Throwaway@lemm.ee to conservative@lemmy.world · 1 year agoFederal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 roundsapnews.comexternal-linkmessage-square68fedilinkarrow-up111arrow-down132file-textcross-posted to: news@lemmy.world
arrow-up1-21arrow-down1external-linkFederal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 roundsapnews.comThrowaway@lemm.ee to conservative@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square68fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: news@lemmy.world
minus-squarePizzaMan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 year ago Give an example of how that’s a straw man I never said anything about any of this: criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal Or this: I’ll bet speed limits and DUI laws stop people too right? You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
minus-squarerandom65837@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down3·edit-210 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarePizzaMan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoNow you’ve moved the goal posts. These two statements: has an effect on people that ignore laws and criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal are fundamentally different claims.
minus-squarerandom65837@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·edit-210 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarePizzaMan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-21 year ago Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been Not anymore, because has an effect on people that ignore laws and criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent. You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place. That’s not what I want. You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head. And this is an ad hominem.
minus-squarerandom65837@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·edit-210 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarePizzaMan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year ago Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that. Nah. From what I’ve seen, you’d just intentionally miss the point.
minus-squarerandom65837@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·edit-210 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarePizzaMan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year ago which is why you won’t answer. Thanks for proving that you’ll intentionally miss the point.
I never said anything about any of this:
Or this:
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
deleted by creator
Now you’ve moved the goal posts.
These two statements:
and
are fundamentally different claims.
deleted by creator
Not anymore, because
and
are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.
That’s not what I want.
And this is an ad hominem.
deleted by creator
Nah. From what I’ve seen, you’d just intentionally miss the point.
deleted by creator
Thanks for proving that you’ll intentionally miss the point.