this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
-21 points (25.6% liked)
conservative
931 readers
57 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine for an assault rifle? “self defense”?
Here are a few:
Because it's our right. (I know you know this but it's still the first reason).
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it's more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
Number 1 again.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines. And regulating magazines doesn't effect your right to own guns.
So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?
Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.
Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584
So any weapon that can be carried is covered by the second amendment is what you're saying?
I would interpret that as those useful in the defense of one's self or one's homeland. Something that would prevent the enjoyment of the land after it's use like a cobalt bomb wouldn't apply in my mind, because it would making the land uninhabitable (invalidating the whole point of defending it). Things like munitions would likely be included with a caveat requiring their storage in the modern equivalent of a powder house, in keeping with the historical tradition of the founding period.
Wiki link to a specific powder house that was in use at the time of the founding:
Strange and unusual weapons like a shotgun collar from the Saw movies wouldn't be permissible as those don't have merit for either common or self defense.
Kinda touched on a few different aspects there hopefully it's clear.
So then is it safe to say, that there are some things that can be carried, but are in some way too ridiculous/dangerous to make sense to be covered under the 2a? How does magazines large enough to mow down an entire crowd of children not count?
I am sorry if I was unclear before, but the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense. That said it is because magazines are an object of martial value that can be employed in a controlled manner in a style to limit needless collateral damages.
So then as long as it is "pragmatic" and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?
Yes and by doing so the onus falls upon you to become educated in it's safe handling, proficient in it's operations, and maintenance. Along with displaying acumen in your employment or lack there of with it.
Then you have an unrealistic and terrible definition of what arms are. Citizens should not have the ability to mow down an entire crowd of people because their M134 was deemed "pragmatic".
You say citizens shouldn't have the ability, I'd say citizens shouldn't have the motivation. And there I suppose is where we differ.
Those types of intentional acts are the culmination of means and motive. There exists pragmatic reasons for one to have a means of offense, but no pragmatic reason to accept a world where a motive for such an offense could preside.
I would suggest that the cure to that ailment is addressing wealth disparity and the ways technology has driven our country further apart now more than ever.
A nation where martial might resided largely in a people's milita rather than a government's army wouldn't be engaged in eternal foreign warfare as a means of justifying the existence of the military industrial complex but rather acting as a deterrent against invasion.
But thank you for at least humoring my perspective.
Self defense is but one reason to own a rifle. I'd suggest that people are entitled to own the most apt means of self preservation. And it seems that in the era of intermediate cartridges the most pragmatic sum for a rifle to hold is usually 30 rounds beyond that magazine start to become a hindrance. In most cases people might not use even all ten rounds. Having the additional capacity doesn't prohibit one from using fewer rounds, but having only 10 does inhibit you from using more than 10 rounds.
Another reason for ownership of rifles is in common defense as alluded to in the 2A by the "Necessary to the security of a free State". The standard on the global stage for an intermediate cartridge rifle is also 30 rounds of capacity. Meaning most threats to the security of our state would have three times the capacity of a 10 rd magazine.
Why not? No one needs an excuse.
Yes. Arm everyone. No excuses. Give everyone rifles with large magazines. What could possibly go wrong in the only country where things regularly go wrong
Exactly! What could go wrong?
Because the Onion should write laws
This is a strawman. In no way did I suggest that.
You do realize it was a joke, right?
Then you're terrible with jokes
Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNEWXghq_4I&ab_channel=CentralFloridaHogCullers
Californians need more than 10 rounds because of hog hunters in florida?
I don't believe you're asking in good faith or would find any reason presented as valid, and I'm not going to play whack-a-mole or engage beyond this reply.
Locality isn't really relevant in terms of federal constitutionality. Moreover, it's not wise to demand demonstration of a need to justify a right at the level of an individual. Why do you need to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could argue that we'd be a lot safer if the cops could shake everyone down and catch the baddies early. Why do you need to be secure against cruel and unusual punishment? One could argue that we'd be a lot safer if there was more gruesome public deterrence. Why do you need to be able to freely speak your mind in public? So on and so forth. Individual need is not the fulcrum.
I get it though, you don't like this one right in particular, so you'll want to wiggle about how it's different or outdated or misapplied as to individuals. I'm going to assume your life is fairly stable and secure, based on your original question. Good for you. But don't assume everyone has your privilege, and try to appreciate that this is a large nation with a great many ways of life and circumstances that are outside your personal experience.
I hope we all get to keep all of our rights, as they keep us, by virtue of their nature and our nature. As to need, I sure hope you never have to individually assert any of your rights because you have an acute need, but if you do, I hope you still enjoy whichever right you need in that moment and haven't pissed it away.
(Edit for small typos)
Because people and children are dying from firearm related deaths all the fucking time in this country. Your rights end where another's nose begins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I never said anything about any of this:
Or this:
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
Now you've moved the goal posts.
These two statements:
and
are fundamentally different claims.
Not anymore, because
and
are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.
That's not what I want.
And this is an ad hominem.
Nah. From what I've seen, you'd just intentionally miss the point.
Thanks for proving that you'll intentionally miss the point.
smoothbrain take right here