9th Circuit appeals court strikes down CA magazine ban

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2020, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not.  We are talking about the government taking action that could, ostensibly, save lives.  Why is one acceptable and the other never discussed?  The real answer is that people would not tolerate a governor on their vehicle and politicians know this.  So it's not really about saving lives, it's about giving the appearance of saving lives. 



It's unreasonable to ask people to look at a problem logically.  You're far more likely to die in a car accident or slipping in your bathroom than you are to be shot and killed in any scenario, much less a mass shooting.  If you're advocating for the restriction of an Constitutional right then you'd better offer a compelling argument for doing so.


I'm sure you'd take great issue with a law enforcement officer allowing emotion to drive their decisions.  Why would you hold legislators, who make laws that affect everyone, to a lesser standard?  The legislation has zero merit as it will not prevent any shooter from doing what they plan on doing.  It's feel good "look at what we did" legislation that does not make anyone safer or prevent any shooting.  

It is a logical fallacy. The merits of a cause are not diminished if advocates are not equally concerned about other causes. You can criticize them for being hypocrites in some circumstances, but it's not an actual criticism of the cause itself. 

It's not illogical to view murder and accidents differently, no does viewing them differently mean you cannot view either logically. It's unreasonable to expect people to compare them apples to apples when they're not. 

I hope emotion drives their behavior, in particular empathy.