- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
Generally if you support firearm ownership without stating nuance or conditions, it’s a high likelihood where you stand politically supports authoritarians, either willfully or via inaction.
Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I’m an authoritarian.
With leaps like that, you could do gymnastics.
Huh. You make up “alternate facts” to suit your argument. You’re one of ‘em all right.
Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.
Interestingly enough, only one of us has referenced relevant materials on the matter - you wouldn’t be projecting regarding your bullshit, would you?
Certainly not.
You may have had some ground to stand on there if you’d actually meaningfully engaged in the discussion and made an argument, perhaps provided actual criticism of addressed that made, but all you’ve managed to do is provide childish no, u!, insult, and deflection.
Fortunately, my hobby involves no harm to others and involves no items with agency or agenda of their own; it’s quite impossible for my hobbies to be the cause of anyone’s suffering.
I would say the county suffers from quite the violence epidemic, though, and unlike you, I actually argue for addressing it rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
No, it’s not really interesting. Speaking with 2A militants is a waste of time. I’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely), pointed out their lack of responsibility, and mulish obstinacy when it comes to firearms. Know how it ends? “ It’s a right…” so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away. You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.
Only because you’re so unbelievably entrenched in your opinion about the validity of a thing you seek to support it using whatever you can muster and, when that fails, you fall back on hyperbole, emotional appeal, defeatism, and insult rather than consider that you may be putting your conclusion before any support.
I seem to have missed those - were they in the form of hyperbolic bullshit? You have provided quite a bit of that.
ETA: Feel free to highlight where you’ve done so.
I see you’re working on your projection.
I’d argue I care about the issues at hand far more given my arguments for actually addressing those issues rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
But hey, don’t let that get in the way of your narrative. You seem to be concocting quite the substitute for reality.