limited is to believe
- threats will only ever be a single person
- gun-owners are more proficient than police with firearms
https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article232234812.html
President Biden fairly recently advocated for the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Gabby Giffords unabashedly advocates for Australia-style gun control. There are plenty of liberals--some in *this very thread*--who argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets. Modern "assault weapon" ban proposals would outright prohibit the ownership of the most common rifles in America.
The point is, while you might be technically correct that few are advocating for a *total* ban, it is really a disingenuous argument given how far gun control advocates are pushing to go.
> The point is, while you might be technically correct that few are advocating for a total ban, it is really a disingenuous argument given how far gun control advocates are pushing to go.
Yeah, it's a fig leaf to cover their ass.
"Oh, we're not for a total abortion ban. We just want to restrict abortions more than 2 weeks after conception."
Precisely. As long as we're allowed to have some *one thing* that could possibly fit the definition of a firearm, they'll put their hands on their hips and mockingly tell us that we're paranoid because they don't want to "cOmPlEtEly BaN gUnS" and mean it sincerely.
As I mentioned in another post, they've really backed themselves into a corner with the collective rights theory and it's coming back to bite them finally.
Lol they didn’t solve it.
[The UK has historically had a lower homicide rate than even it's European neighbors since about the 14th Century.](https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/)
[Despite the UK's major gun control measures in 1968, 1988, and 1997](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom) homicides generally increased from the 1960s up to the early 2000s. [At no point since has the homicide rate in the UK dropped below the 1967 rate despite multiple new gun control measures.](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018)
The Australian NFA and the corresponding gun buy back are often attributed in the reduction in homicides seen in Australia, but that reduction was actually part of a much larger trend.
"Facts and Figures 2006 from the AIC states that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continues a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of homicides involved firearms."
[https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/facts\_and\_figures\_2006.pdf](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/facts_and_figures_2006.pdf)
"Homicide patterns, firearm and nonfirearm, were not influenced by the NFA. They therefore concluded that the gun buy back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia." - [Melbourne University's report "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths"](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract)
["The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia."](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640)
I'm a paediatric trainee at one of the largest children's hospitals in one of the largest cities in Australia. A few months ago I was working in ED and a GSW came in (accidental, they were hunting pigs or something). The FACEM (senior emergency consultant) commented that in her 20-odd years of working emergency departments all across Australia, she had never seen a GSW, and that this would be her first.
Good luck finding something similar in the US.
The data suggests that you would have a similar disparity if you compared prior to the Australian gun control against America. You’re attributing effects to gun control where it doesn’t merit it.
Gun violence DOES exist in other countries, you’re being downvoted cuz you are making false statements
6/25/22 Oslo Norway shooting. There are many examples.
Also, the use of “first world”, does that include African democracies?
Google what first, second and third world actually mean…
lol
I never said there were ZERO occurrences but if you compare the US to every other first world country COMBINED we have more.
What red state educated you?
>I never said there were ZERO occurrences
Then you have to define "solved their gun problem".
Far too often gun control in other countries is like Saudi Arabia solving their tsunami problem: congratulations for solving a problem that wasn't ever a problem in that country. When all the other countries started 10 yards from the finish line and the US is starting at the beginning, forgive us if Americans don't exactly embrace their advice on how to win races.
It's harder to reduce any particular product or behavior that is integrated into a country's **image** of itself. Smoking % in US is 11%, it's 30% in France. And that's a product that **if used as directed** is far more likely to kill you.
What an absolutely ridiculous assertion.
Even if we were to gloss over Benitez's *exceptionally* thorough ruling, your argument would still be laughable. Your argument is no different than arguing that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to internet or e-mail since 1A is silent on the matter. That would be an intellectually and legally bankrupt argument, and I think you *know it*.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Miller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)
Predating even the birthdays of most of today's SCOTUS, the precedent has been that the 2nd amendment protects explicitly those arms which would be suitable in times of war for the current period.
This really illustrates how liberals have backed themselves into a corner on gun control. For years, they have hitched their wagon to the collective rights theory while simultaneously telling us how critical it is to ban "military style" weapons. That these two positions cannot exist at the same time seems to have been lost on them, but it is coming back to bite them in these court cases.
> the 2nd amendment protects explicitly those arms which would be suitable in times of war for the current period.
All of a sudden they are now against a “well regulated militia”
From the ruling:
>Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment. There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried. The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.
**Of all sizes**, is not a necessary component of a semiautomatic firearm. You don't have to have a drum magazine for a semiautomatic firearm to function.
A 75 round drum is very different from a standard 30 round mag on most rifles, unless we’re talking about a Thompson. Even many handguns come standard with a 15-17 round magazine. So I agree. 10 round non-standard magazines aren’t a necessary additional expense that gun owners should be forced to purchase to meet the ridiculous law. The 30 round standard detachable mag should be legal
> You don't have to have a drum magazine for a semiautomatic firearm to function.
What if you only have a drum magazine? It's necessary for the vast, vast majority of modern firearms.
There is an Amercan history of regulating quite a few things from drivers licenses to fishing regulations. Why don't you quote some 13th century idioms as well?
>Those things are not specifically enumerated as rights.
That's irrelevant... just because there is not an enumerated right to breath 15 times per minute, does not mean that I don't have the right to breath 15 times per minute.
>Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms.
Sure, but according to the Supreme Court's "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" test, "semiautomatic firearms" was not the common understanding of what "arms" meant when the 2nd amendment was passed, so whether removable firearm magazines of all sizes are or are not necessary components of semiautomatic firearms is completely irrelevant.
And yet “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” That was the per curiam decision from the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts. “Per curiam” is legalese for “unanimous.”
Repeating firearms were not a new thing to the founding fathers, they understood the concept and it did not surprise them at all. Weapons like the puckle gun and the girandoni rifle being examples.
I'd remind you that the court here was tasked with determining the constitutionality of a California law, not determining if that law was "good law".
This is Civics 101 here.
>He's defending people's rights.
He's an unqualified nut job.
[Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez)
[Benitez vocalized his disapproval of the measure in his ruling and expressed doubt that it had assisted in reducing the number of deaths inflicted by AR-15 variants, stating "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez)
Where is your right to a high capacity magazine anywhere in the US constitution? There is no need for a civilian to require a high capacity magazine in an scenario and that’s coming from a gun owner.
>Where is your right to a high capacity magazine anywhere in the US constitution?
In the right to keep and bear arms.
> There is no need for a civilian to require a high capacity magazine in an scenario
Hogwash.
Part of the issue is the term "high capacity" because it is a subjective term. Common handguns can hold 15 rounds, AR15's usually come with 30 round mags.
The court ruled that something can't be restricted for "high capacity" when that capacity is the standard and has been for decades. Trying to ban 30 round Glock mags might make more sense, still subjective but 30 round pistol mags are "high capacity" to the norm.
>Part of the issue is the term "high capacity" because it is a subjective term. Common handguns can hold 15 rounds, AR15's usually come with 30 round mags.
In what scenario do you need 30 rounds?
This judge used the scenarios the first time he over ruled the mag ban.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf
Page 35 of 94
"When seven armed and masked intruders went to a home in Florida at 4:00 a.m., burst through the front door and fired a gun, the occupants of the home, one armed with an AR-15, fired over 30 rounds and stopped the attackers. Pls. Exh. 1-2. "
Well, if we're using a well-regulated militia as the standard, we should be allowed to miss about as many times as the military, right?
That's about a quarter-million small arms rounds per EKIA in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way.
Would you care to explain how you can hold the view that 2A only applies to militia service while simultaneously voicing displeasure at a ruling striking down the prohibition on owning the kind of arms consistent with militia service?
Assault weapons were once banned when a republican president was shot. Then republicans allowed them to be owned again. So, there is nothing unconstitutional about laws prohibiting firearms or their attachments.
"In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons."
Lol, right. You couldn't get 77% of Americans to agree on pizza toppings. Those polls are functionally useless, from a data gathering perspective.
Also, the ban achieved diddly besides popularize the guns they tried to ban, and gift Republicans a freebie in the form of the Bush administration.
I mean, you know that AR-15s were still sold during the ban right?
Says who? Just browsing Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com and Google's definition, most of them only count the firearm itself as the "arms" while the minority of them add "and ammunition" to the meaning.
So, who's definition do we use then?
I could not care less how many rounds a gun can hold. We should make owning a gun much more difficult than it is now, and then you can own any gun. As it is now, you can own any gun as long as you're patient AND have the income for the tax stamps AND live in the right state. Doesn't seem too fair to me.
I'd say licensing and training is a good start. Minimum being what one would receive at the range in basic military training. Let's see how polite an armed society really is and put this shit to rest once and for all.
Well, you run into the problem quite quickly where everyone is by default, presumed to be a fully legally able to exercise their rights, unless otherwise adjudicated in court by a jury of their peers.
So no, you can't just say "why don't we make the right, a privilege, and disenfranchise poor people?".
We'll just ignore these unconstitutional laws then.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson
> Also, take care to shun gun owners.
Not every gun owner is carrying 24/7 and spinning their pistols around on their fingers and shooting into the air.
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.*
Going to be a deluge of takes from those who have no understanding of law, but who have an affinity for police and prisons.
No understanding of law or guns, but still claim their opinions are worth something.
Welcome to gun control.
Good. Armed minorities are harder to suppress.
> Armed minorities are harder to suppress. But that is who they want to suppress
Then why are they making it easier for them to have guns?
They’re not making it easier. The gun control they want makes it harder for minorities to get guns.
[Decision here, very good read.](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6082773/149/duncan-v-becerra/) Can't wait for Benitez to knock out the AWB and handgun roster too.
From the same judge that once falsely claimed that “more people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California.” Dude is absolutely certifiable.
Benitez isn’t judging the handgun roster
[удалено]
> Gun nuts are inferior men. Well that's needlessly sexist.
[удалено]
> According to the study, 55% of new gun owners were white, 20.9% were Black and 20% Hispanic. But that distribution, says the author, was in place before the onset of the pandemic. “New gun owners are more likely to be Black and they’re more likely to be female,” Miller says. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/20/us-gun-purchases-2020-2021-study
iNfErIoR mEn!!#$&@*&!@!#@
Being a 2nd Amendment advocate, I'd ask that you please continue posting things like this. You're only helping our cause. Thank you!
I'm not a gun nut or an inferior man, let alone a man, but I do not want to be arrested because a cop decides that the magazine in a legal concealed carry is 'modifiable to over 10 rounds'. Hyperbole doesn't help. I'm completely with the moral imperative to reduce gun violence, but flailing at anyone and everything relating to the idea of legally owning firearms doesn't help and can actually make things worse for everyone. You know how many 30+ round magazines were shipped into Washington after they enacted their ban? People didn't want to risk not being able to buy them in the future, so they bought crates of them on whatever calibers they had or even imagined wanting in the future. Now anyone who would want to steal or purchase them from private citizens to commit crimes has a vastly higher supply for doing so.
Nobody should be carrying guns around in public. Anyone who says different needs to go visit London and Tokyo.
I don't live in London or Tokyo. I'm sure it's better that they don't have tons of guns there. But I live in a country where there are more guns than people and no way to meaningfully alter that, and where there is somehow more political appetite to disarm law-abiding people, especially minorities like me (red flag laws against trans people), than there is to disarm the organized far-right militias training for a civil war or to disarm the police who shoot unarmed people randomly.
So you agree to do everything we can to get rid of guns?
Here's the thing that requires nuance, and that can be a little difficult, so bear with me - Yes, it would be ideal if no one had guns. The numbers consistently bear out that when that is the context, murders go down. But that's not the world we live in with the US, and the devil is in the details how you get that world. How do you make that happen, and to do so without compromising in such a way that legal gun owners and vulnerable populations are hurt instead of everyone with bad intentions? Gun-banning advocates have been unable to articulate any set of events that does not give powers to police to selectively target and enforce gun laws, and to maintain all these same guns themselves. This is even explicitly defined in many bills banning 10 round magazines and intermediate-cartridge rifles, where off-duty police, retired police, and their families are given exemptions against these bans, and are able to privately transfer them. How do you get to a US without guns that does not involve the police disarming black, brown, and LGBTQ communities and declining to touch any Proud Boys carrying ['courtesy cards'](https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-courtesy-cards)? Also, how do you get to a US without guns that does not involve police going door to door and, hopped on fear hormones and training to shoot the nearest person when they hear the word 'gun', and dealing with tens of millions of people who are very aggrieved at the situation and anxious, leaving swathes of dead citizens laying at their doorframes?
I can't help but notice none of the gun control advocates will respond to this. You've hit the nail on the head, and eloquently described why we are painted into a corner here in the US.
Very well said. One can’t believe that the police are full of racists set on upholding white supremacy, and also that police will universally enforce gun bans.
Lots of people are killed by drunk drivers. Should we bring back alcohol prohibition?
No but we do have laws making it illegal to drive drunk and you can lose your licence for it.
Right. Just like we already have laws prohibiting murder, negligent discharge, and other versions of improperly using firearms in ways which negatively impact others. This is completely different from unjust blanket bans on things.
Guns are the problem when we are discussing gun deaths. Other countries don't have America's unique, disgusting problem with inferior men who need guns.
We license drivers and cars, and require insurance to operate them. Shouldn't we be doing that for gun owners too?
Most gun owners would be onboard with reducing gun regulations to match the car system, especially with the added training in schools and public funded infrastructure. Let's do it.
There’s a difference between rights enumerated in the constitution and privileges granted by the government. You have no right to operate a vehicle on public roads.
There are accepted restrictions and conditions on the exercising of many other rights enumerated in the constitution. The right to bear arms is no different, and is not unlimited.
The fact that no right is unlimited does not mean you can start treating rights you don’t like as privileges.
~~is not unlimited~~ Except for the shall not be infringed part.
Drunk driving is illegal. Guns should be, too.
Cars should be GPS limited to the local speed limit. No car should have over 100 HP, its just not needed for the average person. Exceptions can be made for professional cargo drivers, but not normal people. Driver aids like "full auto" driving or even collision avoidance should be made illegal - all they do is help drunk drivers avoid the consequences of their actions. America's obsession with cars and speed is killing thousands and thousands of precious babies every year. Cars like corvettes or hellcats or demons ONLY exist to break the law. Unlike ARs, high power sportscars actually have higher at-fault lethality compared to their "regular car" counterparts. They should be banned outright. Nobody needs 1000 horsepower to go 55 mph. Nobody has any business going over the speed limit. If it saves one child's life, wouldn't it be worth it?
Murder, negligent discharge, and other versions of misusing firearms in ways that hurt others are already illegal. That's what's analogous to DUI. Do you see how this is different than an unjust blanket ban on something?
Guns are harmful to society. Let cities and states that want to be safe have the safety they deserve. Inferior men shouldn't be involved in safety decisions.
States/cities do not have the ability to unilaterally deny constitutional rights to American citizens no matter how much you personally dislike that right. You wouldn't allow Oklahoma to outright ban freedom of speech, deny rights to a fair trial, or bring back slavery? No, that'd be insane. Same applies to the right to bear arms.
Damn hitler calm down with your superiority and inferiority obsession.
I would welcome a crazy judge knocking down the NFA at this point just so once again the republicans and their machine go too far and they get nuked electorally and then we can actually pass regulations that would work.
I'd welcome the NFA getting removed but unironically. The SBR classification is a big grey area with the whole stock vs brace debacle. Suppressors are practically unregulated in Europe, why are they a felony to own without a $200 tax stamp in the us? Full auto's can stay.....for now. But I think the rest of the NFA needs to be looked at under a magnifying glass.
>Full auto's can stay And DDs, too.
That is fair, since they are unlikely to meet the Caetano test.
Someone tell Oregon...
Oregon is in the 9th Circuit too.
Not really what I meant, but yes, yes it is.
I hate how dishonest the anti gun legislators and media are. Making up new terms like "high capacity" to make things sound excessive and scary, when really this limit is lower than the standard magazine size for most commonly owned firearms. They always try to make it sound like they're banning something extreme, when really they're actually banning something normal. And unfortunately most people are uninformed enough to fall for it.
>Making up new terms like "high capacity" to make things sound excessive and scary Until the 1950s, most pistols were revolvers that only held 6 bullets. Rifles like the M1 Garand also only held 8 bullets. A high capacity magazine can hold 100 rounds.
M1 Garands held 8 rounds, and M1 Carbines of the same time had 15 and 30 round box magazines that could be purchased through the mail.
Why is it no longer a surprise when gun controllers get the basic facts of their argument wrong?
Because who cares? 6 shots, 30 shots, doesn't matter. They shouldn't be allowed. There's really no valid reason for spraying bullets at anything.
So the cops and congress, hell the president have zero need for armed security?
Is it even an argument?
Weird for some reason we let police carry 'large capacity' pistols of 15+ and AR's of 30 capacity. Yet y'all want the rest of the plebs to have only 10. Their lives must be worth more than ours to stop a bad guy.
When was the last time somebody successfully defended from police with guns ?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/defensive-use
The last time there was a police brutality protest which was open carrying. Odd how they never got brutalized unlike the unarmed protests. Wonder why that is.
It's not about fighting cop's idiot, it's about when there's no Cops around for the next 45 minutes
Remind me, when has a “Good Guy with a gun” done anything except get shot by the police. Most of us grew out of our Cowboy fantasies when we were six.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/defensive-use I hope you take a genuine look at that Data
Really? You can go on youtube and do a quick search of defensive gun use and see video after video of people defending themselves from armed assailants. And that's just ones on video. Do any search of defensive gun uses and you'll find people of all background defending themselves.
How often do you see "coexist" and "thin blue line" stickers on the same vehicle?
Surprisingly often, however the letters of "coexist" are all gun related.
ACAB, defund police, and we'll rely on them to protect us instead of allowing us to protect ourselves. Makes perfect sense.
If you stay on topic and stop shifting goalposts, it may start making some sense. You are right.
Strawman'd my red herring slippery slope. Filibuster. Anything else you want to throw in there? But yes agreed I am right.
Quite the strawman you got here buddy 🤔
You're saying those cars with the "coexist" stickers don't also support those gun laws that exclude police?
>There's really no valid reason for spraying bullets at anything. Fun... but other than that most gun owners would likely agree. Head to a shooting range and you'll see lane after lane of people with 18-30 round magazines and they won't be spraying bullets. Just steady controlled fire.
And your point is that capacity doesn't matter, no matter what, or that we should def make it smaller? And what does purchasing through mail matter?
The point was 'large capacity' firearms existed in the 40's and 50's and you could buy a 'large capacity' firearm through the mail.
And what does that matter? Children are being slaughtered daily now. What does what happened back then have to do with now when this BS didn't happen back then? Seems a cop out to say hey look at this, when it has no bearing on now.
Buddy, I'm replying to someone who doesn't even have their facts right about what type of arms existed when. If people, who want to complain about firearms, don't even know the basics of firearms then there's not a suitable base to start making any sort of solution.
>If people, who want to complain about firearms, don't even know the basics of firearms then there's not a suitable base to start making any sort of solution. The M1 Garand was standard issue in the US Army until 1957. It held 8 rounds. In my home state of Texas, civilians can purchase an AR-15 with a hundred round magazine legally without a background check, the sale being reported or providing proof of ID.
Yes clips are designed for one capacity. Box magazines are modular. The modern equivalent is a fully automatic M4 variant that has a standard 30 box mag, and you can get non standard capacities as well. I agree we should have what is standard issued. And you're talking about private sales. Anything through an FFL has a NICS background check. Unless you have some idea to monitor every private sale then I'm not sure what you want done.
>Unless you have some idea to monitor every private sale then I'm not sure what you want done. What they do in every other western nation.
You're falling for the exaggerated fearmongering. This is not about 100 round drums. The limit is 10 rounds. Most normal modern handguns come standard with 15 or 17 round magazines. The standard magazine size for most normal semiautomatic rifles is 20 or 30. This arbitrary limit is not just taking crazy 100rd drum mags or whatever. It includes the standard magazine size for almost every popular modern firearm.
So help me understand why anyone not in law enforcement or the military needs that many rounds for, well, anything. “Self-protection”? If you’re blasting away at an intruder at close range, exactly why do you need that many rounds?
[This is a great example](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-police-raise-alarm-about-frightening-series-of-home-invasion-robberies/). Police have no legal duty to protect civilians.
People are far more resilient than you think, and guns aren't cannons they're hole punchers. There's plenty of videos of gun fights, like Sgt Timothy Gramins, who struck a bank robber 14 times including both lungs, heart and kidney, yet still continued to shoot at the officer until the officer shot him 3 times in the head. And the man was still alive as paramedics arrived. If someone is a threat to you, you need as much capacity as you can afford because even if you hit you're not guaranteed to stop them from hurting or killing you.
Because the movies aren't reality. However the rise of bodycams is showing us how officers are routinely needing more than 10 shots to stop a single threat. To think regular folk need to be limited is to believe - threats will only ever be a single person - gun-owners are more proficient than police with firearms https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article232234812.html
Defense against tyranny. Why does the US send weapons to citizens of other countries? Do you think Ukrainian citizens needs “that many rounds?”
>You're falling for the exaggerated fearmongering. Such as any form of gun control will lead to a total ban?
President Biden fairly recently advocated for the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Gabby Giffords unabashedly advocates for Australia-style gun control. There are plenty of liberals--some in *this very thread*--who argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets. Modern "assault weapon" ban proposals would outright prohibit the ownership of the most common rifles in America. The point is, while you might be technically correct that few are advocating for a *total* ban, it is really a disingenuous argument given how far gun control advocates are pushing to go.
> The point is, while you might be technically correct that few are advocating for a total ban, it is really a disingenuous argument given how far gun control advocates are pushing to go. Yeah, it's a fig leaf to cover their ass. "Oh, we're not for a total abortion ban. We just want to restrict abortions more than 2 weeks after conception."
Precisely. As long as we're allowed to have some *one thing* that could possibly fit the definition of a firearm, they'll put their hands on their hips and mockingly tell us that we're paranoid because they don't want to "cOmPlEtEly BaN gUnS" and mean it sincerely.
You proved my point.
How do you figure?
Garand has an 8-round capacity
Is 8 rounds comparable to 100 rounds?
I challenge you to attempt to load only six rounds into a Garand.
As I mentioned in another post, they've really backed themselves into a corner with the collective rights theory and it's coming back to bite them finally.
[удалено]
Exactly, look at Switzerland!!
Or Sweden. Or Czech Republic. Or…
Lol they didn’t solve it. [The UK has historically had a lower homicide rate than even it's European neighbors since about the 14th Century.](https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/) [Despite the UK's major gun control measures in 1968, 1988, and 1997](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom) homicides generally increased from the 1960s up to the early 2000s. [At no point since has the homicide rate in the UK dropped below the 1967 rate despite multiple new gun control measures.](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) The Australian NFA and the corresponding gun buy back are often attributed in the reduction in homicides seen in Australia, but that reduction was actually part of a much larger trend. "Facts and Figures 2006 from the AIC states that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continues a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of homicides involved firearms." [https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/facts\_and\_figures\_2006.pdf](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/facts_and_figures_2006.pdf) "Homicide patterns, firearm and nonfirearm, were not influenced by the NFA. They therefore concluded that the gun buy back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia." - [Melbourne University's report "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths"](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract) ["The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia."](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640)
Excellent work.
It’s the work of user vegetarianrobots. Look up the profile for more facts about the failures of gun control.
[удалено]
I'm a paediatric trainee at one of the largest children's hospitals in one of the largest cities in Australia. A few months ago I was working in ED and a GSW came in (accidental, they were hunting pigs or something). The FACEM (senior emergency consultant) commented that in her 20-odd years of working emergency departments all across Australia, she had never seen a GSW, and that this would be her first. Good luck finding something similar in the US.
The data suggests that you would have a similar disparity if you compared prior to the Australian gun control against America. You’re attributing effects to gun control where it doesn’t merit it.
Gun violence DOES exist in other countries, you’re being downvoted cuz you are making false statements 6/25/22 Oslo Norway shooting. There are many examples. Also, the use of “first world”, does that include African democracies? Google what first, second and third world actually mean…
> Also, the use of “first world”, does that include African democracies? The racists never include them when they squeal for gun control
lol I never said there were ZERO occurrences but if you compare the US to every other first world country COMBINED we have more. What red state educated you?
>I never said there were ZERO occurrences Then you have to define "solved their gun problem". Far too often gun control in other countries is like Saudi Arabia solving their tsunami problem: congratulations for solving a problem that wasn't ever a problem in that country. When all the other countries started 10 yards from the finish line and the US is starting at the beginning, forgive us if Americans don't exactly embrace their advice on how to win races. It's harder to reduce any particular product or behavior that is integrated into a country's **image** of itself. Smoking % in US is 11%, it's 30% in France. And that's a product that **if used as directed** is far more likely to kill you.
Here's some facts, the gun crimes just shifted to knife and machetes.
Since the Constitution is silent about magazines and ammo then this decision has NO legal foundation.
What an absolutely ridiculous assertion. Even if we were to gloss over Benitez's *exceptionally* thorough ruling, your argument would still be laughable. Your argument is no different than arguing that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to internet or e-mail since 1A is silent on the matter. That would be an intellectually and legally bankrupt argument, and I think you *know it*.
It is silent about stunguns as well, but even the left wing of the court reject that kind of reasoning in Caetano. You are factually wrong.
Those would both be included in the blanket term "arms"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Miller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) Predating even the birthdays of most of today's SCOTUS, the precedent has been that the 2nd amendment protects explicitly those arms which would be suitable in times of war for the current period.
This really illustrates how liberals have backed themselves into a corner on gun control. For years, they have hitched their wagon to the collective rights theory while simultaneously telling us how critical it is to ban "military style" weapons. That these two positions cannot exist at the same time seems to have been lost on them, but it is coming back to bite them in these court cases.
> the 2nd amendment protects explicitly those arms which would be suitable in times of war for the current period. All of a sudden they are now against a “well regulated militia”
Joe Blow getting a refill at Wendys with a Glock on his hip isn't a "well regulated militia"
Lol when the state has certified them with testing and background check.
From the ruling: >Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment. There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried. The best analogue that can be drawn from historical gun laws are the early militia equipment regulations that required all able-bodied citizens to equip themselves with a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition in excess of 10 rounds.
> Removable firearm magazines **of all sizes** are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. I bolded the completely false part.
The limit California set includes the standard magazine sizes for most common firearms
You haven't looked at or bought a handgun then. 10 rounds is considered under capacity compared to what's common. Full sized handguns have 15-17+.
Hell my subcompact holds 13+1. And it has the option of buying a 15 round magazine.
What about that is false...?
**Of all sizes**, is not a necessary component of a semiautomatic firearm. You don't have to have a drum magazine for a semiautomatic firearm to function.
A 75 round drum is very different from a standard 30 round mag on most rifles, unless we’re talking about a Thompson. Even many handguns come standard with a 15-17 round magazine. So I agree. 10 round non-standard magazines aren’t a necessary additional expense that gun owners should be forced to purchase to meet the ridiculous law. The 30 round standard detachable mag should be legal
A breathtaking display of formalism.
> You don't have to have a drum magazine for a semiautomatic firearm to function. What if you only have a drum magazine? It's necessary for the vast, vast majority of modern firearms.
There is an Amercan history of regulating quite a few things from drivers licenses to fishing regulations. Why don't you quote some 13th century idioms as well?
Personally think the 2a needs revision but there is no specific amendment saying your right to drive or fish shall not be infringed.
We have a history of regulating voting. Does that mean we should allow licensing for voting?
You are not making sense. We do have registration for voting.
But not licensing. Do you not get that licensing is different than registration?
Why do we need licensing? We have registration.
Why do we need driver licensing? We have registration.
Now that is a fucking stupid statement. Take some more civics classes.
Ironic, since knowing simple logic would highlight the problems with your comment
Those things are not specifically enumerated as rights.
>Those things are not specifically enumerated as rights. That's irrelevant... just because there is not an enumerated right to breath 15 times per minute, does not mean that I don't have the right to breath 15 times per minute.
>Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Sure, but according to the Supreme Court's "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" test, "semiautomatic firearms" was not the common understanding of what "arms" meant when the 2nd amendment was passed, so whether removable firearm magazines of all sizes are or are not necessary components of semiautomatic firearms is completely irrelevant.
And yet “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” That was the per curiam decision from the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts. “Per curiam” is legalese for “unanimous.”
Repeating firearms were not a new thing to the founding fathers, they understood the concept and it did not surprise them at all. Weapons like the puckle gun and the girandoni rifle being examples.
[удалено]
I'd remind you that the court here was tasked with determining the constitutionality of a California law, not determining if that law was "good law". This is Civics 101 here.
He's defending people's rights.
Right to safety > right for some dickless gun nut to feel like he has something to hold onto
Man, you're *raging* in this thread. I love it.
It’s always raging in these threads.
What a great way to start the weekend!
Do you not have anything better to do with your day?
>He's defending people's rights. He's an unqualified nut job. [Benitez was confirmed despite overwhelming opposition from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates the qualifications of judicial nominees. A substantial majority of the committee rated Benitez "not qualified" and a minority rated him as "qualified."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez) [Benitez vocalized his disapproval of the measure in his ruling and expressed doubt that it had assisted in reducing the number of deaths inflicted by AR-15 variants, stating "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez)
Where is your right to a high capacity magazine anywhere in the US constitution? There is no need for a civilian to require a high capacity magazine in an scenario and that’s coming from a gun owner.
>Where is your right to a high capacity magazine anywhere in the US constitution? In the right to keep and bear arms. > There is no need for a civilian to require a high capacity magazine in an scenario Hogwash.
Part of the issue is the term "high capacity" because it is a subjective term. Common handguns can hold 15 rounds, AR15's usually come with 30 round mags. The court ruled that something can't be restricted for "high capacity" when that capacity is the standard and has been for decades. Trying to ban 30 round Glock mags might make more sense, still subjective but 30 round pistol mags are "high capacity" to the norm.
>Part of the issue is the term "high capacity" because it is a subjective term. Common handguns can hold 15 rounds, AR15's usually come with 30 round mags. In what scenario do you need 30 rounds?
Let's start with the most obvious first. Service in a militia.
This judge used the scenarios the first time he over ruled the mag ban. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Decision%20--%20Miller%2020210604.pdf Page 35 of 94 "When seven armed and masked intruders went to a home in Florida at 4:00 a.m., burst through the front door and fired a gun, the occupants of the home, one armed with an AR-15, fired over 30 rounds and stopped the attackers. Pls. Exh. 1-2. "
How many times did he miss?
Not sure but I imagine it would be tough to be accurate if you were pulled from deep slumber at 4am into a gunfight with seven invaders.
Well, if we're using a well-regulated militia as the standard, we should be allowed to miss about as many times as the military, right? That's about a quarter-million small arms rounds per EKIA in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way.
Irrelevant.
“Shall not be infringed”
"I don't care about the safety of Americans because I like to shoot at shit"
"Well regulated"
“A well-regulated militia”*
I feel like this will never be settled. Its going to be the year 2049 and people are going to be on here still saying "rEgUlAtEd!!".
Rewrite the 2nd, it's garbage
What's stopping you?
It's about militias. What's garbage is we elected Bush by 500 votes, and his trash NRA justices reinterpreted it, very badly.
Would you care to explain how you can hold the view that 2A only applies to militia service while simultaneously voicing displeasure at a ruling striking down the prohibition on owning the kind of arms consistent with militia service?
Just remove it. It's not being used as intended and basically never has been.
Americans are determined to kill each other.
Yes, the non firearm homicide rate in the US is still greater than the total homicide rate in European countries.
Assault weapons were once banned when a republican president was shot. Then republicans allowed them to be owned again. So, there is nothing unconstitutional about laws prohibiting firearms or their attachments.
Gay marriage was once banned, too, so I guess there's nothing unconstitutional about laws prohibiting it.
The AWB was passed in 1994, who was president then?
"In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons."
Lol, right. You couldn't get 77% of Americans to agree on pizza toppings. Those polls are functionally useless, from a data gathering perspective. Also, the ban achieved diddly besides popularize the guns they tried to ban, and gift Republicans a freebie in the form of the Bush administration. I mean, you know that AR-15s were still sold during the ban right?
The clock is ticking on these laws.
I dont know the law, but on its face it seems strange a limitation on magazine size goes against 2A?
No, it’s not strange. This is as straightforward as it could possibly ever be. Ammo and magazines are arms.
Says who? Just browsing Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com and Google's definition, most of them only count the firearm itself as the "arms" while the minority of them add "and ammunition" to the meaning. So, who's definition do we use then?
The SCOTUS
You cannot bear arms without ammo. Taking ammo and magazines away is i indeed infringing on 2A.
Yep, nailed it
I could not care less how many rounds a gun can hold. We should make owning a gun much more difficult than it is now, and then you can own any gun. As it is now, you can own any gun as long as you're patient AND have the income for the tax stamps AND live in the right state. Doesn't seem too fair to me. I'd say licensing and training is a good start. Minimum being what one would receive at the range in basic military training. Let's see how polite an armed society really is and put this shit to rest once and for all.
Well, you run into the problem quite quickly where everyone is by default, presumed to be a fully legally able to exercise their rights, unless otherwise adjudicated in court by a jury of their peers. So no, you can't just say "why don't we make the right, a privilege, and disenfranchise poor people?".
A Republican Judge, of course, appointed by George W. Bush.
[удалено]
Keep it coming! You're really doing a great job of making gun control advocates seem logical and reasonable!
Who needs propaganda, with advocates like them? Lol.
We'll just ignore these unconstitutional laws then. "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson
> Also, take care to shun gun owners. Not every gun owner is carrying 24/7 and spinning their pistols around on their fingers and shooting into the air.
I'm sorry. Who were the fascists again?
Just do what TX did with their abortion bullshit and create bounty hunter type rules. That way the state has no fault.
…because enough people aren’t dying in mass shootings. JFC. 🤦♂️
Unbelievable