Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year agothe 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?
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.
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”.
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You say citizens shouldn’t have the ability, I’d say citizens shouldn’t have the motivation. And there I suppose is where we differ.
Those types of intentional acts are the culmination of means and motive. There exists pragmatic reasons for one to have a means of offense, but no pragmatic reason to accept a world where a motive for such an offense could preside.
I would suggest that the cure to that ailment is addressing wealth disparity and the ways technology has driven our country further apart now more than ever.
A nation where martial might resided largely in a people’s milita rather than a government’s army wouldn’t be engaged in eternal foreign warfare as a means of justifying the existence of the military industrial complex but rather acting as a deterrent against invasion.
But thank you for at least humoring my perspective.