this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
-21 points (25.6% liked)
conservative
920 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here are a few:
Because it's our right. (I know you know this but it's still the first reason).
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it's more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
Number 1 again.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines. And regulating magazines doesn't effect your right to own guns.
So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?
Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.
Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584
So any weapon that can be carried is covered by the second amendment is what you're saying?
I would interpret that as those useful in the defense of one's self or one's homeland. Something that would prevent the enjoyment of the land after it's use like a cobalt bomb wouldn't apply in my mind, because it would making the land uninhabitable (invalidating the whole point of defending it). Things like munitions would likely be included with a caveat requiring their storage in the modern equivalent of a powder house, in keeping with the historical tradition of the founding period.
Wiki link to a specific powder house that was in use at the time of the founding:
Strange and unusual weapons like a shotgun collar from the Saw movies wouldn't be permissible as those don't have merit for either common or self defense.
Kinda touched on a few different aspects there hopefully it's clear.
So then is it safe to say, that there are some things that can be carried, but are in some way too ridiculous/dangerous to make sense to be covered under the 2a? How does magazines large enough to mow down an entire crowd of children not count?
I am sorry if I was unclear before, but the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense. That said it is because magazines are an object of martial value that can be employed in a controlled manner in a style to limit needless collateral damages.
So then as long as it is "pragmatic" and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?
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.
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".
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.