A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.

      • @PizzaMan
        2•1 year ago

        Give an example of how that’s a straw man

        I never said anything about any of this:

        • 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

        Or this:

        • I’ll bet speed limits and DUI laws stop people too right?

        You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.

          • @PizzaMan
            2•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.

              • @PizzaMan
                3•1 year ago

                Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been

                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.

                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.

                  • @PizzaMan
                    3•1 year ago

                    Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.

                    Nah. From what I’ve seen, you’d just intentionally miss the point.