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

a reply to: JinMI

I can have a logical conversation. But you and I have to have a complete understanding of the reason as to why the court system gave the win to gun owners.
Pretense is key to understanding.
They want that before looking at any case in a meaningful manner.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

You JinMi displayed one earlier. Do it again.

a reply to: JinMI

Ouch....
I guess I got ya on that?!
Come at me again dude

a reply to: watchitburn

Now watch the price of ammo it will become scarce or tax towards not infeasible to have fun shooting at targets out in the open.
In Fontana California there's a open range way up north of Fontana off of Sierra avenue years ago we would have AR I mean whatever you call him I mean it was just loaded with gunfire from 8:00 in the morning till about 7:00 at night and it was I never saw no danger too anything.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: JinMI

Ouch....
I guess I got ya on that?!
Come at me again dude

Got me on what?

3 posts and not one coherent statement among them.

Try again?

originally posted by: Degradation33

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?

In this video below, that military issue is addressed. (it's toward the end of the video though)



This ruling is still being digested b legal minds, so a better understanding will happen either after the 9th Court of Appeals reviews, stays, or bumps it up to the SCOTUS.

a reply to: NickPDX22

i was in the miliary and that is the only place these weapons belong, even more so out of police hands.


not EVERY squad ca needs one has to have an ArmaLite in where the shotsun used to be, i think id rather get shot with a .223 than a slug. I do own both weapons of various make and model and other than going to the range i see no use for the police to have these, they can hardly keep their fingers off ther side arms

And i sometimes i feel like I'm walking around in a world of zombies just getting up, working, sleep and repeat

a reply to: OrangeOrbs

I too was in a military and I definitely disagree with you.

a reply to: Degradation33

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

It's about being able to defend one's self, and family, etc... from an overweening, bent on tyranny, govt., or some numpty who thinks what's mine is, in his twisted reality, actually his.

So, yes, it is rather an awesome decision.

a reply to: Mahogany

What does this decision have to do with deer hunting?

When I deer hunt, I have 3 in the mag, and one in the chamber. Bolt action Savage 30-30 made in 1944 for the US Navy. My Uncle bought two of when he was discharged after WW2.

When, God forbid, I have to deal with a two legged critter being where he's not welcome, such as my home, I have other weapons to deal with that--all of which hold at least 10, usually more.

a reply to: Guyfriday

This ruling is still being digested b legal minds, so a better understanding will happen either after the 9th Court of Appeals reviews, stays, or bumps it up to the SCOTUS.

That's the issue. The 9th circuit ruled the ban unconstitutional. Then a year later, an en banc circus show hearing in the 9th circuit said it was constitutional - that's why the lower federal courts have stricken it and ruled this way multiple times.

The 9th circuit isn't going to do anything productive; if they do, they'll just get petitioned for another special hearing so the politicians get what they want. Nothing will be resolved until it's sent to the Supreme Court

originally posted by: NickPDX22
“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” wrote U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in a 71-page decision published Friday. “Based on the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional. “

A Judge in ... CommieFornia?!?! ... said this??? Wtf?!?

Canceling Judge Roger Benitez commences in 10, 9, 8, ...

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry

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.

You're right, a post isn't a bullet.

But a constitutional right is a constitutional right is a constitutional right.

That's...... kind of...... what was being stated.

Infringement is infringement. Chipping away at a right that clearly states "Shall Not be Infringed" helps to pave the way for other rights that DON'T say "Shall Not be Infringed" to be....... Infringed upon.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: watchitburn

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.

Said the person who is totally clueless about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

If you were clued in, you would know that the framers actually intended that private Citizens be able to lawfully buy, possess and bear any arms that were used by the Militia - meaning, in todays nomenclature, the Military.

This is why we can, still even today, lawfully purchase and own fully automatic weapons. They have of course pushed through unConstitutional laws restricting dramatically how and where they can be used, but I'm sure you're fine with that.

It really is applying something in a 250 year old context of what constitutes "arms". I can and will have fun with that. It can be consistent to take both sides here.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: NickPDX22

This is an awesome win for hunters in this state. .223 ammo is great for small game. This will be perfect for those rabbits and foxes that need 11 shots or more to go down.

Ignorance plus arrogance is a poor mix.

originally posted by: OrangeOrbs
a reply to: NickPDX22

i was in the miliary and that is the only place these weapons belong, even more so out of police hands.


not EVERY squad ca needs one has to have an ArmaLite in where the shotsun used to be, i think id rather get shot with a .223 than a slug. I do own both weapons of various make and model and other than going to the range i see no use for the police to have these, they can hardly keep their fingers off ther side arms

And i sometimes i feel like I'm walking around in a world of zombies just getting up, working, sleep and repeat

Ah, all who disagree with you are zombies.
Say no more, we have your species identified.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Degradation33

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

It's about being able to defend one's self, and family, etc... from an overweening, bent on tyranny, govt., or some numpty who thinks what's mine is, in his twisted reality, actually his.

So, yes, it is rather an awesome decision.

Case in point -
-IRS CPA nerds armed to the teeth
-Capital police opening police stations around the country
-Chinese police stations here and there, Bidens folks A-OK with it
-Some police units armed like the US Army, thanks to civil forfeiture and fed surplus

These are all happening now.
People who don’t know this or don’t care are grossly stupid.
We have the same insane dictator wannabes in America that ever took over Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, etc. There’s a bunch of them working for Biden.
it’s the constitution and 2A that have kept them from being successful overlords here in the USA. Now we have the EU and WHO and World Bank etc to worry about. Along with all their American traitorous helpers.

originally posted by: OrangeOrbs
a reply to: NickPDX22

i was in the miliary and that is the only place these weapons belong, even more so out of police hands.


not EVERY squad ca needs one has to have an ArmaLite in where the shotsun used to be, i think id rather get shot with a .223 than a slug. I do own both weapons of various make and model and other than going to the range i see no use for the police to have these, they can hardly keep their fingers off ther side arms

And i sometimes i feel like I'm walking around in a world of zombies just getting up, working, sleep and repeat

Lol, screeching anti-gun guy announces that he owns plenty-of-weapons, and knows them inside and out from his Rambo days.

Do you guys ever think about what you post ?
It’s embarrassing any more.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: JinMI

Ouch....
I guess I got ya on that?!
Come at me again dude

Got me on what?

3 posts and not one coherent statement among them.

Try again?

Dude posted a silly inexplicable blob of words (picture Kamala Harris making various noises) and announced that it made him winner, of something.

The quality of people and posts has gone way down around here.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: JinMI

Ouch....
I guess I got ya on that?!
Come at me again dude

When somebody seriously says “come at me again dude”, we have a real age gap.

Like teens snarking and yapping at folks who’ve been working and contributing and raising a family for 40 years.