California ban on high-capacity gun magazines (win for the people)

a reply to: DBCowboy

How is any of what was said a infringement on your rights?
Please do explain

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is any of what was said a infringement on your rights?
Please do explain

If the government can tell me how many bullets I can have in my firearm, then the government can tell you how many posts you may post in a day.

Infringement is infringement.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is any of what was said a infringement on your rights?
Please do explain

How can a militia (the people) remain well regulated if their arms and munitions are..


...regulated?

a reply to: JinMI

lol

Government: Okay, you can fight us, here's 3 bullets

Militia: Ummm. . . .

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

lol

Government: Okay, you can fight us, here's 3 bullets

Militia: Ummm. . . .

AKA

"The Ukraine strategy."

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JinMI

Using that logic in argumentum ad absurdum...

Can I own an armed fighter jet? Or only buy a demilitarized one? Can I own a stinger missile, ever? What if I invoke the militia privilege, as outlined. What if our compound needs surface to air protection? Is this not the same mindset and application? What isn't within our compounds rights?

There are arms limits. Even a modified shotgun is illegal unless registered with the ATF. Clearly lots of disambiguation and red tape of legal vs illegal arms are present.

And if it's a common sense thing. What weapons are common sense like legal, but heavily regulated, rocket launchers vs an illegal shoulder fired missile.

Clearly there's an effort to keep civilians lesser armed than the miltary.

So why can't this apply as far down as an AR15 vs an M4?

All excellent questions.
The answer to all of them is the same.

The US government has, in the last century, gotten away with ignoring the rules set for it and denying our rights.

They're getting away with it, because people Keri arguing for regulation over freedom.

We used to hang traitors, but now the law is regulated too.

a reply to: lordcomac

a reply to: texas thinker

I see that as a fear, but I don't see the same end point, the disarmament endpoint. Don't see it in totality.

I think they want the AR-15's taken out, absolutely. The hardcore gun control folk telegraph that. I just don't think they are taking pistols or shotguns ever.

At worst: They will add deterrents. Longer waiting periods. Push until they ban assault rifles. And then they'll make lists, check them twice, and really regulate the sh*t out of it, I just don't think the ultimate feared goal will come to pass FEDERALLY.

State and local? Different story.

In an alternate universe Chicago's ban worked and Ft. Wayne doesnt exist.

In reality gun ownership isn't a conservative thing. I own a pistol. My liberal hippie parents own guns. My sister and her husband hunt and fish. They have a hunters arsenal. They don't deserve their sporting goods taken. Or my parents weapons, bought after becoming concerned with being home invasion victims.

I think the worse case scenario preserves even FNG .308 168gr ammo. Still gotta hunt the California Black Bear, for naturalist preservation reasons.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

I still have my back up.

That's not my actual side arm.

Mine doesn't look as good because I rushed sanding the wood grips. In a hurry because you never know when you'll get called up.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JinMI

Using that logic in argumentum ad absurdum...

Can I own an armed fighter jet? Or only buy a demilitarized one? Can I own a stinger missile, ever? What if I invoke the militia privilege, as outlined. What if our compound needs surface to air protection? Is this not the same mindset and application? What isn't within our compounds rights?

There are arms limits. Even a modified shotgun is illegal unless registered with the ATF. Clearly lots of disambiguation and red tape of legal vs illegal arms are present.

And if it's a common sense thing. What weapons are common sense like legal, but heavily regulated, rocket launchers vs an illegal shoulder fired missile.

Clearly there's an effort to keep civilians lesser armed than the miltary.

So why can't this apply as far down as an AR15 vs an M4?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Government: Okay, you can fight us, here's 3 bullets

Militia: Ummm. . . .

So are you going with the idea that militia is in place to overthrow the government?

Constitutional Congress:

Oh wait! This goverment we are setting up. Let's make sure that it is easily overthrown.

Oh yeah! We don't want our hard work to go to waste now.

a reply to: Degradation33

And I can support people owning whatever gun they want, and still mock it for being a looped-holed thing not envisioned in the days of muskets and cannons.

We don’t live in the days of muskets and cannons.

Try explain to our governments that tanks and cluster bombs weren’t envisioned by good old King George.

a reply to: erbdds

"Can I own an armed fighter jet? Or only buy a demilitarized one? Can I own a stinger missile, ever? What if I invoke the militia privilege, as outlined. What if our compound needs surface to air protection? Is this not the same mindset and application? What isn't within our compounds rights?

There are arms limits. Even a modified shotgun is illegal unless registered with the ATF. Clearly lots of disambiguation and red tape of legal vs illegal arms are present.

And if it's a common sense thing. What weapons are common sense like legal, but heavily regulated, rocket launchers vs an illegal shoulder fired missile.

Clearly there's an effort to keep civilians lesser armed than the miltary.

So why can't this apply as far down as an AR15 vs an M4?"
According to the 2nd Amendment, ANYTHING that restricts ANY ownership of ANY 'arm', including f-15's, Stinger missiles, etc. up to and including nuclear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!, and therefore "Shall not be infringed".
(Unless YOU as an INDIVIDUAL have been restricted from possessing a weapon (felon, mentally unstable, etc.)

a reply to: JinMI

Way to answer your own question.
Get larger caliber rounds and down scope better if ya want to take on a full front assault.
Is that something that you plan on doing?

a reply to: DBCowboy

3 rounds isn't the topic now is it cowboy?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is any of what was said a infringement on your rights?
Please do explain

If the government can tell me how many bullets I can have in my firearm, then the government can tell you how many posts you may post in a day.

Infringement is infringement.

Post made by people is no where near what a chambered round is now is it.
Get over yourself man.

a reply to: erbdds

“Well armed”

Afghanistan is a decent example.

They chewed up superpowers.

Ground forces with improvised weapons and rifles with high capacity magazines.

A tyrannical government wouldn’t stand a chance against a determined citizenry that possessed those tools.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: JinMI

Way to answer your own question.
Get larger caliber rounds and down scope better if ya want to take on a full front assault.
Is that something that you plan on doing?

My point was the vast differentiation in two terms....which clearly went way over your head.


My mistake for assuming you were ready for a logical discussion.

a reply to: JinMI

Give me the pretext to the reason this got overlooked and why the court system laughed?

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: JinMI

Give me the pretext to the reason this got overlooked and why the court system laughed?

What are you talking about?