![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
Nah, you’re a joke. I’ve already read all the seminal articles and half of the bullshit ones.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. You got caught shit posting, having only a superficial awareness of the subject matter.
Ah, I see - you're left with personal insult and a half-assed appeal to authority in lieu of any actual arguments.
I begin to wonder if you're aware of the irony of calling someone a joke given the extent to which you're just shitposting.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
We're still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don't get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I've addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.
It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.
I see you haven't bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.
My article contains undisputed facts.
See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.
Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.
By your unsupported and baseless opinion, in the face of well-supported refutation lol.
It's less a culture issue and more a safety nets issue - one we need to do much to improve upon.
The ruling in question highlights magazines are effectively arms and magazine sizes cannot be arbitrarily restricted, even when integral.
We've already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it's a multi-faceted, systemic approach.
So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.
It was an attempted dunk based on the assumptive chain that you defended a stricken-down firearms restriction therefore are clearly conservative, therefore clearly push abortion bans.
It's if it's impossible to them that anyone outside the NRA can like firearms.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
Right - it has nothing to do with your having negligible awareness of the issue, getting caught blatantly shitposting, and scrambling to try and shore up your position with such scholarship as to apparently have not even read what you've posted.
Totally.
Ah - I see you've dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we're going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you're still losing. If we're going by more mature content matters strategy, you've woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There's some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.
Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I'll overlook that you've yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.
For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.
You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy "rah but the conservatives" mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of settled law that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.
As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc... and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.
To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren't paying enough attention to notice. There's a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you've participated in this discussion.
But hey, once you've gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
I'm not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - "if we're right, he's wrong, and we're pretty sure we're right".
Fortunately, this entire notion was already addressed by the Judge issuing the ruling, a thing I'm sure you've read.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
Did they? I'm not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they're once more already corrected by the other source I'd provided.
You... aren't good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
Ahh, I see - it's all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.
You can trust my assertions, yes. For one, I am telling the truth. And two, I have no reason to lie.
You'll understand how I don't give credence to the word of a rando who makes grand claims, bold - baseless, even - assertions, and demonstrates an utter lack of rationality.
I see you didn't respond to what was stated. As a reminder:
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by... actually showing support for your position.
I'll consider your criticism regarding math when you've polished up those reading skills.
Well then, stay the course. You guys did so well in 2022 after all, and House Republicans are currently showing the country just how serious and competent they are at governance.
Who is you guys in your eyes? You seem to be making some flawed assumptions here.
I should really keep Sun Tzu in mind more often.
You should also try to make arguments based in reality and not just ignore direct criticisms of your flawed reasoning, but hey, that seems to be expecting a bit much.
Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
So, in your estimation, does Congress just... not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I'm aware, they're popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that's even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.
Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There's, say, no selection bias at all?
Interesting.
By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.
That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?
The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.
Is that so? I'm interested in seeing your support for such a notion.
If we're going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn't seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would... suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position... do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?
We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa's 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% 'yay' rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa's Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it's mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.
Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.
Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.
Interestingly enough, the lady doesn't seem to have died in her sleep - that a firearm did, indeed, stop that invasion. Weird, that.
I'm interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you've got actual data and aren't just talking out of your ass... right?
Right?
It's ironic that your best argument is to suggest one read history - with mindless disparaging insult - in response to actual history and analysis, with citations.
Narrative, indeed.
Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we're supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote history despite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.
That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I've come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.
Yikes. Are you sure the bloodlust isn't your own issue?
It literally is when we live in this day and age.
I'll be sure to inform my hunting friends we're all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
Correct.
The stated concerns are less "spray and pray" and more the potential for over-travel even on a not-hasty shot.
Interesting - I was not aware of that. I'll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges' opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.
I appreciate that highlight.