If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.
Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been. 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. Law that aren’t new, and have proven useless. You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.
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.
Those are constant facts, they move nothing. Unless you’re claiming that criminals follow laws.
That’s not what I want.
Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.
And this is an ad hominem.
No, that’s obvious. The ad-hominem would be you virtue signalling children as a way to violate the rights of the law abiding.
I never said anything about any of this:
Or this:
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.
Now you’ve moved the goal posts.
These two statements:
and
are fundamentally different claims.
Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been. 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. Law that aren’t new, and have proven useless. You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.
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.
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.
Those are constant facts, they move nothing. Unless you’re claiming that criminals follow laws.
Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.
No, that’s obvious. The ad-hominem would be you virtue signalling children as a way to violate the rights of the law abiding.
Nah. From what I’ve seen, you’d just intentionally miss the point.
You don’t have a point to miss, which is why you won’t answer. Thanks for playing.
Thanks for proving that you’ll intentionally miss the point.