'pantherclub said:
'timschochet said:
'pantherclub said:
I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?
You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one.
It's amazing you have the ability to write this even though you continually refused to acknowledge posts showing that when the magazine capacity law was in effect in the past, a 10 capacity limitation was ineffective in limiting deaths in mass shootings. Just amazing.
If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment.
And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.
best post of this thread
I don't know if it will ever be challenged but I'll take a stab (not a shot - wouldn't want to waste one) at how it might be. I asked in my 1st post in this thread, "where do you draw the line". At what point does a magazine limitation effectively limit deaths and not infringe on a person's right to effectively defend himself. There were very few responses and only one person tried to (unsuccessfully) defend his position. This is how I think it may be attacked.From
Heller:
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional
Does a magazine limitation of 30 prevent someone from using their firearm in self defense? I think most would say no. How about a magazine limitation of one? I think most would say yes, it would make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional".
What about a limitation of 10? I think Cookiemonster made a very strong case that it does limit one's ability in self defense.
As far as I know, the Court's rulings are generally very narrow in scope. If it wasn't specifically challenged in the past, there would not have likely been a ruling. It's somewhat absurd to think that since it wasn't challenged or overturned in the past, it won't be in the future. By your same reasoning above, a trigger lock mechanism doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, I guess because you don't think it specifically infringes on our right to bear arms. The Court seems to disagree. The same argument can be made for magazine limitations.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Because nobody ever gets attacked in public places... 
