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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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-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-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-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.
Removed by mod
I never said anything about any of this:
Or this:
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
Removed by mod
Now you’ve moved the goal posts.
These two statements:
and
are fundamentally different claims.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Nah. From what I’ve seen, you’d just intentionally miss the point.
Removed by mod