this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
522 points (97.1% liked)

News

23300 readers
3477 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.

It was you that threw up a linked and said "Duke says," no context, no quotes, no arguments.

My article contains undisputed facts.

Fact: there was no individual right before the bill of rights, in any state constitution, or in any system of English law, so how could there be one after the Bill of Rights?

Fact: for a few decades before the second amendment was written, there is no surviving text in which the usage of "bear arms" clearly refers to an individual right, and in 95% of the usage it refers expressly to the context of regimented military.

Fact: the self defense and home defense argument are utterly delusional in light of the actual statistics that offensive and suicide uses to defensive usage is 50 to 1.

Fact: the placement of the phrase "well regulated military" evidence a clear original intent for the second amendment to exist to serve the purpose of protecting state government, a purpose that does not suggest an individual right.

You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.

You find me one instance of the phrase "bear arms" prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.

We're still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don't get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I've addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.

It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.

I see you haven't bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.

My article contains undisputed facts.

See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.

Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.

You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.

You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.

Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.