DUNCAN V. BONTA GOES TO SCOTUS CONFERENCE - California Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition

[NotARobotYet]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...

What the state does to us is a miscarriage of our civil rights and liberties, we are delegated treated and condemned like we are 3rd class citizens just because we exercise our civil rights.

Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

 

[p--and--p]

I'm surprised anyone on this site even supports "our side".. Our side on this site is

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

Exactly why we have a republic and not a democracy. I dont agree with your premise that "most" people want mag restrictions, but lets say "they" do. Well in a republic we do not allow the majority to just override other's rights.. Thats why we have the electoral college..

What if the "majority" (lets say even in california) just decided to vote all xxx_Ethnicity people to lose all their property rights.. Thats why a direct democracy like california doesn't work well.

Can you believe 90% of the voters say they didn't want the group in power to draw lines, but yet they voted to do it anyways. Insanity

 

[GoldensRule]

On the contrary. His unseemly antics are likely to disgust most justices (perhaps excluding Justice Thomas).

ROFLMAO! There is no "perhaps" about it. Thomas only gets disgusted about things that his billionaire buddies pay him to get disgusted about.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

We are a constitutional republic not the democracy you are espousing. You're not supposed to be able to vote away inalienable rights by simple majority.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

. Some of you clearly dont have a clue about how laws work or how rights are supposed to be "inalienable". Just because everyone is in favor of banning guns doesnt mean that the government can ban them. . The government can pass many laws but that doesnt mean they are constitutional.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but for the sake of sleeping well at night and not completely spinning out, it's good to try to keep perspective...



Just because you THINK they are your civil rights, doesn't mean they are.

Just because you want legislation, or even the constitution, to be interpreted a certain way, doesn't mean everyone else does.

"The government" is not some big faceless corporation in which none of us have a say. At least it's not supposed to be...though I guess a lot of people think it should be run like a for profit business now (yikes).

Some group of US sent everyone one of these politicians to Sacramento, Washington DC, etc. Whether directly by voting for them, or indirectly by not doing enough to organize for the other guy.

So long as we have fair and free elections in this country, "The government" is elected by your fellow countrymen.

If the decision comes down and the legislation you don't like remains the law of the land, the simple truth remains: that not enough of your fellow countrymen agree with you for change to happen right now. Or...maybe...people agree with you, but they care MORE about a lot of other things and vote accordingly, and then don't care enough to dedicate themselves to organizing.

Either way, you get to the same place: Maybe it's what YOU want. Maybe it's what everyone you know wants. But you clearly don't know enough people because...by the votes...it's not what MOST want.

If the overreaching government tyranny being suggested here was actually the case (ie the majority of California voters want looser restrictions, yet the government is tightening) it would be very puzzling that California voters just voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to gerrymander the state to the max for democrats.

So you dont think our constitutional rights are civil rights? 1st amendment? 2nd? 5th? Really. What would you consider civil liberties then?

 

[GoldensRule]

None of the "gun safety" laws actually protect people.

That's a pretty difficult statement to reconcile when one looks at the numbers.

The top 10 states for gun deaths per 100k population are mostly states with rather lax gun laws.

Mississippi 29.4
Louisiana 28.3
Alabama 25.6
New Mexico 25.3
Alaska 23.5
Tennessee 22.0
Arkansas 21.9
Montana 21.5
Wyoming 21.5
Missouri 21.4

The bottom ten states for gun deaths (per 100k pop) are mostly states with rather strict gun laws.

Iowa 10.5
New Hampshire 9.6
Minnesota 8.9
California 8.0
Connecticut 6.2
Hawaii 4.9
Rhode Island 4.8
New York 4.7
New Jersey 4.6
Massachusetts 3.7

Source (violence): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state
Source (laws): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

 

[muffin_top]

Of course they're angry and violent, they got stuck in Mississippi.

 

[GoldensRule]

We are a constitutional republic not the democracy you are espousing. You're not supposed to be able to vote away inalienable rights by simple majority.

There are no inalienable rights codified in the US constitution, none, look it up.

The inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence are: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unfortunately, the DOI is NOT codified law.

Any right that has been codified in our constitution CAN BE CHANGED through the process of amending the constitution, any right. It's not as if some deity handed down these rights from on-high.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

That's a pretty difficult statement to reconcile when one looks at the numbers.

The top 10 states for gun deaths per 100k population are mostly states with rather lax gun laws.

Mississippi 29.4
Louisiana 28.3
Alabama 25.6
New Mexico 25.3
Alaska 23.5
Tennessee 22.0
Arkansas 21.9
Montana 21.5
Wyoming 21.5
Missouri 21.4

The bottom ten states for gun deaths (per 100k pop) are mostly states with rather strict gun laws.

Iowa 10.5
New Hampshire 9.6
Minnesota 8.9
California 8.0
Connecticut 6.2
Hawaii 4.9
Rhode Island 4.8
New York 4.7
New Jersey 4.6
Massachusetts 3.7

Source (violence): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state
Source (laws): https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

There are many factors that come into play when these numbers are compiled.
Demographics, education, wealth, race, gender and such.
Tell me how does the roster save lifes?
Or the fin on my Ak47? Or my 10rd mags .

 

[governmentsucks1776]

There are no inalienable rights codified in the US constitution, none, look it up.

The inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence are: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unfortunately, the DOI is NOT codified law.

Any right that has been codified in our constitution CAN BE CHANGED through the process of amending the constitution, any right. It's not as if some deity handed down these rights from on-high.

FYI the government CANT take away our rights, the 10th amendment are part of the constitution as it stands and it will for the foreseeable future. So unless 2/3 of the states go nuts we will still have these rights. The issue here is that our state government is currently violating our rights and some people here dont seem to have a problem with that, which is what is most concerning to me.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

FYI the government CANT take away our rights, the 10th amendment are part of the constitution as it stands and it will for the foreseeable future. So unless 2/3 of the states go nuts we will still have these rights. The issue here is that our state government is currently violating our rights and some people here dont seem to have a problem with that, which is what is most concerning to me.

Seriously all they do is go into every F-ing thread and poo poo on any glimmer of hope for our second amendment rights to be restored. This site is infested with 2a detractors.

 

[GoldensRule]

FYI the government CANT take away our rights, the 10th amendment are part of the constitution as it stands and it will for the foreseeable future. So unless 2/3 of the states go nuts we will still have these rights. The issue here is that our state government is currently violating our rights and some people here dont seem to have a problem with that, which is what is most concerning to me.

It only takes five people on the SCOTUS bench to marginalize or invalidate virtually any right you think you might have, it's sad, but true. Additionally, every single right enumerated in the constitution and all the amendments are equal, none are more sacrosanct than the others. That means they are all open to interpretation by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS.

 

[GoldensRule]

Seriously all they do is go into every F-ing thread and poo poo on any glimmer of hope for our second amendment rights to be restored. This site is infested with 2a detractors.

If you want smoke and sunshine pumped up your stack, I suggest you find some nice church.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

If you want smoke and sunshine pumped up your stack, I suggest you find some nice church.

Jesus Christ is your Savior.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

It only takes five people on the SCOTUS bench to marginalize or invalidate virtually any right you think you might have, it's sad, but true. Additionally, every single right enumerated in the constitution and all the amendments are equal, none are more sacrosanct than the others. That means they are all open to interpretation by the courts and ultimately SCOTUS.

No other constitutional right can be protected without the First or the Second.

 

[shroom]

The justices of the 9th routinely wipe their feet on scotus rulings. They're told not to interest balance and they flagrantly do so anyways. The recent majority opinion of Duncan is practically word for word in places as the previous majority opinion. I appreciate van Dyke's video, and I see no issues with justices voicing their opinions on a case after the fact.

 

[Hit Factor]

Fortunately, it won’t matter in the long run. The Supreme Court is going to settle this in favor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, not in favor of the tyranny of the majority in California. It’s an important concept that is lost on the gun grabbers in this state, including those on this site. Here’s a little civic reminder:

 

[Warpspeed]

I'd like to thank @Dvrjon for posting this - exactly why this place exists.

If you want to turn this into another insult fest, be prepared for a little push back in the form of edits, deletes and thread bans.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

@ikeo1 this mod is ridiculous.