523
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I'll be marginally more open to compromise.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m not opposed to owning firearms at all. Disarm the government? Guess you want anarchy, and/or mob justice.

The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away. Once they’ve taken everything else they can, they’ll come for the guns too. You’ll finally be right, but you’ll be dead. Fat lot of good that’ll do. Damn fool idea to be so myopic that guns are gonna defeat the government - and for that matter, what a shit world it’s gonna be if people are ever actually put in a position where they have to do so. They just skip to the end where they win in the imaginary battle. But what did they win? The right to be an ostracized and impoverished pocket surrounded by an enemy. Yay?

“Against the government” has to be one of the worst arguments ever.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago

The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away.

I wonder if you're aware the extent to which this is deliciously ironic.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It’s not ironic when they’re doing just that. Just keep elevating authoritarians and see what you get.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago

Once more with the delicious irony.

I'm interested in your thoughts on how I've elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I've voted for... or to be talking out your ass once more.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.

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.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Speaking with 2A militants is a waste of time.

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’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely)

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.

so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away.

I see you're working on your projection.

You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.

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.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
523 points (97.1% liked)

News

23259 readers
1552 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS