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

  • JingJang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here are a few:

    1. Because it’s our right. (I know you know this but it’s still the first reason).

    2. Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.

    3. Number 1 again.

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because it’s our right.

      The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines. And regulating magazines doesn’t effect your right to own guns.

      Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.

      So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_House_Square#Old_Powder_House

            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.

            • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense.

                  So then as long as it is “pragmatic” and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?

                  • FireTower@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.