- 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.
51 years old. I, nor anyone I know has ever been in a situation where a gun would have changed the outcome for the better. And while I know this is anecdotal as well, it’s a clear indicator to me that they’re unnecessary in day-to-day living.
Bit rich of you to ask for facts and then give an antidotal argument when you don’t like my facts. But if you want antidotal evidence yes I have had to use a firearm in self-defense so because of that antidotal experience I would say that we should respect the rights of the citizenry to own firearms.
I guarantee you that that is utter bullshit. And no one you’ve ever known has ever needed one either.
I’ve personally been stalked by, and unexpectedly face-to-face with, a mountain lion while out hunting with my dad.
You can pointlessly quibble about need, but the fact remains that my .357 was the only effective thing between it and I. I was lucky it didn’t want a two-for.
Feel free to continue making such faulty assumptions - it highlights the extent to which you lack the empathy to try and understand other points of view and the imagination to contemplate things outside what you’ve considered.
Bullshit. And even if it were true, hunting isn’t even what’s being questioned here, and you know it. You’ve manufactured what you think is the perfect argument to support guns, but it falls flat.
I’ve related an actual experience from my life. Frankly, I don’t care if you believe me or not - that you cannot even fathom such a possibility speaks volumes.
If you’re 51 you’re the most immature 51-year-old I’ve ever had them misfortune to meet. Reading over your comments over the last day or two I would have to say it’s much more likely that you’re about 24. The entirety of your nuance prose and wit boil down to "Fuck you I’m right and your small and stupid because I said so. ". Is it any wonder you’re so popular in this thread and have so many supporters diving in with you.
It’s “you’re.”
And you’re one to talk. The fact that you seem to determine validity from the invalid based on worthless internet points clearly shows your maturity level.
But since we’re there, let’s look at total comment scores shall we? Our accounts are the same age….
How do you faire?
Anyways, no I was not reading your comment score I was reading the comments that you were writing and I was analyzing the grammar and syntax that you were using to try to place your age.
But if you want to go down that route firstly my account is less than a month old and yours is over 2 months old. But age does not mean much what matters is quality.
you have a score of 9959 and you have made 1196 comments this means on average each comet you make is worth 8.3 points.
I have 982 points and I’ve made 89 comments so each of mine is worth 11 points. So by your own chosen criteria yes I am better than you.
If you factor in the number of posts it looks even worse for you… Do you concede?
Your account is 2 months old with 316 comment score kiddo. Compare it again.
I don’t know what you’re reading from.