Presented to the founding father’s in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.
The founding father’s not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That depends quite a bit on whether or not there were historical analogues, though it’s fair to say that felons and “illegal” drug users e.g. marijuana are trending toward correcting.
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
And in the post-Bruen world, there’s much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.
And in the post-Bruen world, there’s much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
I’ll take a federal judge’s opinion on the matter - one which aligns with what was clearly laid out in Heller - over yours, thanks.
You seem to be intentionally neglecting that SCOTUS vacated that and kicked it back down to be revisited in light of Bruen, resulting in… this exact ruling.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well
Which doesn’t change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Do you truly believe that’s all that was established in Bruen? You seem to be intentionally ignoring the majority of the outcome of that e.g. the things that triggered this to be vacated and reheard - thus this judgement we’re discussing.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
Are you pretending the supreme court is not federal? Is, perhaps, devoid of authority?
You seem to be burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid that the supreme court which vacated it did so in light of a ruling which rendered the 9th circuit’s ruling invalid, specifically due to Benitez’ ruling.
California has appealed, as they always do. The 9th circuit may or may not accept it; it may or may not continue up to the Supreme Court.
Are you under the impression settled law is somehow sacred and fixed? That, say, there has never been any occurrence of settled law being revisited in light of better or changed understanding of an issue? Interesting.
Are you pretending the supreme court’s continued establishment of precedent on an issue is meaningless?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Oh, interesting - you cannot manage to address let alone refute an argument, so you… appeal to the authority of education as proving that your unsupported position is somehow unassailable? If your law degree was somehow issued by an entity other than Bullshit University, I have serious concerns about its worth given your apparent lack of familiarity with things covered by even high school debate.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
And yet, one you hold as without education or background experience appears to be more qualified to discuss this subject - let alone engage in constructive discourse - than you. That’s got to chap.
It’s ironic you say these things, unable to actually make any pointed criticisms of points raised and unable to defend your own bland, unsupported assertions. It’s delicious you seek to deflect and commit the fallacy of attacking a presumed lack of education.
But hey - at least you’ve got that hypothetical appeal to authority to fall back on. Cling tightly to that as you continue to shitpost from an imagined ivory tower.
Federal employees are very underpaid for their positions and skill sets as compared to those who are employed privately. Everyone I know who works in the government are literally living paycheck to paycheck, but stay because of the job security. Federal employees arent the problem to say “fuck them” its those with bloated wallets who run the government that are the problem.
So basically you have no idea what goes on in the government, but think that feds do nothing all day because someone said all feds are lazy? Its not the feds fault that you have a dead end job making minimum wage…
You fucking dumbasses all decided to read into what I said something very differently. I never called them lazy, and I never said they were the fault of my horrible job. I said, they make twice as much as I do, working far less hard. I hope you all eat shit.
Again you obviously dont know what goes on in the gov. I know people who work 16 hour days 5 days week and still cant put food on the table because of the poor pay. On a side note, do you need a hug?
You’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the conservative propaganda that all government workers are lazy. That’s one excuse they promote to de-fund programs and entire departments so they can siphon the money off to private contractors to do the same work at double the rate.
Neither gun owners nor conservatives have bloodlust. What we do have is disdain for laws that don’t actually help the problem but just punish gun owners.
Take this 10 round magazine law. You know what is the difference between a 10-round mag and a larger one? A little rivet pin that stops you from putting in an 11th cartridge. Anyone with a cordless drill can remove the rivet and turn their 10-round mag into a bigger one. Anyone with a 3d printer can make a larger magazine. A magazine is just a box with a spring and some plastic bits. Making it longer is not rocket science.
The threat of ‘drilling this rivet is a felony’ does not stop someone who wants to commit mass murder. This law does not stop murderers or save lives. It just makes life harder for gun owners, as the pinned magazine is much harder to clean.
I’ll also remind you that the guy who shot up VA tech had a .22 pistol (pretty much the least powerful gun you can buy) and a backpack full of 10-round magazines. He complied with the law and it didn’t slow him down.
So stop accusing people of having bloodlust, and ask why they don’t support the law that seems obvious to you. You might learn something.
Not to mention at minimum some of the gun laws in our past have been put into effect due to racism including those pushed by Reagan due to the black panthers.
This is the issue with politics in the US in general here.
I’m also a liberal gun owner. If you categorize people with a strict “with us or against us” mentality, where they are expected to agree with every one of your opinions, you cease to have useful discourse and become a part of the problem.
This is the land of the free. There shouldnt be an “unless…”. If you have a problem with freedom maybe you should find a different country instead of complaining that you have too many rights.
Leftists have guns too, and I know a lot of democrats that have them as well. Magazine laws do nothing to protect people or prevent harm, anyone skilled enough can drop an empty magazine and reinsert a full one in the blink of an eye.
Not necessarily. I’m only speculating, which I don’t relish, but I imagine the service isn’t explicitly designed with CSAM as the intended result – if I’m reading it right, it’s billed as “upload picture of clothed person X and received ‘naked’ picture of same person”, and is almost certainly trained on appropriately-aged pornographic material.
I don’t know the inner workings of technology like this, and I certainly don’t intend to critique the images talked about in this article, but the resulting picture doesn’t have to be an accurate representation of a minor’s body to be distressing to the people involved.
I mean, assuming the writers agreed to this deal, then technically the deal is the final deal, and presumably it’s the best offer since the writers agreed to it.
I’m really curious how this isn’t simply unconstitutional based on Bostock v. Clayton County. I’ve yet to see any news source being it up. This was the case the protects a gay person being fired for being gay in they you cannot say it’s wrong to be attracted to women as a women but ok for a man. You’re discriminating based on sex. Therefore if the hair length is ok for girls, it has to be ok for boys.
Keep churning people. It’s annoying and difficult but everytime we move apartments, it’s time and money the LL needs to invest. The frothier the market, the more it favors renters.
That’s how concessions become the new price. Don’t make it easy on them.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.