Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

• FireTower@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I would interpret that as those useful in the defense of one’s self or one’s homeland. Something that’s 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. 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 period.

  Wiki link to a specific powder house that was in use at the time of the founding: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_House_Square#Old_Powder_House

  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.

  source

  • PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • FireTower@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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. Because magazines are an object of martial value that can be employed in a controlled manner in a style to limit needless collateral damages.

      source

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense.

        So then as long as it is “pragmatic” and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?

        source

        • -> View More Comments