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

News

23434 readers
2311 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I mean... perhaps you aren't a native English speaker? The text of the law is literally unlimited. Any weapon restriction is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

[–] ScornForSega -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Perhaps you're not an American? Perhaps you don't know the history of your own country?

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That's what conservatism used to look like. What you're parroting is NRA propaganda. It's unprecedented and it's insane.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to or affect you at all.

From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

  1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn't matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can't change your mind without amending the document, just like you can't arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you've signed it.

  2. Same thing. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution

  3. The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.

Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[–] ScornForSega 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

  1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment

Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn't make it so.

You need to read more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

Had me fooled.

It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

"the people" refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't mention national defense.

Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

It's not illegal because I say it is, it's illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.

You need to read more.

Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

You'll note they're entirely unable to do so. I give it ~1 day until they try an I've got a degree therefore I'm right ploy on you, too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We'll see. I've got a degree of my own, so that won't be much of a pwn though.

[–] ScornForSega 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

doesn’t mention national defense.

WTF do you think "necessary to the security of a free State" means?

It's really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:

" That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That's not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.

National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

v.

Just because you say something ... doesn’t make it so.

Nice.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)