Comment

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

If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.

source

Sort:hotnew top

PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Now you’ve moved the goal posts.

These two statements:

has an effect on people that ignore laws

and

criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal

are fundamentally different claims.
source
- random65837@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been. You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place. Law that aren’t new, and have proven useless. You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.
  
  source
  - PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place.
    
    That’s not what I want.
    
    You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.
    
    And this is an ad hominem.
    
    source
    random65837@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Not anymore, because
    
    has an effect on people that ignore laws and
    
    criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.
    
    Those are constant facts, they move nothing. Unless you’re claiming that criminals follow laws.
    
    That’s not what I want.
    
    Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.
    
    And this is an ad hominem.
    
    No, that’s obvious. The ad-hominem would be you virtue signalling children as a way to violate the rights of the law abiding.
    
    source