New Jersey Bill to Limit Magazines to 5 rounds or less.

Greoric said:
There isn't doubt that they exist. There is doubt that they are constitutional, however. To the extent that a bunch of politically appointed people in black robe dress up is meaningless, when you consider that the 2A is potentially counter to their seats of power.
Click to expand...

Meh, I generally have what I think is a pretty healthy deference for the Supreme Court in general, but I think the Court has been specifically pretty narrow and personal rights-oriented in this area of law, with the glaring exception felon bans. I sided with the conservative majority on Heller but think it's a pretty reasonable bright line on the issue of hedging government regulation.

I truly have no idea how posters like Exception can claim to posit that the Supreme Court has held up the absolutist, and in my opinion pretty reductive, interpretation in light of the upholding of numerous regulations on both the corporate manufacture and personal ownership of firearms. It truly boggles the mind.

But, to be certain, I think rigid textualism is one of the most moronic frameworks for jurisprudence.


But, to digress back to my earlier harping, why in the utter fuck were Trump supporters/gun nuts not up in arms about the Trump administration urging the Supreme Court to reject the 2nd Amendment claims of men who lost their rights to own firearms over nonviolent crimes committed 20 years ago?
 
Also, I just realized that Exception was conflating automatic and assault weapons. LOL @ swinging your dick around on this subject when you can't differentiate automatic firearms from a silly pseudo-class of weapons based on how scary they look.
 
Trotsky said:
Meh, I generally have what I think is a pretty healthy deference for the Supreme Court in general, but I think the Court has been specifically pretty narrow and personal rights-oriented in this area of law, with the glaring exception felon bans. I sided with the conservative majority on Heller but think it's a pretty reasonable bright line on the issue of hedging government regulation.

I truly have no idea how posters like Exception can claim to posit that the Supreme Court has held up the absolutist, and in my opinion pretty reductive, interpretation in light of the upholding of numerous regulations on both the corporate manufacture and personal ownership of firearms. It truly boggles the mind.

But, to be certain, I think rigid textualism is one of the most moronic frameworks for jurisprudence.


But, to digress back to my earlier harping, why in the utter fuck were Trump supporters/gun nuts not up in arms about the Trump administration urging the Supreme Court to reject the 2nd Amendment claims of men who lost their rights to own firearms over nonviolent crimes committed 20 years ago?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you imagine textualism is "the most moronic framework...", malleability to the constitution was built in.... They're otherwise known as amendments (I couldn't resist).

As for your link, that's the first I'm reading of it. Maybe if the media wasn't focusing on the pornstars Trump fucked it might be more visible in the public eye. I also agree with your comment about felons. If you pay your debt to society you ought to have your rights restored.
 
Last edited:
Revolvers are now illegal as high capacity firearms?

Fuck this shit. The 2nd amendment was not meant simply for hunting
 
sabretruth said:
I think 10 is a reasonable limit. 5 is too low.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your sentiment, but really think that the goal of this 5 shot max bill proposal is to shift the field goal post further left in an attempt to put the "reasonable center" at 10 and pull it off the current no mag restrictions
 
Greoric said:
I don't know why you imagine textualism is "the most moronic framework...", malleability to the constitution was built in.... They're otherwise known as amendments (I couldn't resist).
Click to expand...

That mechanism is simply too rigid to respond to the needs of the polity, even in far more bipartisan eras, as we're a quarter-century removed from the last amendment. Without some level of "judicial activism," to use a much-maligned term, the transactional costs of law making would have been direly costly to the country.

Is it somewhat anti-democratic? Sure. But at least with this instance of cutting into democracy, unlike most others, it's generally used for the benefit of the democracy.

As for your link, that's the first I'm reading of it. Maybe if the media wasn't focusing on the pornstars Trump fucked it might be more visible in the public eye.
Click to expand...

I generally grant the press more leeway in the entertainment news era of meeting consumer demand. And I think that most of their "scandalous" coverage has been tied, even if tangentially, to the administration's political nucleus. This Stormy Daniels shit is an exception. Not only has it occupied space that could be used for more substantive criticism, it's just gross.

I also agree with your comment about felons. If you pay your debt to society you ought to have your rights restored.
Click to expand...

Off the cuff, I'd prefer outright banning of nonviolent felons bans and some sort of appeals process for violent criminals, such as the ability to apply for reinstatement after 10 years without incident or some shit.
 
Greoric said:
This is exactly the speed I expected of you KONG.
Click to expand...


Oh brother, this coming from a libertarian.

I mean how Fn brain dead does a person get?. Following an ideology that has never existed anywhere on planet earth and going around talking like a fool and telling people that something That has never existed anywhere on earth is the correct ideology for their country.

But I guess you look cool when you’re hanging around 20 year old college kids.

That’s your speed buddy. It’s set on delusional.
 
Trotsky said:
That mechanism is simply too rigid to respond to the needs of the polity, even in far more bipartisan eras, as we're a quarter-century removed from the last amendment. Without some level of "judicial activism," to use a much-maligned term, the transactional costs of law making would have been direly costly to the country.

Is it somewhat anti-democratic? Sure. But at least with this instance of cutting into democracy, unlike most others, it's generally used for the benefit of the democracy.
Click to expand...

That's precisely the point, friend. You do not want policy to be reactive to the whims of the majority.
 
Trotsky said:
Off the cuff, I'd prefer outright banning of nonviolent felons bans and some sort of appeals process for violent criminals, such as the ability to apply for reinstatement after 10 years without incident or some shit.
Click to expand...

In any event, I fully support this. Whoever said a Marxist and an-cap can't agree on anything.?
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
Oh brother, this coming from a libertarian.

I mean how Fn brain dead does a person get?. Following an ideology that has never existed anywhere on planet earth and going around talking like a fool and telling people that something That has never existed anywhere on earth is the correct ideology for their country.

But I guess you look cool when you’re hanging around 20 year old college kids.

That’s your speed buddy. It’s set on delusional.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like communists. Or anarchists.

Right-libertarianism has existed. It just wasn't very popular to the majority of people, and polities moved away from it.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
Oh brother, this coming from a libertarian.

I mean how Fn brain dead does a person get?. Following an ideology that has never existed anywhere on planet earth and going around talking like a fool and telling people that something That has never existed anywhere on earth is the correct ideology for their country.

But I guess you look cool when you’re hanging around 20 year old college kids.

That’s your speed buddy. It’s set on delusional.
Click to expand...

So angry.
 
Trotsky said:
That sounds more like communists. Or anarchists.

Right-libertarianism has existed. It just wasn't very popular to the majority of people, and polities moved away from it.
Click to expand...

When you're the representative of an institution that can promise you free shit at the point of a gun of course that's going to carry broad appeal. Governments, out of fiscal necessity to survive, must grow. The more prosperous, and necessarily decentralized the market, the more parasitic and stronger the state becomes. Exhibit A is the US. The smallest government in world history became the biggest govt in world history.

It has nothing to do really with . There's any number of policies legislated into existence that the majority don't want (for better or worse). CAF, Patriot act, War on drugs, wars etc.... You name it.
 
Isn't new jersey one of those states that you have to keep your gun locked in a laser alarm safe at all times, ammo stored sperate?

So what difference does it even make at that point? Make it 1 round mags.
 
Exception said:
No, not just "anyone" can do that. Even if you were pretending that you u derstood what was happening here you would still be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Oh that's right. Anyone with 10,000$ can do it.

Doesn't change the fact, that if I wanted to, I could own a machine gun, or a tank.

I know someone who owns 2 tanks.
 
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,128
Messages
55,468,891
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top