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

• PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I was under the impression we were sending rifles to Ukraine because they didn’t have any. I can admit when I was wrong

  Thank you, I understand how hard it is and I appreciate it.

  However, I will say a million guns in a nation with a population of 43M isn’t saying much for their defense strategy

  It’s not just a million guns. Historically, Ukraine has been a leaky boat in terms of weapons through various smuggling sources. So up to the war, a large amount of unregistered, illegal weapons were in the country. From my understanding the situation was getting better. Plus not all of them would have been meant for smuggling. But the absolute number of guns is much closer to a couple million.

  Ukraine was a dumb argument. Can we move on? Lol

  I’ll try not to dwell on it, but it is a relevant part of the conversation. If guns did something to prevent tyranny, we haven’t seen it in Ukraine.

  What is there to interpret about “shall not be infringed?”

  In an ideal world, the founding father would have been a little more clear about the issue.

  But that’s not the reality of the situation:

  motherjones.com/…/supreme-court-pulsifer-criminal…

  www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14bar.html

  The definition of the word “and” evidently isn’t clear enough. If something like that isn’t simple enough to interpret, “infringed” isn’t either. “As plain as can possibly be” isn’t something that really exists in law, let alone constitutional law.

  Safety is not guaranteed, whether guns exist or not, therefore, it is perceived no matter what angle from which it’s viewed.

  Then forget perception of safety. We should seek to reduce the number of people who die, and a big cause of that is firearms. Most developed nations use gun control to do so.

  I don’t think I get your point on Germany - a state which seems to oppress it’s citizens would not disarm those it seems to oppress? If that’s your point it’s silly and I think you know that but I still don’t think that’s what you were trying to say.

  My argument was not “Nazi Germany wasn’t tyrannical”. My point was that number one, guns didn’t help, and number two, gun control isn’t tyrannical.

  Nazi Germany built the autobahn. And that was largely a good thing, even if done by a tyrannical government. Just because a government is tyrannical doesn’t mean all of its laws are, or all parts of all its laws.

  And this isn’t to say that Nazi Germany’s implementation of gun control wasn’t tyrannical, because it was because it was based on race.

  Let me try putting the original argument into a syllogism for you.

  P1. Private gun ownership prevents tyranny

  P2. The gun control Nazi Germany created was tyrannical

  C. The gun control did come to fruition

  Except the conclusion quite clearly is false, so one of the two premises must be false. P2 is and isn’t true because if the reasons I explained above with it being based on race.

  But P1 is also false because there is no causal link that allows it to be true. When a government becomes tyrannical, gun owners do not step up to deal with it, and that’s because the lines are blurry as fuck.

  Take the U.S. for instance. When the Patriot act passed, the government became more tyrannical, spying on everyone and everything. Did gun owners violently overthrow the government in response to that tyranny? No, because it wasn’t tyrannical enough for citizens to care. The bar of tyranny was just barely nudged, just enough to take more, but not enough to cause a reaction. And that’s how governments get tyrannical, slow gradual changes.

  And because of how slow and gradual the increase in tyranny is, there isn’t really a good place to decide to physically fight for change with guns. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and time and time again the line gets drawn after it is too late, such as the case with Nazi Germany. The SS officers nocked on your door and took your gun, and you didn’t use your gun because if you did, you would have been shot right there on the spot. And that’s how it went for most gun owners. Their gun didn’t do shit for them, because it was already too late.

  The genocide answer is that just because it hasn’t happened in those places (yet) doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.

  This is basically a slippery sloap fallacy, but with a whisper of a threat of a slope.

  If every place can have genocide, then listing random genocides isn’t enough to prove a causal link.

  source