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.
It's interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.
You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?
Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.
It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.
Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person
Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they're partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.
I'd argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.
From reading your article, wouldn’t the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations?
The entire premise to the ghost gun fearmongering is the lack of traceability - "serial numbers" aren't part of it.
I somehow suspect a cartel manufacturing firearms isn't going to bother registering it before trafficking it to Mexico. So, no - it would be entirely ineffective.
Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.
Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.
Let's consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don't know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it's much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.
However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them.
I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I've been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.
Sure, but it's not really about need and there's nothing meaningfully different about them.
Guns should be registered.
You're going to see much resistance to the notion of the state owning a registry of every individual owning a firearm and what they own. Allow for the concept of a paper trail of transfers especially where private-party transfers are legal, allow those to request NICS checks, and you'll probably be set.
Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.
Alternatively, we could address the root of the problem: Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels - there are policy changes we could enact to defang drug cartels while also helping enable addicts to seek the support they need.
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 see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
No worries at all, and agreed. It's part of why this is so incredibly frustrating - the sheer entrenched nature of this partisan-aligned wedge issue precludes any form of meaningful progress.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
Correct, and entirely agreed. This is the nature of the flaw with most such restrictions - unless there's compelling evidence the tools used for a given crime were sourced by legal owners, further restricting legal owners does absolutely no good.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.
This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.
As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.
On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.
Blue team isn't going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.
Let's not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.
It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.
And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.
It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.
I'm not sure if you'd actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.
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.
Which doesn't change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.
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.
And the federal judges disagree with you.