Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
  - FireTower@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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”.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments