Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.
California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
You're viewing a single thread.
The incredible liberal skew to r/Politics has migrated from Reddit and it shows.
So much sheer irrational cope in here it's amazing.
do you think Lemmy is exclusively populated with Americans? There's a whole wide world out there you know, where much stricter gun laws are common and accepted across the political spectrum, do not assume anyone's political leaning just because they're against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
Yep. I argue with Europeans a lot about guns.
If I had a genie where I can magically wish guns away, I'd do it.
But right now, armed Nazi fucks parade around the city, PROTECTED BY COPS, and they want to pass laws that make it harder for my brown hands to protect myself?
I do believe the timing of the new accounts is an able indicator.
do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
It's generally more an assessment of the talking point used and coherence of the argument - you seem to be doing some assuming yourself.
Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don't get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you're tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here's a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don't want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.
Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
So, in your estimation, does Congress just... not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I'm aware, they're popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that's even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.
Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There's, say, no selection bias at all?
Interesting.
By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.
That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?
The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.
Is that so? I'm interested in seeing your support for such a notion.
If we're going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn't seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would... suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position... do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?
We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa's 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% 'yay' rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa's Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it's mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.
Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.
Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.
Well then, stay the course. You guys did so well in 2022 after all, and House Republicans are currently showing the country just how serious and competent they are at governance. The midterms weren't kind to conspiratorial and extremist candidates, so it's good to see that Republicans are showing everyone just who controls the party these days.
I should really keep Sun Tzu in mind more often.
Well then, stay the course. You guys did so well in 2022 after all, and House Republicans are currently showing the country just how serious and competent they are at governance.
Who is you guys in your eyes? You seem to be making some flawed assumptions here.
I should really keep Sun Tzu in mind more often.
You should also try to make arguments based in reality and not just ignore direct criticisms of your flawed reasoning, but hey, that seems to be expecting a bit much.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
I'm not sure how highlighting a problematic shift in discourse and contained cope or expressing incredulity at the shift is, somehow, an inability to cope with seeing how things are - if anything, it would be quite specifically seeing how things are and beginning discourse about how things are.
But hey - don't let that get in the way of an attempted dunk.