Federal judge strikes down California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines

I find the banning of bump stock to be pretty funny.  Anyone can 'bump' fire their semi-auto rifle without a bump stock. 
Here are two such methods. There are many more;

Bump stocks are for posers.  Ha!

I find the banning of bump stock to be pretty funny.  Anyone can 'bump stock' fire their semi-auto rifle without a bump stock. 
Here are two such methods;
(Hint; look closely and you will see the shooter releases his grip on the pistol grip when the trigger is engaged, holding the gun to their body by either their thumb on a belt loop or against their shoulder) 
Bump stocks are for posers.  Ha!

+1 I use my Zaxon finger for rapid fire ..... old school!!

Some of yall delusional as hell.  Using all kinds of analogies to justify why a person should own 30 round mags, especially the one about fast cars.  .

I love guns as much as some of you guys but it just isnt necessary.  Might be convenient like some of you say but because of the other wackjobs in this world, we're better off without high cap mags.  But you know, it's more important to have what you want and not have someone tell you how to live your life. 

Nobody needs a fully semi-automatic 30 magazine clip.

Ridiculous.

I agree, as no one makes a 30 round "clip" it should not be an issue, as for me I am all for the 30 round magazine, as the US Constitution is not written to protect the rights of dear hunters, it is meant to ensure that should a government become tyrannical the citizens can defend themselves.  Any questions about the 2nd amendment can be direct to comments by our founding fathers indicating that they believed that was a good thing. 

 
This gets funny every time

But you know, it's more important to have what you want and not have someone tell you how to live your life. 

That’s step number one to being a snowflake. You’re special, and it’s all about you.

Nobody needs a fully semi-automatic 30 magazine clip.

Ridiculous.

I agree, as no one makes a 30 round "clip" it should not be an issue, as for me I am all for the 30 round magazine, as the US Constitution is not written to protect the rights of dear hunters, it is meant to ensure that should a government become tyrannical the citizens can defend themselves.  Any questions about the 2nd amendment can be direct to comments by our founding fathers indicating that they believed that was a good thing.

If we have to oppose a tyranny as citizens that most likely means our own government and our own military.  In either case it doesn't really matter how many rounds you have in a clip when you are up against tanks, bombers, etc.  Fighting back means you get to die or live in isolation.   It sounds like some on this page would much rather die free then live under a government that is not a democracy.

Should we advocate that we are allowed to purchase RPG's?  That everyone should be able to own automatics?  Or should we advocate that we track weapons like we track cars and trucks?  Requires a license that is renewed every couple of years and a registration that is paid every year.

Lots of interesting viewpoints 

I agree, as no one makes a 30 round "clip" it should not be an issue, as for me I am all for the 30 round magazine, as the US Constitution is not written to protect the rights of dear hunters, it is meant to ensure that should a government become tyrannical the citizens can defend themselves.  Any questions about the 2nd amendment can be direct to comments by our founding fathers indicating that they believed that was a good thing.
[/quote]

Our founding fathers also thought slave ownership was a good thing and that women should not be able to vote.  Change occurs as our country evolves. 

Nobody needs a fully semi-automatic 30 magazine clip.

Ridiculous.

I agree, as no one makes a 30 round "clip" it should not be an issue, as for me I am all for the 30 round magazine, as the US Constitution is not written to protect the rights of dear hunters, it is meant to ensure that should a government become tyrannical the citizens can defend themselves.  Any questions about the 2nd amendment can be direct to comments by our founding fathers indicating that they believed that was a good thing.

Sorry squid, but you are 100% WRONG about 30 round clips.  They do exist and were used in WW2 by the Alaskan Army.  Super rare, but hey do exist.

But I know you were talking about how most call magazines clips because they are clueless.

i'm still missing the "well regulated militia" part.

What happened to that?

First. The constitution, marvelous as it is, is not immutable. In order to get the slave holding states to join a union it allowed for slavery. Eventually this compromise led to 600 thousand American deaths. The right for women to vote was not in the original constitution but societal pressure changed that. Other amendments for other reasons were also added to meet certain needs. The second amendment in the future, may very well be  reinterpreted as primarily affirming gun rights to militias. The same reasoning applies  to "rights" given by God. Consider the changes in thought about human rights from the Old Testament to the New and the understanding of rights of first century New Testament thought to twenty first century thought. I believe you quoted Dietrich Bonhoffer or one of the other WW2 German theologians with regard to resisting governmental evil. Comparing  resisting the evil of the  Nazis to giving up the freedom of having as much ammo capacity as one wishes  is like comparing a sand grain to a mountain.
Second. I see no way that a populace armed with guns is going to overthrow a foreign nation or our own government should we feel endangered. We would need missiles/planes/bombs etc. as well as the training to use it. Not going to happen except in the movies.
I don't get your analogy about 30 round capacity and cars that can go 100 miles over the speed limit. Yeah, vehicles can go faster than the speed limit but one gets a ticket for it. Speed limits, traffic lights, all make driving safer even if not always followed. Laws do limit freedom. It's the only way we can live without chaos.

+1

+ I have not heard any response to this and would be interested to hear one.  Is there anyone on the side of not limiting the magazine capacity that has an opinion on this?  Is the idea that if enough of us shot back that an army of today will disengage, or is it a thought process that if a there is a law to limit magazine capacity, then the next step is to limit the type of gun? 

Also please explain an alternative to the logical trail of losing some gun rights is based on the belief that our own government will become a tyranny and use our military to suppress us.  Or do you fear our military will lose to China or Russia and we will have to defend our land?

A Japanese general said we can't invade America because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass. So was our guns are a deterrent to another country invading us. Chicago Washington DC and new Orleans have the strictest gun laws in the US they also have the most shooting.  Criminals dont care what the law says they are breaking them anyway.  Because you dont choose to own something doesn't give you the right to tell someone else they shouldn't.  I'm a fly fisherman but I do t try to make everyone else fly fish because live bait isn't fair to the fish. You have every right to defend yourself and your family how you choose to is your choice. If the government did turn tyrannical they would have the superior fire power but gun owners would massively out number the military.  Also I would hope that the military would uphold there oath they protect our country and constitution not the government.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Gun violence combined with drugs are a plague on this country.  The three cities you mention have this problem (along with many other cities).  I fear our police in those cities have become like the Japanese general from 80+ years ago and are afraid to arrest those involved.  (The problem is bigger than their ability to handle it by themselves.)  Perhaps Trump can focus on this. 

To your second point, when the military does not support the President that is called a military coup.   Part of the swearing in of all military is that they will support the Commander in Chief (the President).  As citizens bearing arms against the military we would outnumber the military but they would definitely have superior weaponry; which necessitates gorilla tactics on our part.  Of course all of this is something that I can't imagine happening any time in our future because I actually believe in our system of government.  I may disagree with some of the laws, etc. but a democracy is one of the greatest gifts our founding fathers provided us, and I am thankful and appreciative for everyone that has served our country to defend this great country.

  Part of the swearing in of all military is that they will support the Commander in Chief (the President).

Interesting!  I did not know that!

That changes everything. brb going to go buy a cruise missile and some AA guns.

I am very active with my fire arms, love to shoot. I  am a  one shot at a time type. I  can put a bullet within 12 inches of a 1 gal. Jug. At 1 mile. In 15 sec. Less than 10 mile cross wind.
I have no use for high cap. Mags. Still Gov. Tends to take things away slowly , it won't stop at magazines or style of gun. Gov. At this time is still afraid of its citizens fire power.  Soon that will change.